Side Count of A For Playing Near Worthless?

[jack.jackson]

You are saying that 8-8 v X is a "Reverse Index".
At least according to the reference you are citing.

Please explain how you define "Reverse Index"

For the majority of splits, they become more profitable, the higher our count gets. This is untrue for 88vX,66v7 and 33v7 which are our reverse splits. The higher the count gets, the less likely we want to split these hands.

My ao2(stand)index for 88vX is+12(+8/ndas). In practice one time I made a Maxbet @+4, count proceeded to drop to 0, but all 8 Aces were spent in(ndas) DD game with one deck remaining. And since i value aces @ 2 each for my L2 count with this hand, it was a stand. 4x2=+8. Was i right?

 

[bj bob]

You are saying that 8-8 v X is a "Reverse Index".
At least according to the reference you are citing.

Please explain how you define "Reverse Index"
So that everyone shall "be on the same page."

In my world the definition of a "reverse split" index, such as 8,8 v, X suggests that the original hand be operated upon when the TC reaches or exceeds the prescribed index, hence dd 9 v. 2 @ +TC 1 or >. A reverse index assumes no departure from BS if the TC is BELOW the prescribed index. Thus always split 8,8 v. X until the index threshold is reached.

 

[tthree]

In both instances that you cite, a SURPLUS Ace benefits you, Ergo … the RC is inflated.

With both 8-8 v X ~ and ~ 10 v X you WANT extra Aces available.

It is 100% clear that with Aces (and especially with Sevens), Surplus/Deficit Aces need to be
employed to ADD to ~ or ~ SUBTRACT from the R.C. depending on the particular hand match_up.

Ive been trying to follow this, I use a L1 count with ace side count for bet determination not play determination(aces not included in count) so until I graduate to a more complicated counting system I dont think its relates to what I do, but I still want to understand it. I caught the mistake pointed out earlier so maybe Im not to far behind.

As I understand this you are trying to remove the aces from the count, which are so important in bet sizing, to determine your optimal play usually based on the ratio of ten value cards remaining in the deck. I assume we are talking a balanced counting system.

I was trying to figure out in my head just how you would use an ace side count to do this. Every time I think Im close it doesnt seem like what Im thinking is converging with what you are doing so Im not sure that assumption is correct. Ive always learned by understanding rather than memorization.

If the count already has aces as a plus and aces are good for your hand you obviously dont try to make an unfavorable ace adjustment but why the positive adjustment since they are already in the count? Is it simply because the sims say so(if the programmer knew what he was doing Id certainly accept that)?


I know most of you know more about this stuff than I could ever hope to, but wouldnt it be easier(likely at some expense) to have your counting system geared toward perfect play(not include aces) and have an ace side count used for bet sizing?

 

[FLASH1296]

tthree, You said … "

"If the count already has aces as a plus and aces are good for your
hand you obviously dont try to make an unfavorable ace adjustment
but why the positive adjustment since they are already in the count?
… but wouldnt it be easier to have your counting system geared toward
perfect play(not include aces) and have an ace side count used for bet sizing?"

The Ace Side Count is most valuable for bet-sizing.

The Ace is the only card that is both BIG and SMALL.

If you have a high + True Count than you are likely going to be betting more BUT using
the True Count for your Playing decisions may be inaccurate if the Aces are disproportionately
represented. Here is the best illustration that I can conjure.
You have an 11 and the dealer displays an Ace. You need a certain index to double.
Perhaps +1 or +2. A True Count that is reflecting a surplus of Aces is
not only misleading here but an increased Ace presence will convert
your handsome 11 into an ugly 12. Not only is that pitiful, but it involves
a double investment. I prefer Risk Aversion to Risk Enhancement.

I think that your problem here is not understanding that when it comes to your
Basic Strategy Departure plays EACH hand matchup requires a different adjustment.
"One Size Does NOT Fit All" This is more complex yet with Side Counted Sevens (7's)
as they are not Side-Counted for Bet-sizing purposes. Sometimes Sevens are "Key Cards"
that help you while hurting the dealer at the same time or vice versa.

