Question over which game to play?

[DeTalores]

I have an option to play between a Double Deck game and 6d game.
I'm assuming I should be playing the 6D since the HA is significantly lower. It just seems that in DD I get a lot more higher TC's. It is also a lot easier to make index plays when the TC fluctuates more in DD than 6D. DD is usually a lot less crowded also.
I use zen count with a 1:7 bet spread.
Not worried about heat.


DD: wong out but no midshoe entry
H17
Double 8,9,10,11
DAS
Split to 4 hands
Split aces once
55-60% pen
Late surrender

6D: wong out and in
H17
DA2
DAS
Split aces up to 4 hands
65-70% pen
EARLY SURRENDER against aces only
(no its not a typo)

 

[daddybo]

You didn't mention if both were H17 or S17. I would assume they were the same. The games are very close with the house edge being slightly less in the DD game. Really on these two games I would factor in the count being used and the *heat factor* to tip the scale for which one to play.

Personally I would choose the DD because it's less crowded, its probably pitch game, you can milk the pen a little, and the edge is slightly better for the player. ( are you sure they allow late surrender in the DD?)

Neither one are all that great, but the shoe game is better than average.

 

[DeTalores]

Sorry yeah its H17.
Hmm all the calculators i've plugged into says the 6D has a lot lower HA than the 2D

keep in mind EARLY SURRENDER AGAINST ACES
and yes late surrender on DD

 

[daddybo]

Early surrender on JUST ACES is no big deal if you can take insuance. I didn't even factor it in for the house edge. Now if it was EARLY Surrender on TENs, And ACES.. I would expect a PM telling me where it is.

PS. Late Surrender is very cool in the DD. :eyepatch:

 

[daddybo]

EDIT: Actually I had to go look up the EARLY Surrender on ACES only.. The Wizard has it as +.39. (I didn't think it was that high) So You are correct in saying the 6D is better. MY bad.

Edit Again... This is correct for the basic strategy player.

As a matter-of-Fact.. I would like to know where it is.. just out of curiosity. You can PM me. :eyepatch:

 

[DeTalores]

There are so many hands to surrender against an A though, and many times the count isnt high enough to take insurance and/or by the time the cards get dealt out to the whole table the TC could go down enough to not take insurance on one of your BB when you get a stiff rather just surrender.

My mentor(haven't been in contact for a while why I'm posting on here) has told me to keep these gold mine games secret as not to spoil them, sorry

 

[daddybo]

There are so many hands to surrender against an A though, and many times the count isnt high enough to take insurance and/or by the time the cards get dealt out to the whole table the TC could go down enough to not take insurance on one of your BB when you get a stiff rather just surrender.

My mentor(haven't been in contact for a while why I'm posting on here) has told me to keep these gold mine games secret as not to spoil them, sorry

This is an interesting discussion.

Actually the TC in a 6D game usually doesn't go down very much in one round. And if the count isn't high enough you shouldn't have too much money on the table or be playing at all when wonging. (I assumed you would be). My thinking is the dealers chance of getting an Ace up is .078 (That should be about one in 13). We are talking about 4.6 times an hour. Some of those should be at high enough counts to require Insurance to keep from losing any money. (remember, you are counting) Probably about 25% of the time or better for the sake of argument. So you are gaining advantage from the rule only 3.45 times per hour and then with less than the Big Bets out. I just don't see it as being that great an advantage in a counting game, although it does have some advantage. HE is figured using Basic strategy with a full deck(s). I would think when counting, you would have use your unit sizes to figure out exactly what advantage it would be to you. I can see it being huge in a Basic Strategy game. If I'm wrong on this please shoot me down. I must admit I have never played an Early Surrender on Aces game.

I can appreciate you keeping your games a secret.. Tell Flash I said HI.

 

[DeTalores]

Hmm I see what you mean daddybo,
but I thought the reason we took insurance in high counts was because we couldn't surrender? (not sure why I think this)

Anyway, so it'd be more +ev over the long run to take insurance in high counts, rather than to just surrender it?


Its also pretty hard to find RA indices for Early Surrender since it doesn't really exist anymore lol >.<

 

[Deathclutch]

Hmm I see what you mean daddybo,
but I thought the reason we took insurance in high counts was because we couldn't surrender? (not sure why I think this)

Anyway, so it'd be more +ev over the long run to take insurance in high counts, rather than to just surrender it?


Its also pretty hard to find RA indices for Early Surrender since it doesn't really exist anymore lol >.<

You take insurance because the ratio of 10's to non 10's has exceeded the 2 to 1 mark and it's now going to be profitable to get paid 2 to 1 on your insurance bet.

Edit: I said that backwards, non 10's to 10's.

Edit again: Never mind, I see your question is more towards the ES.

 

[daddybo]

:

Hmm I see what you mean daddybo,
but I thought the reason we took insurance in high counts was because we couldn't surrender? (not sure why I think this)

Sounds like you play a lot of DD games.

