1 Deck Surrender Strategy

[nikos]

I have some quick questions about the BS table (1deck, late surrender) of the strategy engine:

1) In the case of a hard 16 vs 10 it says to surrender, but if you cannot surrender stand. Is the reason for this that it realizes that count > 0 (for the independent hand) in the case that your 16 is composed of more than two cards?

2) How come in a 1D game we double much more than in a 6 deck game? Are all these doubles simply assuming a high count (made more significant by the low number of decks)?

3) And why do we split more hands? (ex: 3's and 7's are split up vs 8 etc)?

Thanks much in advance

 

[Blue Efficacy]

1. Yes.
2. Your double-able hands will usually include cards that are good for the dealer. For example if your 11 is 5,6 those cards are removed from the deck, the effect of removal is much higher in SD.
3. I'll let someone else field this one.

 

[Kasi]

1) In the case of a hard 16 vs 10 it says to surrender, but if you cannot surrender stand. Is the reason for this...
2) How come in a 1D game we double much more than in a 6 deck game?
3) And why do we split more hands? (ex: 3's and 7's are split up vs 8 etc)?

1) I think it's a boo-boo Good catch! (Unless I'm wrong lol). It should just have an "R" not "RS".
2) I don't know probably something to do with the ratio of the cards left - like double 11 vs Ace because there are 16 tens left in 49 cards. Which is a fair amount higher than having 96 tens left with 309 cards remaining. Or double 5,3 vs 6 maybe becasue there are only 3 5's left in the 49 cards which is smaller ratio of 5's than 23 5's left with 309 cards. And 5's would help the dealer alot with that 6 up. Maybe that's also why you would not double 6,2 vs 6 even though BS would say to double 8 vs 6 overall. But in that case all 5's are still remaining and 2 6's that would often bust dealer are gone.
3) The 3's and 7's vs 8 would only be split if you can double after splitting. So it has to do with that I'd guess.

I don't really know why either though but it's always a good question to ask. Anyway that's how I think about it lol.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I have some quick questions about the BS table (1deck, late surrender) of the strategy engine:

1) In the case of a hard 16 vs 10 it says to surrender, but if you cannot surrender stand. Is the reason for this that it realizes that count > 0 (for the independent hand) in the case that your 16 is composed of more than two cards?

That's correct. Nice strategy engine.

2) How come in a 1D game we double much more than in a 6 deck game? Are all these doubles simply assuming a high count (made more significant by the low number of decks)?

Also a good observation. Hands that you would double on tend to have already used up a few low cards. E.g. 8 vs. 6- using High-Low you have to have a TC of +3 just to see that hand off the top of the deck.

3) And why do we split more hands? (ex: 3's and 7's are split up vs 8 etc)?

Thanks much in advance

Similar reasons.

 

[Kasi]

That's correct. Nice strategy engine.

I don't get it - Isn't BS in 1D to hit 16 vs 10? If you can't surrender it? You can't surrender with 3-card 16's anyway?

It's a 2-card hand if you can't surrender it, no?

Fine, stand on 3-card 16's vs 10 but not 2-card 16's vs 10. No?

You would stand with 9,7 or 10,6 vs 10 in 1D if surrender is not offered?

 

[Canceler]

I don't get it - Isn't BS in 1D to hit 16 vs 10? If you can't surrender it? You can't surrender with 3-card 16's anyway?

It's a 2-card hand if you can't surrender it, no?

Fine, stand on 3-card 16's vs 10 but not 2-card 16's vs 10. No?

You would stand with 9,7 or 10,6 vs 10 in 1D if surrender is not offered?

You see all the dots, now you just need to connect them!

Normal BS would be to hit the 16. But since you can’t surrender, it means it’s a 3-card 16, so you should stand. The chart says “RS” to remind you of that.

 

[KenSmith]

Bingo. I knew this recent change would generate some controversy. Two-card 16vT is a hit. Three card or more is stand. The new version of the strategy engine assumes that if you say surrender is available, the appropriate strategy is RS.

And, this is not just a 1-deck thing. It's any number of decks.

 

[nikos]

So then, is the only reason that strategy is different between different numbers of decks the fact that with fewer decks you can get a count of up to +3 (on a 1 deck game) (as opposed to a 6deck game were the highest count from 3 cards is 0.5)?

