Some confusion on "soft" hands...

[Fun_at_21]

I happily admit to being a basic strategy player. I try to play it as "automated" and correctly as possible, enjoying the relaxing fun of the game without no anguish in counting concentration. I'm more than happy to simply settle for as close as a 50/50 truce that I can get with the house without having to do extreme mental "work". In theory, I have most the hands and correct plays memorized but I'm not ashamed to admit that, in real time play, I'm still not fully confident in what's going on with multi-card soft hands and the order in which that Ace (or multiple Aces) present themselves.

On a basic strategy chart it makes sense and we can see what we're supposed to do with any 2 card soft hand against a certain dealer upcard. Unfortunately, hands don't always get dealt in such easy one, two punches and, if they do, you often still have to make a "soft" decision on a 3rd or 4th card. The soft 19 and 20 totals are easy enough to grasp. No matter if you get those totals on the first 2 cards or after 5, there's virtually never an instance which you hit any further with these (except A,8 vs a 6, in which you double). It's the "soft" 12's through 18's that can get me confused. Not in whether to hit, stand or double on the initial 2 card totals but as to when to STOP doing this when getting these totals in multi-card fashion.

I think my problem may be that I keep trying to treat soft hands "soft" even once they've become "hard". That is, once I have to treat the Ace as a 1, I still want to view the total as "soft"? I get a bit confused because on one hand I keep hearing/reading that you should continue to hit certain soft totals (17 for a classic example) no matter how many cards keep drawing to that ace. On the other hand, while practicing some casual hands on one of the CV Basic Strategy Trainer's, I ocassionally get reminded that I should have stood when I chose to hit on certain multi-card hands in which I had an Ace.

Here's one specific example I got. I was dealt (in order) a 3 and an A for a straightforward "soft" 14 against the dealer's 2. Playing 6 decks, H17, doubles allowed on any cards, DAS, etc this first decision is easy enough. Every chart says you simply hit. So I do and get another Ace. Now, to my thinking, I counted this as a working total of "soft" 15 (a 3, one ace as 11 and one as a 1). So now I'm thinking along the lines of what do I do with a soft 15 versus a 2. Again, according to basic strategy, you hit that total vs a 2. So I do and get an 8. So now my hand consists of 3, A , A, 8. I now figure that I obviously have to treat both Aces as 1's or I've busted. So I figured this is now a "hard" total of 13. This is where I started to really get confused. I know the total of the hand has to be treated "hard" because no Ace can be considered 11, yet visually I'm still wanting to look at this like it's a hand of "soft" 13??? Going with that reasoning I double checked the charts and saw that if I'm right in viewing this hand that way, I still want to hit a soft 13 against a 2. So I clicked hit and it was at this point the trainer corrected me and said I was supposed to stand? I trust that it's right, not me but I do get tripped up in these multi hand cases.

Was the reason for this because the hand was no longer "soft" after I had to treat both aces as 1? In which case it was no different than standing on a hard 13 versus a 2 in regular basic strategy? If so, then I understand. Yet if that's the case, I swear I've had similair hands where I wasn't counting the Ace as an 11 any longer. In effect, the total would've been considered "hard" yet I've still been told to hit against these Ace containing hands until I either reach a 19, 20 or, obviously, 21. I guess the question is why are we hitting ace containing (but hard) hands in some cases between 12-18 and being told to stand on these "hard" ace(s) containing hands in other cases?

I'm sure this is something obvious I should know but I still get tripped up. If it's not either a simple 2 card soft hand (like in the charts) or a soft hand that ends up as 19 or 20 then it seems these soft 12-18 totals have unstable criteria for standing in some cases and hitting in others, even when the aces are still being counted as 1 (hard). Or maybe I just don't what the heck I'm doing...

 

[kewljason]

If you can hit your hand with no chance of breaking, it is soft. Once you can no longer do so you treat it as hard. so your A,3,A is still soft because no card will break you. Your A,3,A,8 cannot be hit with no chance of breaking. (9 and X will break your hand) so at this point it becomes hard regardless that it contains an ace and you go by the rules for hard 13, which is to stay against a 2.

 

[Fun_at_21]

Thanks! I figured it was something simple I wasn't grasping. Now it makes sense. I need to learn to keep the "high" total of the hand with the ace as an 11 seperate from whether it can bust or not if drawn to (looking at it as a 1). That's what still messes me up sometimes.

