Hit 88 vs A @ -4 with Hi-lo

[jack.jackson]

Provided that NDAS and no Late Sr is offered, and according to the Sam's case Index generator you should hit your pair of 88's vs Ace @ a TC of -4.

Does this sound right? I was unable to determine how low the TC would have to be if DAS was allowed.

Anybody have the Index for that play?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Provided that NDAS and no Late Sr is offered, and according to the Sam's case Index generator you should hit your pair of 88's vs Ace @ a TC of -4.

Does this sound right? I was unable to determine how low the TC would have to be if DAS was allowed.

Anybody have the Index for that play?

Sounds about right. It also sounds like a play where S17 and H17 will make a big difference.

 

[jimbiggs]

Wong says split at -1 and higher for H17 nDAS and always split for S17 nDAS. Numbers are the same for DAS.

 

[Kasi]

Provided that NDAS and no Late Sr is offered, and according to the Sam's case Index generator you should hit your pair of 88's vs Ace @ a TC of -4.

In Hi-Lo 1D H17, hit 8,8 vs A if less than TC-2 whether NDAS or DAS.
With 4D, same but at TC-1.

In Hi-Lo 1D S17, hit 8,8 vs A if less than TC-16 whether NDAS or DAS.
With 4D same but at TC-11.

Like AM says, big diff with S17.

Halves has slightly different numbers for the S17 game.

Jimbiggs - I know Wong changed some negative index numbers by one from one edition to the next when he changed how he calculated a TC. I think he went from rounding to truncating. Maybe he floored negative TC's, not sure. Maybe it had to do with giving up a side count of Aces. Anyway, it may account why we are off by one.

No idea who Sam is lol. Guess either Wong or Sam needs a new generator? lol.

 

[zengrifter]

No idea who Sam is lol. Guess either Wong or Sam needs a new generator? lol.

Sam Case is the guy on the cover of Beat Web Casinos.com by Haywood... he's shaking money out of a PC. zg

 

[Kasi]

Sam Case is the guy on the cover of Beat Web Casinos.com by Haywood... he's shaking money out of a PC. zg

Thanks zg. Haven't checked out the website but what does counting have to do with beating web casinos anyway?

 

[jack.jackson]

In Hi-Lo 1D H17, hit 8,8 vs A if less than TC-2 whether NDAS or DAS.
With 4D, same but at TC-1.

In Hi-Lo 1D S17, hit 8,8 vs A if less than TC-16 whether NDAS or DAS.
With 4D same but at TC-11.

Like AM says, big diff with S17.

Halves has slightly different numbers for the S17 game.

Jimbiggs - I know Wong changed some negative index numbers by one from one edition to the next when he changed how he calculated a TC. I think he went from rounding to truncating. Maybe he floored negative TC's, not sure. Maybe it had to do with giving up a side count of Aces. Anyway, it may account why we are off by one.

No idea who Sam is lol. Guess either Wong or Sam needs a new generator? lol.

Daaaaaaaaaaaamn Nice work Kasi,:laugh:

Sooo, In your first example, you go ahead and split @ -2 and HIT @ -3, Correct?

Whats the difference between flooring and truncating? In laymens terms please.

Also, is there an Index play# for staying/standing on a pair of 88s vs Dealers 9

 

[Kasi]

Sooo, In your first example, you go ahead and split @ -2 and HIT @ -3, Correct?
Whats the difference between flooring and truncating? In laymens terms please.
Also, is there an Index play# for staying/standing on a pair of 88s vs Dealers 9

Correct lol. Put another way, always split whenever the TC# is > or = to the TC#.

Flooring is "going left" for negative TC's. For a TC of -1.6, if u truncated you'd have a TC of -1, if you floored, you'd use TC-2. So flooring and truncating are the same for positive TC's. Obviously rounding is a TC from 2.5 to 3.499999 would be a TC of +3 but if truncating (ignoring any decimals after the integer) the range would be 3 to 3.99999 to get TC +3.

Now for 8,8 vs 9, completely ignore what I just said in (1) above because the index numbers below function the opposite way lol.

In 1D H17 NDAS split 8,8 vs 9 split as long as the TC is LESS than +11.
In 1D H17 DAS split 8,8 vs 9 split as long as the TC is LESS than +18.

In 4D H17 NDAS split 8,8 vs 9 split as long as the TC is LESS than +17.
In 4D H17 NDAS split 8,8 vs 9 split as long as the TC is LESS than +18.

The numbers are the same for the s17 game. Again slightly different if using Halves.

Index numbers for 8,8 vs 10 function this same (ie opposite) way. There's only 1 or 2 others that function in this messed up way. Thank God lol.

I guess the moral, to me anyway, is to know which method your sim/book used so you can do the same.

Why do you think that original TC of -4 that you first mentioned is so different?

 

[jack.jackson]

Thanks for the info kasi. Appreciate it. I think the other two reversal plays are a pair of 33 vs 7 and not sure, but I thonk,( I mean think) the other is Sr 17 vs A.

Ps Drink one for me:grin:

 

[mdlbj]

Provided that NDAS and no Late Sr is offered, and according to the Sam's case Index generator you should hit your pair of 88's vs Ace @ a TC of -4.

Does this sound right? I was unable to determine how low the TC would have to be if DAS was allowed.

Anybody have the Index for that play?

Does this generator say you should not be playing when your at a disadvantage?

 

[QFIT]

No idea who Sam is lol. Guess either Wong or Sam needs a new generator? lol.

It should be noted that there is nothing "wrong" with Sam's generator. It uses an algebraic approximation method that is very fast; but not that accurate. That is, it was designed for speed not accuracy. Results are close in most cases. Wong’s generator uses “sampling with replacement.” This is not as fast and more accurate than algebraic approximation. But, it is still much faster and less accurate than simulation.

 

[Kasi]

It should be noted that there is nothing "wrong" with Sam's generator. It uses an algebraic approximation method that is very fast; but not that accurate. That is, it was designed for speed not accuracy. Results are close in most cases. Wong’s generator uses “sampling with replacement.” This is not as fast and more accurate than algebraic approximation. But, it is still much faster and less accurate than simulation.

Thanks for pointing that out - I didn't know it used an algebraic approximation. Maybe there are a bunch of them? - I think I fooled around with one by a guy named Moss?

Anyway, always more than one way to skin a cat lol. Or so it so often seems.

And, like you say, no absolutes of right vs wrong seems to most often be the case in a search for exactitude and "truth" lol.