Basic Strategy question
- Thread starter Cyrano
- Start date
Rob McGarvey
Well-Known Member
1D BS is more agressive than 6D BS is so if you are only going to learn one I would stick with 6D BS, especially if that is the game you will be playing most often. If you do play 1D it is easy to switch to the more appropriate plays, like D9 v 2 and D11 v ALL if the dealer checks for BJ. stand 7,7 v 10.
zengrifter
Banned
If you learn 6D BS and occaissionally use it in 1D games you will not suffer more than a .001 erosion of its effectiveness, and less variance anyway. So don't even bother with the 1D BS - however it will behoove you to learn both DAS and nonDAS pair splits. zg
Very little
Very little.
Here are the differences in basic strategy between the two:
doubles:
11 vs. A
9 vs. 2
8 vs. 5,6
A,2 vs. 4
A,3 vs. 4
A,6 vs. 2
A,7 vs. 2
splits:
2,2 vs 2,3
3,3 vs 2,3
4,4 vs 5,6
Cumulatively, using SD strategy on a 6D game is less than -.04%. This is an approxmiation, as I will illustrate below.
Here is a sample "cost"
11 vs. A is correct in single deck to double
11 vs. A is correct in multiple deck to hit
So, let's assume you double it in both (you are playing SD strategy in
a multiple deck game). This strategy deviation will cost you 1.5% of EV each time you do it (from Wong's PBJ). That is, if you bet $100, this deviation will cost about $1.50 in EV. Now, 11 Vs. A arises on average about 250 out of 100,000 hands (again, from Wong's PBJ, page 296). Thus for every 100,000 hands you play, betting $100 per hand, this play deviation will cost you 250*$1.50 = $375.
If we take this example as "typical" (I don't want to do all the calculations), then the 10 deviations cited above will cost 10*$375 = $3,750 per 100,000 hands betting $100 per hand. The net effect is then a loss of $3750 for a total of $10,000,000 of action, or -.0003750, or -.0375%
Thus, I am willing to say that the approximate effect of always using SD strategy on shoe games contributes a net loss of at most -.04%.
--Mayor
Very little.
Here are the differences in basic strategy between the two:
doubles:
11 vs. A
9 vs. 2
8 vs. 5,6
A,2 vs. 4
A,3 vs. 4
A,6 vs. 2
A,7 vs. 2
splits:
2,2 vs 2,3
3,3 vs 2,3
4,4 vs 5,6
Cumulatively, using SD strategy on a 6D game is less than -.04%. This is an approxmiation, as I will illustrate below.
Here is a sample "cost"
11 vs. A is correct in single deck to double
11 vs. A is correct in multiple deck to hit
So, let's assume you double it in both (you are playing SD strategy in
a multiple deck game). This strategy deviation will cost you 1.5% of EV each time you do it (from Wong's PBJ). That is, if you bet $100, this deviation will cost about $1.50 in EV. Now, 11 Vs. A arises on average about 250 out of 100,000 hands (again, from Wong's PBJ, page 296). Thus for every 100,000 hands you play, betting $100 per hand, this play deviation will cost you 250*$1.50 = $375.
If we take this example as "typical" (I don't want to do all the calculations), then the 10 deviations cited above will cost 10*$375 = $3,750 per 100,000 hands betting $100 per hand. The net effect is then a loss of $3750 for a total of $10,000,000 of action, or -.0003750, or -.0375%
Thus, I am willing to say that the approximate effect of always using SD strategy on shoe games contributes a net loss of at most -.04%.
--Mayor
Thanks
Seems all of you think if I should err, I should err on the side of caution. Though I'm mainly playing in N. Nev., the reduction in variance is good, and as T-Hopper noted, most of my high-money bets will be made with high counts, where there are deviations galore to consolidate the different strategies (more than enough to overcome the -0.04% loss by using the wrong BS). The only question now is: 2D BS (Reno rules or Vegas rules), 4D BS (Vegas rules), or 6D BS (Vegas rules)?
Seems all of you think if I should err, I should err on the side of caution. Though I'm mainly playing in N. Nev., the reduction in variance is good, and as T-Hopper noted, most of my high-money bets will be made with high counts, where there are deviations galore to consolidate the different strategies (more than enough to overcome the -0.04% loss by using the wrong BS). The only question now is: 2D BS (Reno rules or Vegas rules), 4D BS (Vegas rules), or 6D BS (Vegas rules)?
Re: Thanks
The only question now is: 2D BS (Reno rules or Vegas rules), 4D BS (Vegas rules), or 6D BS (Vegas rules)?
I am working on software (to be announced VERY SOON) that includes a feature to allow you to simply include all these games, give each of them a weight based on how often you play and how much you bet, and the computer will generate a composite strategy that is the best that can be used under the given range of conditions.
The only question now is: 2D BS (Reno rules or Vegas rules), 4D BS (Vegas rules), or 6D BS (Vegas rules)?