I was about to say that I could've sworn that I've seen multiple card soft 17's where people say to still hit even though the next card could bust them but now that I think about it, if viewing the ace as a 1, then they could still draw to these hands so I think I understand now (until I forget and it trips me up again...

So to verify I got this right (for at least one example), say the dealer's upcard is a 7. If I'm dealt a 2,A then I want to hit. Say I get an 9. Now I have to treat this 2,A,9 combination as a HARD 12 because I cant draw anymore without 100% safety from busting. So it becomes a hard 12. Basic strategy says I simply hit hard 12 against 7's or higher so I hit. Say I get a 5. Now I have a "hard" 17 and would stand correct? I don't, in any way view this as a "hittable" or "soft" 17 just because I have an ace in my hand?

I think I'm getting it now...

 

[DownUnderWonder]

That is correct. If you imagine that the ace in your hand is 11 and your hand is over 21, then you are playing a hard hand. If you imagine the ace is 11 and you have under 21, then you are playing a soft hand. If you have multiple aces, treat the first one like this and just think of additional aces as 1s.

Or.. say to yourself the two possible totals, like '7 or 17', thats a soft 17. '17 or 27' is a hard 17.

 

[sagefr0g]

...
I think I'm getting it now...

just an observation that i think might help you, it sure did help me.
i got this from a post of some one some where a long time ago.

like ok, it's cool that you understand this stuff about soft hands, hard hands and pairs.
and it's really cool that your playing basic strategy as automatic as 'wham bam, thank you mame', with out a second though, sort of thing, lol.

just maybe, you may be better off just recognizing when you have a pair, hard hand or soft hand, but dispense with using the terminology in your mental mind of 'soft 12, soft 13, soft 14, soft 15, soft 16, soft 17, soft 18, soft 19 and soft 20.
instead hold it in your mental mind, as ace,ace; ace,2; ace,3; ace,4; ace,5; ace,6; ace,7; ace,8; ace,9 and then just make your plays 'lickity split' from your memorization of the basic strategy table for those soft hands.

i think you'll find doing so much less cumbersome for your mental mind to deal with, just as effective and also helpful when you come up with those three or more card hands that involve soft hands where you need to add some little card to that soft hand total, ie. you have ace,2 and you get a 3 so now you have ace,5; but from your memorization of the basic strategy chart you know what to do with an ace,5 . so, it's easy.
same thing sort of thing if you have ace,2 and get say a king, well now it's just you have a 13, so easy from your basic strategy chart you know what to do with it.

just me maybe, but calling a ace,2 a soft 13, just complicates the issue, leads to confusion or more thinking than necessary, cause heck you already recognize you have a soft hand, sort of thing.

 

[Cardcounter]

By definition a soft hand is where an ace counts as an 11 and 1 more card can not bust you. There for a 3 card or more soft 13 thru a soft 17 should always be hit because you can't make the hand anyworse! If the ace counts as 1 than you have a hard hand.

 

[duanedibley]

I'm more than happy to simply settle for as close as a 50/50 truce that I can get

It should be pointed out:

If the house edge is 50.5/49.5 vs. a basic strategy player for example, this is the edge on just one hand. This does not mean that your chance of going home a winner after a blackjack session is 49.5%. Your actual chance of being an overall winner goes to 0% pretty quickly as you play more and more hands.

 

[Fun_at_21]

It should be pointed out:

If the house edge is 50.5/49.5 vs. a basic strategy player for example, this is the edge on just one hand. This does not mean that your chance of going home a winner after a blackjack session is 49.5%. Your actual chance of being an overall winner goes to 0% pretty quickly as you play more and more hands.