 

[Kasi]

OK - now I see lol.

But then why would 7,7 vs 10 also be "RS"? If surrender is available, it's always a surrender isn't it? Sure, it's a BS stand without surrender available so I don't understand that play then lol. Why wouldn't it be just an "R" in a 1D table that allows late surrender but an "S" in a 1D table that doesn't?

How fortunate for the guy who stumbles across the 1D table with LS and also learns that it is correct to stand on all 3-or-more 16's vs 10 but the same guy who just wants the same game without LS will never glean that knowledge from his generated BS table - he'll just continue to hit 16 vs 10 no matter how many cards comprise his 16 total. If you want to be consistent, at least try to generate the same info to the user from one table as another. Like maybe make 16 vs 10 in a 1D table with no surrender a "HS". With an asterisk or something lol.

Or, if you're gonna go with this 3 card stuff only when you can't/don't surrender but yet assume the rule is there, why not make 12 vs 3 a "HS"? (I think a 3 or more card 12 vs 3 in 1D is a stand overall just like a 16 vs 10?) since you'd never surrender the 2-card 12 in the first place? OK - that one might not be exactly comparable but then again might be at least relevant lol.

Does your HA take into account the added benefit of always standing on multi-card 16's vs 10 in the LS table while surrendering all 2-card 16's vs 10, small as it may be, vs if you hit all multicard 16's after surrendering 2-card 16's, but not take into account the benefit of always standing on multi-card 16's in the table without surrender available which would assume you hit all 16 totals no matter how many cards comprise the 16 total? Talk about a can of worms lol.

Guess I'm just used to your engine being based on best overall play for any total taking into consideration all the ways that 16 vs 10 can be generated, freq, EV, etc. Or maybe I confuse it when I look at it with some of those other kind of tables that maybe sometimes combine different rule assumptions lol.

Believe it or not, I like to keep things simple. As you can tell by all the above nonsense, I often fail . Heck, as you can no doubt imagine, I have trouble just answering someone when they ask me "How are you today?" But I stick with BS and say "Fine, thanks" lol.

It's a BS engine. Give an "R" to 16 vs 10 and 7,7 vs 10 with LS. Give them an "H" and "S" when LS is not specified as a rule in another table.

Or soon you'll be using asterisks to indicate BS is stand on 5+ card 16's vs 9 or maybe soft 18's vs A in DD (is that maybe a stand with 3 or more cards - not sure lol).

But, thanks, I get it now lol. Nice refinement lol. It is a better BS. Draw the line anywhere you want lol. But can you at least see your way clear to at least just changing 7,7 vs 10 to just "R" so I can sleep at nite? I get now the "RS" for 16 vs 10 but just can't grasp what the "S" does in "RS" for 7,7 vs 10.

And, totally irrelevant, thanks again for spending your time and doing all that Early Surrender stuff to your tables, adding the 5,6 etc. Maybe one person on planet earth might win a few extra cents in our lifetime for you doing that but I doubt it. But I really like you doing it anyway

 

[nikos]

How fortunate for the guy who stumbles across the 1D table with LS and also learns that it is correct to stand on all 3-or-more 16's vs 10 but the same guy who just wants the same game without LS will never glean that knowledge from his generated BS table - he'll just continue to hit 16 vs 10 no matter how many cards comprise his 16 total. If you want to be consistent, at least try to generate the same info to the user from one table as another. Like maybe make 16 vs 10 in a 1D table with no surrender a "HS". With an asterisk or something lol.

The difference is this:
Basic strategy is calculated (I think) based on the current count. What happens with the 16 vs 10 with SR is that: In the case were you have 16 and CAN surrender you should. However, if you cannot SR (i.e. have more than two cards) then you should stand rather than hit because the count is 1. All that information is disguised in the fact that you cannot SR. The reason they don't put that in BS without SR is that you have 2 options: Hit/Stand. If you have 16 vs 10 it means the count is -1 and you should HIT. It is up to you to know the count and see that if it's greater than 0 you should stand.

Having said all this, I think there's little to be gained by hitting or standing on the 16 based on whether you have 2 or 3 cards, without knowing the count. If you've played a couple of hands and the count's -5 you should still hit the 16v10 with more than 2 cards.