You can actually work these out for yourself with a sharp pencil and a copy of (the 6th ed. of) The Theory of Blackjack.

If you contact me I will provide you with actual T.C. adjustments.

You said that you are using a Level One count — perhaps that is Hi-Opt I which is a balanced count that introduced the world to Side Counts. See:

http://product.half.ebay.com/The-Wo...-Humble-1987-Paperback-Reprint/172445&tg=info

Back to the Ace Side-Count. The Aces are important to many pair splits and doubles. They are of only trivial value to other hands.

The adjustments may be positive, or sometimes negative. In a Level One Count they may be +1 or +2 or +3.

If you are playing shoe games, the Bet Sizing is absolutely crucial.

If you are playing pitch games, Playing Efficiency is really crucial.

I hope that this clarified some of what is puzzling you.

 

[tthree]

Thanks flash that was very useful. I understood most of it on the 1st reading. Dont have time to look closer. Your guess about highopt was correct. The info on pitch game verses shoe game should be valuable. Ive been playing shoe games but I think what I do is more geared for playing efficiency more than bet sizing. Im not sure how easy it is to find pitch games in the midatlantic. Now that the table games have opened in Pa and Delaware I really havent been going to AC. To big an increase in expenses with my small bankroll. Its late here on the east coast so Ill take a closer look at your post tomorrow.

 

[FLASH1296]

A very interesting decision.

jack, jackson …

RE: 8-8 vs. dealer 10 with a DD that had all 8 aces depleted.

Checking page 76 of The Theory of Blackjack, 6th ed. I find that indeed the Ace is a
significant card as to its E.O.R. (effect of removal) for this particular hand match-up.

If I am reading the table correctly, in a single deck game, the favorability of
splitting over not splitting would have been dropped — from +8.5%
to +0.5% ! As this would be DD the expectation would be worsened by ½ as
much, to rescuing to about +4.5%.

Note: Sevens and Treys are the most important cards for a hand of 8-8.

This is still not a very close decision as it is still a favorable split (with DAS)
but it involves doubling the money at risk. "Risk Aversion" would have me
think twice about treating this as a non-splitting hand, that I would stand on;
but splitting or hitting would be correct ONLY with a Single Deck.
This is a close decision as it is still a favorable split (with DAS) but it involves
doubling the money at risk. "Risk Aversion" would have me treat this as a
non-splitting hand, that I would stand on, but splitting or hitting would be
correct only in Single Deck.

 

[jack.jackson]

jack, jackson …

RE: 8-8 vs. dealer 10 with a DD that had all 8 aces depleted.

Checking page 76 of The Theory of Blackjack, 6th ed. I find that indeed the Ace is a
significant card as to its E.O.R. (effect of removal) for this particular hand match-up.

If I am reading the table correctly, in a single deck game, the favorability of
splitting over not splitting would have been dropped — from +8.5%
to +0.5% ! As this would be DD the expectation would be worsened by ½ as
much, to rescuing to about +4.5%.

Note: Sevens and Treys are the most important cards for a hand of 8-8.

This is still not a very close decision as it is still a favorable split (with DAS)
but it involves doubling the money at risk. "Risk Aversion" would have me
think twice about treating this as a non-splitting hand, that I would stand on;
but splitting or hitting would be correct ONLY with a Single Deck.
This is a close decision as it is still a favorable split (with DAS) but it involves
doubling the money at risk. "Risk Aversion" would have me treat this as a
non-splitting hand, that I would stand on, but splitting or hitting would be
correct only in Single Deck.

Ya, if there ever was a RA play, this one/hand is probably king of the crop.

In regards, to your comment here. Not sure, if im understanding this correctly, but im in aggreement that if all 8 Aces were depleted in a DD game, w/1 Deck remaining, I would still split my 88 vs X in a DAS game, but STAND in a NDAS game. Although close, my TC would have to be +4(l2) for the DAS rule, to warrant me to stand.(If all 8 Aces had been seen). NOT considering "risk aversion" of course .

But if were talking straight single deck, then this hand becomes a whole different animal.