Yeah, I was referring to being happy to just play basic strategy (and some basic strategy hand exception rules) well enough to get the long run advantage of the house to as even as 0% as possible. I do realize I won't quite get it to that exact zero point (playing just basic strategy) but to me it's worth it since it keeps the "fun" of the game alive for me, which is the whole point. Besides I don't view blackjack as a "money-making" vehicle or even a game where I'm supposed to have the edge. To me that's why it's called "gambling" and why it's fun - because the house is supposed to have the edge (very slightly), not me. What fun is it to take money from the house if you know what the cards are and you're always playing with an advantage?? Just kidding (sort of). I know even counters don't always win and most cannot consistently do it well anyways. Still, the fun and spirit of the game (in my humble opinion) is in just the general probabilities of the hands and doing as best as I can to make this natural house advantage as close to zero as possible without me having to sacrifice the fun and thrill of the game for excessive "work". I realize the counters are likely more "skilled" and they're the ones that can reap the awards of playing at an advantage (if that's what is fun and worthwhile to them...) yet I also hear stories of how they get burnt out and the game is no longer fun, etc. So I'm definitely blessed to be just a hair on this side of the basic strategy fence. I would not want to trade sides. I don't ever want blackjack to not be "fun". If it ever turns into more work and memorization than just casual thrill and gamble then I think it would be my que to leave. But this is just me. I know, call me crazy

 

[Fun_at_21]

Thanks for the help and ideas everyone. I think I'm grasping the "soft" dilemma a little more clearly now...

 

[sagefr0g]

Thanks for the help and ideas everyone. I think I'm grasping the "soft" dilemma a little more clearly now...

since your really not interesting in counting and don't mind the gamble as you say, you might be interested in Dubey's stuff on No Need to Count.
it's just some simple betting rules you follow for certain easy to recognize situations that give you over the long haul a very, very minuscule slight edge.
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/betting_systems_no_need_to_count_system.htm
(Dead link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0498024652/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used)

 

[Fun_at_21]

since your really not interesting in counting and don't mind the gamble as you say, you might be interested in Dubey's stuff on No Need to Count.
it's just some simple betting rules you follow for certain easy to recognize situations that give you over the long haul a very, very minuscule slight edge.
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/betting_systems_no_need_to_count_system.htm
(Dead link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0498024652/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used)

Thanks a lot! I appreciate it. I may just take a look through them...

 

[Fun_at_21]

since your really not interesting in counting and don't mind the gamble as you say, you might be interested in Dubey's stuff on No Need to Count.
it's just some simple betting rules you follow for certain easy to recognize situations that give you over the long haul a very, very minuscule slight edge.
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/betting_systems_no_need_to_count_system.htm
(Dead link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0498024652/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used)

It's interesting to see those "situational" lists from Dubey's book. I might have to get a copy and look further into it.

What's funny is that I had already been utilizing some of these casual situation advantages/disadvantages without actually "counting" (which as mentioned above I don't wish to do nor would feel "right" doing, personally). But I obviously think everyone does some random "card awareness" which, seeing it doesn't give the player a real edge anyways, is perfectly innocent to do. For example, I've long been curious about the simple fact of what I call "card quantity awareness". Surprisingly, until this list here, it was one isolated part of blackjack that I had really never heard anyone mention or reveal computer studies on before. I was sure it had been done, everything about about blackjack has but I had never heard it discussed (as a simple vague basic strategy technique). The most I dicovered was a page in Peter Griffin's Theory Of Blackjack book about 5 card hands encountered within 10,000 hands played. It had a list of how many 5 card hands ended up at various totals etc and against which dealer upcards you can expect to get the most 5 card hands against...

Anyways, it occured to me that one can always get a general (though by no means precise) idea of how the deck may lie on future hands just doing something as simple as noticing if the hand dealt to you (or the hand the dealer draws) merely consists of 4 or more cards. I typically try to just keep mental note of 5 card hands to be slightly more "certain". Of course if one pops up here or there within a shoe it's obviously no big deal. You always see roughly 5-10 4 plus hands within the first half or so of a given 6 deck shoe. BUT, if I notice say 3 of these within 7 hands or something, then I have a casual awareness to assume that I likely have at least a tiny advantage now for following hands (at least until 3 LOW quantity hands come back in to negate it...)

However, I quickly realized from experience that this is neither a "significant" advantage nor one that is free from being misleading. For example, I've also noted 5 card hands that are mostly "good" cards (high cards). For instance, you do get your share of, say, 2, 8, 7, A, A type hands. Is this really a "good" hand for me as far as future hands will go even though it's a 5 quantity hand? Not really. Really the 2 is the only clear-cut "bad" card now out of the way here. The two aces actually are very harmful to be gone! So 5 card hands can be misleading sometimes...

