I would like to see that.DSchles said:Maybe we ought to try to quantify just how much each deviation is worth, depending on rules and bet spread, and then rank them, beyond the I18 or Catch 22, in order of their importance.
Do you think players might be interested in seeing that?
Don
Split 7-7 vs. 8 has "IMMEASURABLE VALUE" beyond the immediate financial gain. Casino and bystanders may think you don't even know basic strategy well enough when you split 7-7 against 8 at high counts.Midwest Player said:I would like to see that.
Oh Yesss! IMMEASURABLE VALUE!!!moraine said:Split 7-7 vs. 8 has "IMMEASURABLE VALUE" beyond the immediate financial gain. Casino and bystanders may think you don't even know basic strategy well enough when you split 7-7 against 8 at high counts.
Yeah, what G Man said. This so rarely comes up it's not worth even considering. And the pit won't care or notice anyway, and it certainly won't throw him off when they are observing a large bet spread. Terrible advice.moraine said:Split 7-7 vs. 8 has "IMMEASURABLE VALUE" beyond the immediate financial gain. Casino and bystanders may think you don't even know basic strategy well enough when you split 7-7 against 8 at high counts.
But the hand 7-7 vs 8 has a lot more value than either the hand 3-3 vs 8 or the hand 2-2 vs 8. Can you calculate how much more?The G Man said:Oh Yesss! IMMEASURABLE VALUE!!!
The hand frequency of 7-7 vs 8 is 0.00044414 and a true count of +3 or more (for splitting in 6 deck dealt 4.5/6) has a frequency of about 0.087
So you will have on average the opportunity to "impress the pitboss" (and the galery) with 0.00003864 frequency or ONCE every 25880 hands of Blackjack. If you play 100 hands / hour, this is about one in 259 hours of play for a full time player, say twice a year. You better send the pitboss a VIP invitation to make sure he won't miss these opportunities...
Like you said, this is IMMEASURABLE...
Not that bad. I actually split the hand 7-7vs8 when the true count is greater than 0 because my consideration is that the HiLo count is not strongly correlated to that hand. Another consideration is that I have found some software bugs in these simulations, so the simulation results are not totally reliable. In addition, I noticed that when the TC is extremely high, we should not split it. This means there is interval of the TC for the splitting decision for this hand.johndoe said:Yeah, what G Man said. This so rarely comes up it's not worth even considering. And the pit won't care or notice anyway, and it certainly won't throw him off when they are observing a large bet spread. Terrible advice.
First thing first, I made a mistake on the hand frequency for 7,7 vs 8 in 6 decks. The 0.00044414 I gave was for 8 decks. This particular hand frequency for the 6 decks shoe game is worse at 0.00044043 and the final result should be that you will see this hand about once every 26098 hands or once in about 261 hours of play (no real difference from the previous result).moraine said:Mind You: KNOWING 2-2 vs. 8, 3-3 vs. 8, 9-9 v. A, A-A vs. A, etc., in addition to 7-7 vs. 8 also has "IMMESURABLE VALUE" beyond immediate financial gain ONCE YOU REALIZE "Illustrious 18" are 18 ILLUSTRIOUS telltale signs to casinos as well.
No it doesn't. These splits are "defensive splits". In all cases, you will save at most 1% on these particular bets by doing this.aceside said:But the hand 7-7 vs 8 has a lot more value than either the hand 3-3 vs 8 or the hand 2-2 vs 8. Can you calculate how much more?
The EV for 7-7 vs 8 is a lot higher...The G Man said:No it doesn't. These splits are "defensive splits". In all cases, you will save at most 1% on these particular bets by doing this.
Please stop throwing out affirmations you don't even understand. Actually, splitting 77 vs 8 at +3 has an EV about TWICE worse than splitting 22 vs 8 at +5aceside said:The EV for 7-7 vs 8 is a lot higher...
I think you are misleading the readers here. Anyway, have a good day.The G Man said:Please stop throwing out affirmations you don't even understand. Actually, splitting 77 vs 8 at +3 has an EV about TWICE worse than splitting 22 vs 8 at +5
Oh really? Exactly what bugs have you found in precisely which simulators?aceside said:Another consideration is that I have found some software bugs in these simulations, so the simulation results are not totally reliable
The 7,7vs8 hand appears just as frequently as any other pairs, but you impose the TC +3, or +5 on this hand to make it appear less frequently. It is still debatable on what TC values we should use, but you have already made it like a fact.The G Man said:No I don't. YOU DO. Not only here but on many Blackjack sites.
You should learn that game instead of improvising...
I found a bug on one Wizard calculator. That was a year ago, and I don't remember details.gronbog said:Oh really? Exactly what bugs have you found in precisely which simulators?