 

[Kasi]

The difference is this:
Basic strategy is calculated (I think) based on the current count.

Thanks Nikos. Appreciate your reply.

I guess I'd almost say the count is based on BS rather than vice-versa lol.

Like you double 9 vs 2 with index +1 in SD or MD. But doubling 9 vs 2 is BS in 1D but not 6D. Probably becasue counts of TC+1 or more occur more often in 1d than 8D.

Nothing's perfect - like why hit 6,6,4 vs 10 in 1 thru 8 decks when it's always a +2 RC and a >TC+2 with 1D?

Anyway, what's your take with 7,7 vs 10 also being "RS"?

There's always lots of plays that BS just won't tell you about but are correct nonetheless. Just like the same table in question, when LS is not selected, the engine will not tell you that you should still stand on multi-card 16's vs 10even though you should.

By all means, add "always stand on multi-card 16's vs 10" to your BS if you want. Whether LS is offered or not. Whether 1D or 8D. Whether S17 or H17. (I think anyway lol).

If you're into 1D might as well add to BS, if you so choose, "always hit 10,2 vs 4 & 6". And "always hit 10,3 vs 2". And "always stand on 7,5 and 8,4 vs 3". And "always stand on multi-card 12's vs 3". And "always double 5,3 vs 5 & 6 in an S17 game but never a 6,2 vs 5 or 6". Throw in "stand on 5,5,5 & 6,5,4 and 6,6,3 vs 10" if you want. There's alot of them depending how deep you want to go.

When you get to "always stand on 5-or-more card 16's vs 9", stop everything and get a life

 

[k_c]

Thanks Nikos. Appreciate your reply.

I guess I'd almost say the count is based on BS rather than vice-versa lol.

Like you double 9 vs 2 with index +1 in SD or MD. But doubling 9 vs 2 is BS in 1D but not 6D. Probably becasue counts of TC+1 or more occur more often in 1d than 8D.

Nothing's perfect - like why hit 6,6,4 vs 10 in 1 thru 8 decks when it's always a +2 RC and a >TC+2 with 1D?

Anyway, what's your take with 7,7 vs 10 also being "RS"?

There's always lots of plays that BS just won't tell you about but are correct nonetheless. Just like the same table in question, when LS is not selected, the engine will not tell you that you should still stand on multi-card 16's vs 10even though you should.

By all means, add "always stand on multi-card 16's vs 10" to your BS if you want. Whether LS is offered or not. Whether 1D or 8D. Whether S17 or H17. (I think anyway lol).

If you're into 1D might as well add to BS, if you so choose, "always hit 10,2 vs 4 & 6". And "always hit 10,3 vs 2". And "always stand on 7,5 and 8,4 vs 3". And "always stand on multi-card 12's vs 3". And "always double 5,3 vs 5 & 6 in an S17 game but never a 6,2 vs 5 or 6". Throw in "stand on 5,5,5 & 6,5,4 and 6,6,3 vs 10" if you want. There's alot of them depending how deep you want to go.

When you get to "always stand on 5-or-more card 16's vs 9", stop everything and get a life

Technically speaking the pure total dependent strategy of 7-7 vs 10 (single deck) is to hit because 7-7 is grouped with 10-4, 9-5, and 8-6 for TD since it is not right to split. Those are the 2-card possibilities and as a group hitting is better than surrendering or standing. It's also right that the specific hand of 7-7 vs 10 should be late surrendered, if possible, or otherwise stand (single deck.)

 

[nikos]

The 7/7 vs 10 seemed strange to me when I saw it in Wong's table. I'm not exactly sure why it's an RS but here's what I think:

The first strange thing is why it's a SR when all other 14's are a hit. I think the reason for that is that there's already two 7's gone so your chance of hitting 21 is much decreased. You can kinda see this if you observe that in 6 decks (where the fact that 2 7's are already gone isn't as big a deal) it's no longer an RS but a H. This is not a complete explanation, so if anyone can shed more light, we'd all appreciate.

The second strange thing is why it's a RS and not an RH. Really, no idea.

 

[KenSmith]

While I understand the complaint about 77vT, I still think I should leave the answer 'RS'. The problem is that 'R' alone everywhere else in the charts means surrender if you can, otherwise HIT. Since single-deck 77vT is never a hit, this seems worse than the alternative.

