Another Soft hand deviation idea

[sagefr0g]

I shall name them the

Sorry Sucky Seven

Sorry Seven for short

well differant strokes for differant folks i suppose. so many things lol.
differant realities say that any given AP might face. like in my case for instance where the joints are crowded, relatively small and fairly sweaty towards wongers.
so for me the sorry seven aren't so sorry lol...... just kind of fit in with the point being made in the link below:
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount6.htm

 

[sagefr0g]

indice charts make me dizzy

ok tear this apart where applicable please. just no you shouldn't be playing negative counts comments please.........

for six or eight deck s17das games.....
how about these departures for negative counts? uhmm i fudged quite a few of them:

A7vs3 do not double <= -2
A6vs3 do not double <= -3
A5vs4 do not double <= -2
A4vs4 do not double <= -1
A3 & A2vs5,6 do not double <= -1
15vs2,3 hit if <=-6
14vs2,3 hit if <=-4
13vs3,4,5,6 hit if <=-3
11vs9,10 do not double <=-4
10vs8 do not double <=-4
9vs3,4,5,6 do not double <=-4
9,9vs2,3,4, do not split <=-3
6,6vs2,3,4 do not split <= -3
4,4vs5,6 do not split <=-1
3,3 & 2,2 vs 2,3 do not split <=-3

if they don't get tore apart i'll name them the 'Stupid-endous Seventeen'

 

[blackjack avenger]

"Super-Glued Seventeen"

ok tear this apart where applicable please. just no you shouldn't be playing negative counts comments please.........

for six or eight deck s17das games.....
how about these departures for negative counts? uhmm i fudged quite a few of them:

A7vs3 do not double <= -2
A6vs3 do not double <= -3
A5vs4 do not double <= -2
A4vs4 do not double <= -1
A3 & A2vs5,6 do not double <= -1
15vs2,3 hit if <=-6
14vs2,3 hit if <=-4
13vs3,4,5,6 hit if <=-3
11vs9,10 do not double <=-4
10vs8 do not double <=-4
9vs3,4,5,6 do not double <=-4
9,9vs2,3,4, do not split <=-3
6,6vs2,3,4 do not split <= -3
4,4vs5,6 do not split <=-1
3,3 & 2,2 vs 2,3 do not split <=-3

if they don't get tore apart i'll name them the 'Stupid-endous Seventeen'

"Super Glued Seventeen" because I hope you are glued to the chair to have to play these. I thought you mentioned in another post that you had Wong's Professional Blackjack. The indices within are for multi deck.

 

[sagefr0g]

"Super Glued Seventeen" because I hope you are glued to the chair to have to play these..

lol

I thought you mentioned in another post that you had Wong's Professional Blackjack. The indices within are for multi deck.

right i do. but well i fudged some of the departure points so as to be easier to rememmber.
i guess yer gonna tell me these will save me next to nothin. lol

 

[blackjack avenger]

Well Yeah!

lol

right i do. but well i fudged some of the departure points so as to be easier to rememmber.
i guess yer gonna tell me these will save me next to nothin. lol

Do you have the '81 or 94' version of Wong's?

Do you TC by flooring or truncating?

You can make this easy by grouping all at -5 or -6, whichever is the correct lowest indice of the group.

or

Have just a couple blocks -1, -5 whichever seems easier.

Value of indices from highest to lowest:
hard hands
doubles
soft doubles
splits

Probably the most value would be to learn the correct hit/stand indices vs hard hands up to the point where you may actually leave the table. The hard 13,14,15 and perhaps your dbl 9 indices. I am just guessing but these are probably worth more then half of the value of your group.

 

[sagefr0g]

Do you have the '81 or 94' version of Wong's

Do you TC by flooring or Truncating?

94 version. i divide the RC by full deck estimation. if i estimate 1.5 decks in discard tray it's to me as if 1 deck was in the discard tray. if i estimate less than 2 decks but greater than 1.5 decks i might get a little frisky and treat it as 2 decks to where i would tend to floor my tc in either case. maybe lol.
sometimes it's a judgement call.
that's if i'm actually counting.

 

[sagefr0g]

.....You can make this easy by grouping all at -5 or -6, whichever is the correct lowest indice of the group.

or

Have just a couple blocks -1, -5 whichever seems easier.

Value of indices from highest to lowest:
hard hands
doubles
soft doubles
splits

Probably the most value would be to learn the correct hit/stand indices vs hard hands up to the point where you may actually leave the table. The hard 13,14,15 and perhaps your dbl 9 indices. I am just guessing but these are probably worth more then half of the value of your group.

right, thats a good idea about grouping them, blocking them and valuing them.
i haven't the foggiest as to which would be most valuable most frequent or what.
one thing i know for sure is i hate doubling down per basic strategy during negative counts knowing that some of those doubles have departures and then not hitting certain stiff hands versus the dealers low card when again there are legitimate departures that i just haven't committed to memory.

 

[jack.jackson]

I can relate to where you're coming from. Those very thoughts started me on a path to find some answers to some of these possibilites.

I can tell you there are far out shoe compositions where some unorthodox strategies rule. Depending on the counting system, there are systems that would call for unorthodox strategies at negative counts.