I am working on software (to be announced VERY SOON) that includes a feature to allow you to simply include all these games, give each of them a weight based on how often you play and how much you bet, and the computer will generate a composite strategy that is the best that can be used under the given range of conditions.
zengrifter
Banned
If he really wants it...
... give him the beta. zg
... give him the beta. zg
zengrifter
Banned
Beta-practioners first...
... you should give away a couple dozen systems to the board readers, get a core group going, then sell your wares to the next tier. Is there much text with each? zg
... you should give away a couple dozen systems to the board readers, get a core group going, then sell your wares to the next tier. Is there much text with each? zg
zengrifter
Banned
Re: Beta-practioners first...
"Each volume is 8.5 x 11, and close to 200 pages. Roughly the same size as Beyond Counting and Michael Dalton's BJ Encyclopedia, much bigger than any others I can think of."
---------------------------
Whoa! I asked "how many pages of TEXT" - how many out of 200 total? From memory and just glancing at the one(s) that I examined briefly, most of the 200 pages are CHARTS, are they not? If you like, send me two of the system books, say intermediate and advanced (autographed of course), and when I get done doing an honest review of my COMPEDcopy of Richard Reid's 'Dynamic BJ' I can perform same of your wares... OR if you are leary of my review send same to The Mayor and he can review them for all here.
I would have suggested that Rob McGarvey could be the reviewer, BUT a short while back I asked Dan of DeepNET to send a comp-reveiw set of PDA programs for Rob to review and unfortunately Rob didn't perform as promised, DeepNET reviews still outstanding MONTHS LATER! zg
"Each volume is 8.5 x 11, and close to 200 pages. Roughly the same size as Beyond Counting and Michael Dalton's BJ Encyclopedia, much bigger than any others I can think of."
---------------------------
Whoa! I asked "how many pages of TEXT" - how many out of 200 total? From memory and just glancing at the one(s) that I examined briefly, most of the 200 pages are CHARTS, are they not? If you like, send me two of the system books, say intermediate and advanced (autographed of course), and when I get done doing an honest review of my COMPEDcopy of Richard Reid's 'Dynamic BJ' I can perform same of your wares... OR if you are leary of my review send same to The Mayor and he can review them for all here.
I would have suggested that Rob McGarvey could be the reviewer, BUT a short while back I asked Dan of DeepNET to send a comp-reveiw set of PDA programs for Rob to review and unfortunately Rob didn't perform as promised, DeepNET reviews still outstanding MONTHS LATER! zg
zengrifter
Banned
I apologise, 'spam' was too harsh a word...
...notwithstanding, your links involved BOTH a COMMERCIAL (just barely) board AND a systems-sales offering. Keep in mind that I was recently accused of "spamming" CCCafe by certain of its moderators there because I included a link to the non-commercial/nothing to sell CC.com... SO, to answer your question, lets have Eliot do the review if he is so inclined... or Barfarkel... or? You'll just need to provide one of each system booklets to the designated reviewer. Personally, I'm partial to works that long on text and short on charts, but thats me. zg
...notwithstanding, your links involved BOTH a COMMERCIAL (just barely) board AND a systems-sales offering. Keep in mind that I was recently accused of "spamming" CCCafe by certain of its moderators there because I included a link to the non-commercial/nothing to sell CC.com... SO, to answer your question, lets have Eliot do the review if he is so inclined... or Barfarkel... or? You'll just need to provide one of each system booklets to the designated reviewer. Personally, I'm partial to works that long on text and short on charts, but thats me. zg
Re: I apologise, 'spam' was too harsh a word... *LINK*
> Keep in mind that I was recently accused of "spamming" CCCafe by certain
> of its moderators there because I included a link to the noncommercial /
> nothing to sell CC.com...
Don't blame me for what someone else did to you. Moderators don't even have the ability to undelete posts. And did you notice I just accidentally "spammed" the board with another link to the Martin Gardner interview?
> SO, to answer your question, lets have Eliot do the review if he is so
> inclined... or Barfarkel... or?
So you no longer think I should give away "dozens to frequent posters"? There will definitely be more than one reviewer, probably one per site.
> Personally, I'm partial to works that long on text and short on charts
It's about 50/50, and the charts are carefully designed and originally conceived to convey a large amount of worthwhile information in a single page.
> Keep in mind that I was recently accused of "spamming" CCCafe by certain
> of its moderators there because I included a link to the noncommercial /
> nothing to sell CC.com...
Don't blame me for what someone else did to you. Moderators don't even have the ability to undelete posts. And did you notice I just accidentally "spammed" the board with another link to the Martin Gardner interview?
> SO, to answer your question, lets have Eliot do the review if he is so
> inclined... or Barfarkel... or?
So you no longer think I should give away "dozens to frequent posters"? There will definitely be more than one reviewer, probably one per site.
> Personally, I'm partial to works that long on text and short on charts
It's about 50/50, and the charts are carefully designed and originally conceived to convey a large amount of worthwhile information in a single page.