I understand that the same misinformation complaint applies to 16vT being stand, but at least that is sometimes the correct play with 16vT.

I guess we can just agree to disagree.

P.S. You'll be glad to know that the new pre-printed strategy cards I'm working on show 16vT as 'R'. The reason for the difference is I expect players to use the same strategy card whether their game allows surrender or not.

 

[KenSmith]

The second strange thing is why it's a RS and not an RH. Really, no idea.

It's RS because standing is better than hitting 77vT in single deck. Same reason as your thoughts on why it's a surrender. Two 7s are already missing from the deck.

 

[nikos]

While I understand the complaint about 77vT, I still think I should leave the answer 'RS'. The problem is that 'R' alone everywhere else in the charts means surrender if you can, otherwise HIT. Since single-deck 77vT is never a hit, this seems worse than the alternative.

I understand that the same misinformation complaint applies to 16vT being stand, but at least that is sometimes the correct play with 16vT.

I guess we can just agree to disagree.

P.S. You'll be glad to know that the new pre-printed strategy cards I'm working on show 16vT as 'R'. The reason for the difference is I expect players to use the same strategy card whether their game allows surrender or not.

I'm not really having any problem with your strategy engine; just trying to understand how it works.

Why is 7/7 v10 never a hit but 9,4,2 v10 would be a hit? (I just chose that example cuz it's a 15 v 10)

I like that 16v10 is RS

 

[nikos]

I guess I'd almost say the count is based on BS rather than vice-versa lol.

I used to agree. However, after reading Wong's Prof. Blackjack, I noticed that the BS tables all have indexes. This made me realize that based on the count, he calculated what should be done. Of course there's cases where the answer (HIT or stand) is count independent (always hit < 11).
Basic strategy simply assumes a count of the 3 cards you can see. For count independent BS, the thing to see would be BS for infinite decks (I think Thorp did this, although I have not read). In infinite decks (maybe this holds true for >4 decks as well) the count does not matter and that is pure BS.

All BS for less than infinite (or 5) decks contain implicit information about the count.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

...Why is 7/7 v10 never a hit but 9,4,2 v10 would be a hit? (I just chose that example cuz it's a 15 v 10)...

Because the probability of you getting another 7 is decreased, and that might be just the card you need if the dealer has another 10 down. It's a close play, but definitely the right play off the top of the deck.

If you were sidecounting 7's, for the same reason you would stand on any 14 if you knew there were sufficiently few 7's left. And if you were sidecounting 6's, you'd treat the 15's the same way.

 

[Kasi]

Technically speaking the pure total dependent strategy of 7-7 vs 10 (single deck) is to hit because 7-7 is grouped with 10-4, 9-5, and 8-6 for TD since it is not right to split.

Well, I've always viewed the section in BS tables when they list the pairs as a section soley to just help you decide whether to split or not and what to do if you don't. More or less very little to with the hit/stand tables and pretty much designed with whatever pair you may dealt and whether you can DAS or not.

I don't know, maybe a split hand could get included in the TD strategy even when the pair is split. Like after splittting 7,7 vs 7 maybe you end with 3-card 14 totals and that's part of why BS is what it is above. I don't know - it does or could get pretty hairy lol.

 

[Kasi]

I still think I should leave the answer 'RS'. The problem is that 'R' alone everywhere else in the charts means surrender if you can, otherwise HIT. Since single-deck 77vT is never a hit, this seems worse than the alternative....I guess we can just agree to disagree.

That's fine with me lol. U da boss here lol. And thanks for the explanation.

My last shot lol.

It's just that you'll never ever get another "7,7" later like you might with 15's or 16's etc., would you? It is impossible, isn't it?

So whether an R alone would imply a hit later like the other R's do, or RS would imply a stand later, you'll never ever get a chance to do either. Since the hand was always surendered in the first place. How can I ever later get a multi-card 7,7? Ultimately the R or RS would mean exactly the same anyway since neither will ever happen. That's all I meant in the first place if I wasn't clear.

Is it true that R or RS in this case would be exactly the same play practically speaking ? - maybe that's what I wanted to know if I'm thinking straight lol.

Anyway, good discussion.

Great, now you're gonna have pre-printed BS cards just the way I wanted in the first place that won't agree with your engine :grin:

You do live on the edge lmao.