why DD over 6D

muppet

muppet

Well-Known Member
hi i play blackjack occasionally and count when i do, and i was curious why people highly recommend DD over a 6D shoe. specifically referring to the rules in vegas.

according to the vegas bj survey, DD has -.19% EV and 6D has -.26% EV. in 6D it is a lot more practical to wong, and additionally you can get away with bigger spreads.

also what do you guys think of this wiz of odds calculator which shows "realistic ev": -.255% realistic vs -.178 optimal for DD, and -.426 realistic vs -.403 optimal for 6D. are the EV's listed in the survey just simply wrong?

even comparing the 'realistic' EVs there is "just" a .17% difference..which i would think would make the DD and 6D games comparable, given the additional wonging and bigger spread..

here is the calc: http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/house-edge-calculator.html
 
SleightOfHand

SleightOfHand

Well-Known Member
muppet said:
hi i play blackjack occasionally and count when i do, and i was curious why people highly recommend DD over a 6D shoe. specifically referring to the rules in vegas.

according to the vegas bj survey, DD has -.19% EV and 6D has -.26% EV. in 6D it is a lot more practical to wong, and additionally you can get away with bigger spreads.

also what do you guys think of this wiz of odds calculator which shows "realistic ev": -.255% realistic vs -.178 optimal for DD, and -.426 realistic vs -.403 optimal for 6D. are the EV's listed in the survey just simply wrong?

even comparing the 'realistic' EVs there is "just" a .17% difference..which i would think would make the DD and 6D games comparable, given the additional wonging and bigger spread..

here is the calc: http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/house-edge-calculator.html
Click to expand...
I don't know what a "realistic EV" is, but it sounds somewhat like the EV of a player with a little BS knowledge but not perfect (perhaps using the WoO simple BS chart). Regardless, you should use the standard calculated HE of the game. If you aren't sure, you can look at the BS engine on this website.

The .07% difference in your original HE quote is smaller than the .17% from the "realistic EV." Even that small difference is a statistic to consider; it is .07% less HE that you have to overcome to gain an advantage. We are dealing with 1-2% advantage, and we need to take everything we can get. As for the difference between DD and 6D, there is a lot more than just the OTT HE to consider. If you are allowed to get away with the same spread and wonging on the 6D as the DD, then DD is VASTLY superior. DD games do not need as large as a spread as 6D because of the much higher volatility in TC. Running simulations will give you your best bet in deciding which games to play.
 
Sonny

Sonny

Well-Known Member
The "realistic EV" takes into account the cut card effect. The "optimal EV" is for a game that does not use a cut card and where the player uses composition dependent BS, like standing on multi-card 16s vs. 10. For most games the realistic EV is probably more accurate.

-Sonny-
 
Automatic Monkey

Automatic Monkey

Banned
muppet said:
hi i play blackjack occasionally and count when i do, and i was curious why people highly recommend DD over a 6D shoe. specifically referring to the rules in vegas.

according to the vegas bj survey, DD has -.19% EV and 6D has -.26% EV. in 6D it is a lot more practical to wong, and additionally you can get away with bigger spreads.

also what do you guys think of this wiz of odds calculator which shows "realistic ev": -.255% realistic vs -.178 optimal for DD, and -.426 realistic vs -.403 optimal for 6D. are the EV's listed in the survey just simply wrong?

even comparing the 'realistic' EVs there is "just" a .17% difference..which i would think would make the DD and 6D games comparable, given the additional wonging and bigger spread..

here is the calc: http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/house-edge-calculator.html
Click to expand...
Excellent points, and given the generally inferior rules a DD game has to have better than average penetration to be better than a commonly available 6D game. So "DD over 6D" only applies sometimes, for this plus the reasons you mention.
 
muppet

muppet

Well-Known Member
so i just noticed that i wasn't inputting the correct rules for the -.26% 6D game into the WoO hedge calculator. after setting RSA to yes and "player can hit split aces" (which i'm assuming would also be yes?) to yes, the player's EV OTT shows as -.084% optimal and -.107% realistic. what gives? anyone run sims on this?

Casino Location Game Decks Soft17 DAS Surrender RSA DR BJ Pays Footnotes Tables Minimum Maximum H. Edge
Mirage Strip BJ 6 Stand Yes Yes Yes None 1.5 20 $25 $10000 0.26 %
 
muppet

muppet

Well-Known Member
anyone? what's the house edge off the top for 6D S17 DAS RSA with late surrender?
 
