The worst excess of the ENHC game.

[UK-21]

Something that happened on the practice table at home - just as well as I would have been in tears if it was for real . . . .

Daughter dealing. Running count of +16 with less than three decks in the shoe. Max bet of 8 units out on two hands. I receive two hands of eleven against her 10. Double both up, and receive a ten on each - so two hands of 21 with 32 units on the felt. Happy me. Then she goes and pulls an ace for a a dealer blackjack. Happy birthday!

This obviously wouldn't happen in the States, but I do wonder what the chance of this happening under the circumstances actually is. If it's a once in a lifetime likelihood (with my luck I doubt it) then just as well I've got it out of the way now and for zero pounds - a bit like catching mumps.

Anyone else with similar horror stories of the ENHC game?

Newb99

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Something that happened on the practice table at home - just as well as I would have been in tears if it was for real . . . .

Daughter dealing. Running count of +16 with less than three decks in the shoe. Max bet of 8 units out on two hands. I receive two hands of eleven against her 10. Double both up, and receive a ten on each - so two hands of 21 with 32 units on the felt. Happy me. Then she goes and pulls an ace for a a dealer blackjack. Happy birthday!

This obviously wouldn't happen in the States, but I do wonder what the chance of this happening under the circumstances actually is. If it's a once in a lifetime likelihood (with my luck I doubt it) then just as well I've got it out of the way now and for zero pounds - a bit like catching mumps.

Anyone else with similar horror stories of the ENHC game?

Newb99

It's not once in a lifetime. Maybe once a night something like that will happen. Especially in a game with multiple splits and doubling after splitting. The ENHC game isn't good, but not terrible if you play the correct strategy.

 

[Doofus]

It's not once in a lifetime. Maybe once a night something like that will happen. Especially in a game with multiple splits and doubling after splitting. The ENHC game isn't good, but not terrible if you play the correct strategy.

Would proper strategy in this situation be to avoid doubling or splitting against a T or A? It would avoid the spectre of piles of chips being swept off the table, but at what cost of lost opportunities?

 

[Adm. Buckles]

This happened to me!

I am new to the game of blackjack. I just started studying last summer. My first time at the table I split my aces against a ten. The no peek system wasn't working at this table, so the dealer could not peak, I got two 10's for 21 each. The dealer flips a natural and wins. A couple had sat down at the table just as I got my tens, when the dealer flipped his natural and took my money they protested and left. Since it was my first time playing and the couple had put doubts into my head , I thought about calling the pit boss for a ruling, but didn't.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Would proper strategy in this situation be to avoid doubling or splitting against a T or A? It would avoid the spectre of piles of chips being swept off the table, but at what cost of lost opportunities?

Well think of it this way: even in a non-ENHC game doubling a 11 against a 10 isn't such a spectacular play. You will actually win more hands if you don't double, because you can take a second card if desired. So don't fret, just use the proper strategy and indices for your game.

 

[Diver]

What country?

I am new to the game of blackjack. I just started studying last summer. My first time at the table I split my aces against a ten. The no peek system wasn't working at this table, so the dealer could not peak, I got two 10's for 21 each. The dealer flips a natural and wins. A couple had sat down at the table just as I got my tens, when the dealer flipped his natural and took my money they protested and left. Since it was my first time playing and the couple had put doubts into my head , I thought about calling the pit boss for a ruling, but didn't.

Where did this happen?

 

[UK-21]

I've just checked the BS engine on this site for ENHC rules, and the recommended play is not to double against any ten or ace. I've tended to develop my game around taking the more aggresive option of doubling against tens, but after this example of fate sticking it's cold icy finger up my behind, I think it's probably best to call off the doubling when there are more than two units in the box - as with some others that leave the window too wide open for fate to step in.

Oh, and by the way - daughter has just done it again. Two hands of 8 units. One doubled, so 24 on the felt and I've two 21s. She pulls a 5 card 21 for the last hand of that shoe (finishing at +5 with one and a bit decks in the show). Bless her!

Newb99

 

[SD Padres]

Sounds pretty common to me. Maybe happens once every other session or so.

 

[SystemsTrader]

Newb you should learn the correct basic strategy for ENHC. I've played hundreds of hours against ENHC and must say it is a terrible game for counters. While it doesn't effect the basic player that much only .11% it can cost a counter over .40%! Its a more frustrating game and can eat a lot of cards during high counts as well. Third base also takes a lot of abuse at that game. Here are the changes to basic.
11 v 10 hit
11 v A hit
A,A v A hit
8,8 v 10 hit
8,8 v A hit

So doubling your 11's v the 10 was definitely the incorrect move for you as you now lost both your original and doubled bet.

 

[Geoff Hall]

Newb you should learn the correct basic strategy for ENHC. I've played hundreds of hours against ENHC and must say it is a terrible game for counters. While it doesn't effect the basic player that much only .11% it can cost a counter over .40%! Its a more frustrating game and can eat a lot of cards during high counts as well. Third base also takes a lot of abuse at that game. Here are the changes to basic.
11 v 10 hit
11 v A hit
A,A v A hit
8,8 v 10 hit
8,8 v A hit

So doubling your 11's v the 10 was definitely the incorrect move for you as you now lost both your original and doubled bet.

I seem to remember that on very high +'ve counts the correct play was to double 11 vs 10 even in ENHC. I use Zen and the count had to be +20 before I would make this play.