The craziest system I ever tried was the most interesting experience I ever had playing blackjack. Before I ever had access to a computer I determined that if a deck consisted of all (6.7,8,9) in an equal number, a player would have a substantial advantage (~18%) as long as he played correct strategy. Correct strategy is to double hard 13 v 7, stand on H(14-16) v 7 among other unorthodox plays. If all (6-9) are simply removed and best strategy played, I was pretty sure player had a nice advantage, but I couldn't exactly prove it. (Turns out I was right: ~7% advantage.) I thought this seems too good to be true. Removing (6-9) and adding (6-9) both seem to lead to an advantage. Anyway I spent a lot of time formulating what I hoped would be a good approximation of playing strategy. I lived in Vegas at the time. When I was ready I went downtown to the Golden Nugget. I had almost no bankroll. My assumption was (it was wrong) that when (6-9) were either scarce or plentiful I should have an advantage an when they were neither scarce nor plentiful I would be at a slight disadvantage. I figured that if I used a system based on counting (6-9) and flat bet I should have the advantage a great portion of the time. I sat down at a 4 deck shoe on a Friday night. There was a high school football game on TV. Then came Saturday. There was a college football game on TV. Then came Sunday. There was a pro football game on TV. Then came Monday. Monday Night Football was on TV. I had played 3 straight days flat betting at the same table without sleep to test my theory. My bankroll went up and down. A few times I was down to my last money, but somehow wasn't ruined. When I left, I had the exact amount I came with!

So you see, I'm a bit crazy too! :laugh:

Anyway, I made a post in the Announcement Forum that you can download a 15 day trial of a program I've written. In the program you can input any shoe composition you want for any number of decks 1-41,297,762. You can see for yourself some of the unorthodox decisions that turn out to be right using best strategy.

k_c

So not to add deck composition as a factor, I set your cdca program on 2D, to see how many 3 and 5s removed from a 2D game it would take, to justify when spliting XX vs 6 becomes more profitable vs. standing!

It Turns out, the Removal of 4 three's and 4 five's, in a 2D game, Justifys Splitting over Standing as a BS play.

Provided this is true, Ive been able to Determine that anytime I hold XX vs 6 .....That my secondary Count of the A02 of A-2 vs 3,5+1 holds an Important role, In the Decision making of this hand.

In other words,..Lets say for convienience.....Theres 1D remaining to be played, and Im @ 0 In my main count, but my secondary is +4, I know it justifys splitting xx vs 6.

Since theres 1D remaining, the RC=TC. And Since my secondary tells me that 2 three's and 2 five's have been removed and I value them @ +1 each,(+4) I can now determine that XX vs 6 becomes profitable to split.

 

[k_c]

So not to add deck composition as a factor, I set your cdca program on 2D, to see how many 3 and 5s removed from a 2D game it would take, to justify when spliting XX vs 6 becomes more profitable vs. standing!

It Turns out, the Removal of 4 three's and 4 five's, in a 2D game, Justifys Splitting over Standing as a BS play.

Provided this is true, Ive been able to Determine that anytime I hold XX vs 6 .....That my secondary Count of the A02 of A-2 vs 3,5+1 holds an Important role, In the Decision making of this hand.

In other words,..Lets say for convienience.....Theres 1D remaining to be played, and Im @ 0 In my main count, but my secondary is +4, I know it justifys splitting xx vs 6.

Since theres 1D remaining, the RC=TC. And Since my secondary tells me that 2 three's and 2 five's have been removed and I value them @ +1 each,(+4) I can now determine that XX vs 6 becomes profitable to split.

I don't know exactly what you are saying but you are right that removing 4 threes and 4 fives from a double deck makes splitting XX v 6 better than standing for both S17 and H17. Interestingly enough removing 2 threes and 2 fives from a single deck makes splitting XX v 6 better for H17 but standing is still slightly better for S17. I guess you're trying to adjust play by using a side count?

k_c

 

[InPlay]

Ok first off i just wanna say, that in know this idea is probibly going to be looked at as stupid, or is probibly not going to work, or was already thought of and tried, or even more likely, all of the above.

I am however an outside the box thinker, which is partly why i pursue gambling as a source of income.



Ok you ready for this? cause this is a pretty crazy idea.

You double down on totals of 10 and 11 because many cards can be drawn to give you a good soldi hand and you cant bust in doing so.

What if there is and extremely negetive count (maybe not so extreme) where doubling on soft hands in the teens where if you pulled from a pool of mostly smaller cards youd be left with a good hand most of the time. Thers already a number for negetive hands on when to stop doubling, but is there maybe a much lower negetive count at which you should revert back to doubling? assigning two index number to soft hands as some aim for a dealer bust and some aim for good final hand, and the ones in between are basic strategy?

I really dont think this would matter in real life as the number is NUMBER 1 negetive so were probibly not even gogin to be at the table to see it, and number 2 so negetive that wed never see it anyways but its food for thought and since were here to discuss blackjack i propose charts be made and inovation be attemted!:whip:

7/11 is also a good source of income espically the night shift it pays a bonus.

 

[jack.jackson]

I don't know exactly what you are saying but you are right that removing 4 threes and 4 fives from a double deck makes splitting XX v 6 better than standing for both S17 and H17. Interestingly enough removing 2 threes and 2 fives from a single deck makes splitting XX v 6 better for H17 but standing is still slightly better for S17. I guess you're trying to adjust play by using a side count?

k_c

It tells me that anytime my hand consists of xx vs 6, I can double the points of my secondary. For example, my Index for this hand is +8. Therefore If my maincount is 0, but my secondary is +4 w/1D remaining(RC=TC) I can justify splitting this hand.(4x2=+8.
Or lets theres say there's 2D remaining and my RC count is +6, and my secondary is +5, It will also justify splitting. (5x2=+10)(10+6=16)=TC of +8