C

Canceler

Well-Known Member
muppet said:
anyone? what's the house edge off the top for 6D S17 DAS RSA with late surrender?
Click to expand...
.2713%

muppet said:
after setting RSA to yes and "player can hit split aces" (which i'm assuming would also be yes?) to yes,
Click to expand...
Most places do not allow you to hit split aces, i.e., you get only one card on your split aces. However, if you can hit split aces, the house edge goes down to .1020%.
 

Attachments

K

k_c

Well-Known Member
Hi Canceler,

I believe that your version of tdca probably has a strategy error for 6-6 versus 7 when doubling after splitting is allowed because I get -.2699% rather than -.2713% for the same rules.

You can check by inputting 6-6 vs 7 with DAS checked. Correct basic strategy is to split for 1 or 2 decks and hit for > 2 decks.

Program can be redownloaded from my site and same activation code should work. On my old computer a redownload requires reinputting the activation code. Now I also have Vista and in Vista I am able to uninstall the previous version and then reinstall a new download without having to reinput the activation code. Same activation code applies for the computer on which the program was originally installed.

I have from time to time made changes to my programs but I have not changed the version number so a previous activation code should work. cdca was updated to include more efficient memory usage.

I know I should have documented the changes but at present I don't have as much time as I would like to devote to this.
 
C

Canceler

Well-Known Member
Oops! Yeah, I knew I didn't have the latest version, but I didn't think it would matter. Guess again, Canceler! :eek:

k_c said:
... in Vista I am able to uninstall the previous version and then reinstall a new download without having to reinput the activation code.
Click to expand...
Got the new version now, though. Why Vista works that way is a mystery to me, but it does work that way.

Side note: In the next version, it would be really nice if the default IRC for KO was the standard 4 - (4 * # of decks)! :)
 
K

k_c

Well-Known Member
Canceler said:
Side note: In the next version, it would be really nice if the default IRC for KO was the standard 4 - (4 * # of decks)! :)
Click to expand...
Well my idea after reading posts from KO users in the past was to allow a user to define the imbalance for their own comfort and this applies to not only KO but any count a user may choose to make "unbalanced."

The characteristic that makes a count unbalanced is that at the end of a shoe when all cards are played running count is not zero; just how far from zero is really arbitrary. A user has the choice of using a standard method or choosing an initial running count customized to a personal preference.

That was the method to my madness. :grin:
 
C

Canceler

Well-Known Member
k_c said:
The characteristic that makes a count unbalanced is that at the end of a shoe when all cards are played running count is not zero...
Click to expand...
True.

k_c said:
...just how far from zero is really arbitrary.
Click to expand...
Not totally. The KO pivot point of +4 is exactly equal to a HiLo TC of +4. In order for this magical confluence to happen, you need to start at the standard IRC I described above. That's my logic! :)
 
C

Canceler

Well-Known Member
Finn Dog said:
What program is tdca?
Click to expand...
The tdca is combinatorial analysis software, and may be the most underappreciated BJ software there is. It can give an exact mathematically calculated answer to SO many questions about house (or player) advantage, given a certain shoe composition, or off the top. You can find out the effect of rule changes on the house advantage. In this thread, they talk about using combinatorial analysis to calculate Effect of Removal – you could use it for that. With a little imagination you can think of many things to use it for.

Finn Dog said:
and do you prefer it over cvcx?
Click to expand...
They’re not really comparable. With the tdca I can remove cards from a shoe to give me, let’s say, a TC of +4. And that will show that I have a certain advantage, but that number is valid only for that exact shoe composition. I can start over and remove different cards from the shoe to still be at TC +4, but have a totally different player advantage. If you want to know your average advantage at a certain TC, and you want to know this for a bunch of different TCs, then you need to run a sim, instead of using combinatorial analysis.

k_c, feel free to jump in with corrections or additions to what I’ve said!
 
A

assume_R

Well-Known Member
Canceler said:
If you want to know your average advantage at a certain TC, and you want to know this for a bunch of different TCs, then you need to run a sim, instead of using combinatorial analysis.
Click to expand...
I personally don't have the software myself, but a sim wouldn't be necessary if every combination of removed cards, which gave a TC of +4, was calculated and averaged, which would in a sense be a combinatorial analysis itself.
 
C

Canceler

Well-Known Member
assume_R said:
I personally don't have the software myself, but a sim wouldn't be necessary if every combination of removed cards, which gave a TC of +4, was calculated and averaged, which would in a sense be a combinatorial analysis itself.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, but that would take YEARS! :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top