You should take insurance when it has a higher EV than Surrender. Surrender is a guaranteed loser. It just helps to flatten your losses. Insurance is valueable in many ways to the counter. An example would be if the player has a 6,5 and the dealer has an ACE up. the count is moderately high but not enough to justify Insurance.. but high enough to double. I will use the insurance bet on this hand to *buy* information about the dealer hole card. If he has a 10 then no loss. If he doesn't then I know I'm going to double down on the 6,5. The Information I have at this point is I have a large bet out and the deck is 10 rich. I now have knowledge of these four cards and none are 10's. In effect at this point Im really insuring 2X the bet for 1/2 of the insurance cost. Of course you would never surrender the 11 against the Ace so Early Surrender has no effect what so ever. There are other situations that work similiarly. (my little form of risk aversion)

There are many hands you should not surrender against the ACE in high counts when you know there is no 10 in the hole. Especially in an H17 game.

Anyway, so it'd be more +ev over the long run to take insurance in high counts, rather than to just surrender it?

Yes, with the proper hands and appropriate counts. If the Insurance index criteria is met.. It's the only way not to lose on a crappy stiff hand.

Its also pretty hard to find RA indices for Early Surrender since it doesn't really exist anymore lol >.<

Yep.. I don't have any.. but I'm sure they can be calulated or exist somewhere.

I did a little fuzzy math on the Early Surrender vs Ace and assuming 60 hands an hour... 4.6 Dealer Aces up an hour. Factoring in hands you shouldn't surrender and hands you should Insure and I'm getting ES vs Ace to be an advantage about 2.2 hands an hour. (rough estimate)

 

[creeping panther]

D-bo

:


Sounds like you play a lot of DD games.

You should take insurance when it has a higher EV than Surrender. Surrender is a guaranteed loser. It just helps to flatten your losses. Insurance is valueable in many ways to the counter. An example would be if the player has a 6,5 and the dealer has an ACE up. the count is moderately high but not enough to justify Insurance.. but high enough to double. I will use the insurance bet on this hand to *buy* information about the dealer hole card. If he has a 10 then no loss. If he doesn't then I know I'm going to double down on the 6,5. The Information I have at this point is I have a large bet out and the deck is 10 rich. I now have knowledge of these four cards and none are 10's. In effect at this point Im really insuring 2X the bet for 1/2 of the insurance cost. Of course you would never surrender the 11 against the Ace so Early Surrender has no effect what so ever. There are other situations that work similiarly. (my little form of risk aversion)

There are many hands you should not surrender against the ACE in high counts when you know there is no 10 in the hole. Especially in an H17 game.



Yes, with the proper hands and appropriate counts. If the Insurance index criteria is met.. It's the only way not to lose on a crappy stiff hand.




Yep.. I don't have any.. but I'm sure they can be calulated or exist somewhere.

I did a little fuzzy math on the Early Surrender vs Ace and assuming 60 hands an hour... 4.6 Dealer Aces up an hour. Factoring in hands you shouldn't surrender and hands you should Insure and I'm getting ES vs Ace to be an advantage about 2.2 hands an hour. (rough estimate)

Great thinking BJ Master!!


CP

 

[creeping panther]

De

I have an option to play between a Double Deck game and 6d game.
I'm assuming I should be playing the 6D since the HA is significantly lower. It just seems that in DD I get a lot more higher TC's. It is also a lot easier to make index plays when the TC fluctuates more in DD than 6D. DD is usually a lot less crowded also.
I use zen count with a 1:7 bet spread.
Not worried about heat.


DD: wong out but no midshoe entry
H17
Double 8,9,10,11
DAS
Split to 4 hands
Split aces once
55-60% pen
Late surrender

6D: wong out and in
H17
DA2
DAS
Split aces up to 4 hands
65-70% pen
EARLY SURRENDER against aces only
(no its not a typo)

DD Not Bad.

CP

 

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by daddybo View Post
:


Sounds like you play a lot of DD games.

You should take insurance when it has a higher EV than Surrender. Surrender is a guaranteed loser. It just helps to flatten your losses. Insurance is valueable in many ways to the counter. An example would be if the player has a 6,5 and the dealer has an ACE up. the count is moderately high but not enough to justify Insurance.. but high enough to double. I will use the insurance bet on this hand to *buy* information about the dealer hole card. If he has a 10 then no loss. If he doesn't then I know I'm going to double down on the 6,5. The Information I have at this point is I have a large bet out and the deck is 10 rich. I now have knowledge of these four cards and none are 10's. In effect at this point Im really insuring 2X the bet for 1/2 of the insurance cost. Of course you would never surrender the 11 against the Ace so Early Surrender has no effect what so ever. There are other situations that work similiarly. (my little form of risk aversion)

There are many hands you should not surrender against the ACE in high counts when you know there is no 10 in the hole. Especially in an H17 game.



Yes, with the proper hands and appropriate counts. If the Insurance index criteria is met.. It's the only way not to lose on a crappy stiff hand.




Yep.. I don't have any.. but I'm sure they can be calulated or exist somewhere.

I did a little fuzzy math on the Early Surrender vs Ace and assuming 60 hands an hour... 4.6 Dealer Aces up an hour. Factoring in hands you shouldn't surrender and hands you should Insure and I'm getting ES vs Ace to be an advantage about 2.2 hands an hour. (rough estimate)

Great thinking BJ Master!!


CP

heh, heh that was interesting, wasn't it?:1st:
never heard that one before.