But I do use it, casually. I don't "count" the hands. I don't even concentrate on the number of 4 plus hands drawn to the extent I stop having fun or talking etc. And I definitely don't widely spread bets (in any circumstance). Heck, my idea of being bold and raising my bets is going from a $5 chip to maybe $8 or $9 and then just averaging around $6-7 when I'm getting a "hunch" I may have slight to neutral advantages on some hands. Does doing this really even help me? Probably not. Is my advantage, in the long run, even any closer to even than it was if I didnt do these random "hand quantity checks" now and then? Probably not. But I do figure it can perhaps only add a few hundredths of a percentage to the zero end (as opposed to just playing every hand as if I wasn't even aware that a few 5 quantity hands recently came out).

Likewise, I also naturally realized that "no hitting" plays should typically not favor a player for hands thereafter. I do try to take note if I've seen a few hands within a pocket of rounds where both me and the dealer are largely turning over face cards against one or another or even 10, 8 type hands back and forth. This obviously should reflect later hands might be a bit less favorable...

The one I find curious in which I wouldn't have ever thought of myself is the odds of having more of an advantage on the next hand following a hard double-down. I'm guessing the reasoning behind this is the likliehood of being dealt 5,4 or 5,5 to double down totals. Then if you're unlucky enough to draw a 2-5 on your double-down card then I can see how that would take 3 "bad" cards out of the way and maybe open the next hands for more favorability...

I also find the non-ace splitting of pairs to signal later favorable hands for the player to be interesting as well. I guess the idea is that two hands are likely to rid of more cards (hopefully low ones)? Although I can think of cases where splitting would equally lead to higher cards being removed as well - like if splitting 8's or 9's and drawing 9's or 10's to each hand. This, overall, wouldn't be good as largely high cards are being played out...

But, all in all, a very interesting article. As a basic strategy player not expecting to get a huge jump in advantage but merely utilizing some innocent plays to get closer to zero, I find these things interesting...

 

[kewljason]

Thanks a lot! I appreciate it. I may just take a look through them...

Be sure to read the paragraph starting "the problem with this system".

Only playing a deeply dealt one deck game, with good rules, including BJ pays 3-2 can these rules swing the advantage to the player. To do so requires you to wager $5 on most hands and $100 after hands in which the 10 rules apply, and even then The advantage will be $1-2 hour. So the question is "how many single deck, deeply dealt, 3-2 blackjack games with good rules still exist? and if you find one, how long can you spread $5 to $100??

any game that is not single deck and all these rules will do is very slightly lessen the house advantage, not swing it to the player.

 

[sagefr0g]

It's interesting to see those "situational" lists from Dubey's book. I might have to get a copy and look further into it.

right, one thing i'd say, is the article by Snyder and the situational list he showed, is just a bit different from how Dubey's book lists the situations and the degree's of advantage. but that may be because of Gwynn/Seri situational discoveries had some differences in their findings.

What's funny is that I had already been utilizing some of these casual situation advantages/disadvantages without actually "counting" (which as mentioned above I don't wish to do nor would feel "right" doing, personally). But I obviously think everyone does some random "card awareness" which, seeing it doesn't give the player a real edge anyways, is perfectly innocent to do. For example, I've long been curious about the simple fact of what I call "card quantity awareness".

i've had pretty much the same experience. that is once i learned about card counting and how to do it, then i could see how one could get a sort of qualitative perspective on things as opposed to a quantitative perspective that one would get if actually counting cards.

interesting how you allude to not feeling "right" about the counting stuff. i've experienced what may be a similar sort of sentiment about playing the game as well. it's not that i feel that card counting is an unfair or even a necessarily deceptive practice, it's more to do for me with a feeling of enjoying the game as a sport, i suppose. like maybe just me, but when i was counting cards orthodox for about two years, i noticed that just about everyone around me was having fun, except me, lol. but i found that for me there was a bit more to it than the fun aspect, or the sport aspect, it also had to do with the question of whether or not counting cards was gambling or not. i came to the conclusion that because there always is a risk of ruin involved that card counting was a form of gambling, hence there really wasn't any reason i shouldn't be able to have just as much fun as the rest of the gamblers, lol.