 

[UK-21]

Newb you should learn the correct basic strategy for ENHC. I've played hundreds of hours against ENHC and must say it is a terrible game for counters. While it doesn't effect the basic player that much only .11% it can cost a counter over .40%!

Can you explain the maths behind this? I've always suspected that the ENHC game has an increased edge of more than 0.11%.

Thanks.

Newb99

 

[Blue Efficacy]

Can you explain the maths behind this? I've always suspected that the ENHC game has an increased edge of more than 0.11%.

Thanks.

Newb99

More dealer BJs at higher counts when you have more money out there. The same can be said of a hole card game, but your losses are capped at one bet.

 

[Adm. Buckles]

Where did this happen?

Grand Casino Coushatta in Kinder, Louisianna, U.S. I know this thread is about ENHC but it struck a chord, and just wanted to say it happens in the U.S. game too sometimes.

 

[UK-21]

It would be interesting to see some hard numbers. If the ENHC game house edge is indeed an additional 0.4%ish as a result of a dealer BJ cleaning up, than that would mean that the house edge off the top of a shoe would be almost 1%. It would impact on the betting ramps recommended, and would mean that a player in UK/Europe wouldn't have an edge until the TC exceeded +2 or thereabouts?

Everything I've read suggests that the dealer not receiving a hole card and checking it for BJ makes little difference?

Newb99

 

[jack.jackson]

1.This rules hurts the BS player, by about -.12% when played accordingly to the correct strategy.

2.When the BS player, plays the strategy for a NO peek game, when playing a NO peek game, the disadvantage will probably reach about -.24% or more.

3.If a counter, is using standard indices for a "NO Peek", when playing a "NO Peek"(*LAW) game, w/variable betting the disadvantage can probably reach as high as -.40%

However subtle the difference may be, im working on Indices for Zen and the HI-LO count, for the NO-Hole card game.

For Example, in the NO-HOlE card game, BS strategy tells you to continue to Split Aces against a X. However!!! The Standard INDEX, for this hand, is to HIT@-14, for the A02 count. Therefore I wouldnt be surprised if the INDEX for this hand in a no hole-card game would be about 1/2 that.

NOTE: Just because a dealer, doesnt take a HOLE-CARD, doesnt AUTOMATICALLY mean Additional Wager's are lost.

*Lose Additional Wager.

 

[SystemsTrader]

Can you explain the maths behind this? I've always suspected that the ENHC game has an increased edge of more than 0.11%.

Thanks.

Newb99

The .11% house edge is for basic strategy players. This edge comes from the fact that 5 plays which gave the player an edge over the casino have now been switched to a house edge. The .40% edge over counters comes from a sim I ran against a certain game I was playing which I ran with the ENHC rules and with regular dealer peek rules.

 

[UK-21]

This is all good stuff that ain't recorded for posterity in any of the recognised bibles on the game.

Bearing in mind the fact that doubling an 11 against a dealer 10 goes from an advantageous play to a disadvantageous one, any thoughts on to what degree this could be negated with the use of an Ace side count?

Newb99

 

[jack.jackson]

This is all good stuff that ain't recorded for posterity in any of the recognised bibles on the game.

Bearing in mind the fact that doubling an 11 against a dealer 10 goes from an advantageous play to a disadvantageous one, any thoughts on to what degree this could be negated with the use of an Ace side count?

Newb99

I ran CVdata, last night, and didnt get the index's I was looking for. I suppose you would need first to determine the appropriate index for 11 vs X. Then determine the magnitude of the ACE for this paticular hand(s). Im guessing the two hands in question would be AAvsX and 11vsX.

After thats determined, you would subtract, "lets say" 10, for each EXTRA Ace, thats left in the deck. Im gonna keep working on it.

 

[jack.jackson]

Using CVdata, here are the few indexes, for the ENHC,Zen count,NDAS.

AAvsX/split@-10>
11vsX/DD@+4>
AAvsA/split@+14>
88vsX/split@-25< and lower.
(Hit -24 to 0)

 

[UK-21]

Thanks for your efforts. Much appreciated by those of us on this side of the pond I'm sure - might even be worth publishing a supplement to one of the bibles on the game (I'm sure there is a big enough market of European BJ players to make it worthwhile for Cardozo?).

The DD 11v10 at +4 - I was using Hi-lo, and the count was around+5, so it would seem to have been the correct play? I wasn't counting the aces so don't know how many of them were still in the shoe. Although your sim indicates to play at +4, there is also the risk factor on losing the hand to take account of. Although the maths suggest to double, the risk of losing the hand, and losing 32 units as I did, would depend on the number of aces still to play. There will be a point, different for everyone no doubt, where the risk becomes acceptable - for example where there are the equivalent of 6 aces out of play per deck, so at three decks to go there are only 6 in the shoe. At this stage I haven't given any thought as to how to measure the risk/return ratio.

I have posted sometime previously about the probabilities of certain hands popping up, as such figures will be useful for assessing the risk to the bankroll. The maths generally available show the EV per play over the longer term, but don't really address the risk-to-bankroll consideration. A good example is the borderline advantage of doubling A4v4. Mathematically correct off the top of a shoe, but for me an unacceptable risk/return at a high count when 16/50ish of the sessional bankroll will be on the felt. At the moment I hit this at +3 or higher (on a 1-8 bet spread).

I'm not sure I've explained myself very well, but many thanks again for your time with this one.

Newb99
UK.