Surprisingly, until this list here, it was one isolated part of blackjack that I had really never heard anyone mention or reveal computer studies on before. I was sure it had been done, everything about about blackjack has but I had never heard it discussed (as a simple vague basic strategy technique). The most I dicovered was a page in Peter Griffin's Theory Of Blackjack book about 5 card hands encountered within 10,000 hands played. It had a list of how many 5 card hands ended up at various totals etc and against which dealer upcards you can expect to get the most 5 card hands against...

hmm, that is interesting. i'll have to check that out in Theory of Blackjack.
lol, as lost as i was trying to read that book i guess i missed that.:laugh:

Anyways, it occured to me that one can always get a general (though by no means precise) idea of how the deck may lie on future hands just doing something as simple as noticing if the hand dealt to you (or the hand the dealer draws) merely consists of 4 or more cards. I typically try to just keep mental note of 5 card hands to be slightly more "certain". Of course if one pops up here or there within a shoe it's obviously no big deal. You always see roughly 5-10 4 plus hands within the first half or so of a given 6 deck shoe. BUT, if I notice say 3 of these within 7 hands or something, then I have a casual awareness to assume that I likely have at least a tiny advantage now for following hands (at least until 3 LOW quantity hands come back in to negate it...)

yeah, i think your on track with what your saying, i mean what your saying compares pretty well with part of Dubey's reasoning.
like he specifies watching for seven or more cards during a round between your self and the dealer. i'd just add that for those instances the advantage is a bit lower than other situations that he lists.
oh, yeah here is a link showing how he breaks it down:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=134835&postcount=44

another thought here, like i wouldn't argue against what your saying about how you can have a qualitative idea of how things are by the observations you've written about, i'd just add that Dubey also would agree with your line of reasoning, however, and this issue is confusing for me, but it's kind of how i understand it, point being, a lot of this situational time for betting stuff is only related to the very next round and apparently doesn't so much carry over for following rounds. the reason being is that, well, it's how his simulations were set up, looking at the results of the next round after some given situation. so really, as much sense as it may make that some advantage is going to carry over into further rounds, well that would be to a certain degree speculation not necessarily supported by the simulation.
kind of weird, but that's how i understand it.

However, I quickly realized from experience that this is neither a "significant" advantage nor one that is free from being misleading. For example, I've also noted 5 card hands that are mostly "good" cards (high cards). For instance, you do get your share of, say, 2, 8, 7, A, A type hands. Is this really a "good" hand for me as far as future hands will go even though it's a 5 quantity hand? Not really. Really the 2 is the only clear-cut "bad" card now out of the way here. The two aces actually are very harmful to be gone! So 5 card hands can be misleading sometimes...

exactly! this is the sort of thing that i run into when trying to apply Dubey's stuff. like those kind of situations i find it very difficult to bring myself to raise my bet. i mean yeah fine if it's a bunch of small cards that makes up those seven card hands, splits or double downs, but start throwing in aces and high cards and i start wondering, lol.
so yeah, this situational betting can become rather convoluted and confusing, sort of thing.

But I do use it, casually. I don't "count" the hands. I don't even concentrate on the number of 4 plus hands drawn to the extent I stop having fun or talking etc. And I definitely don't widely spread bets (in any circumstance). Heck, my idea of being bold and raising my bets is going from a $5 chip to maybe $8 or $9 and then just averaging around $6-7 when I'm getting a "hunch" I may have slight to neutral advantages on some hands. Does doing this really even help me? Probably not. Is my advantage, in the long run, even any closer to even than it was if I didnt do these random "hand quantity checks" now and then? Probably not. But I do figure it can perhaps only add a few hundredths of a percentage to the zero end (as opposed to just playing every hand as if I wasn't even aware that a few 5 quantity hands recently came out).

when it comes to how much to bet, Dubey also has some guidelines. it's kind of funny though as he's fairly, IMHO, 'loose' about it.
if you get the book you'll read about this min max sort of idea of betting he has. then he has a some what more orthodox betting approach beyond that.
i won't try to go into that, as frankly i'm forgetting exactly how he describes it. but i recall finding it a 'reasonable' approach.

Likewise, I also naturally realized that "no hitting" plays should typically not favor a player for hands thereafter. I do try to take note if I've seen a few hands within a pocket of rounds where both me and the dealer are largely turning over face cards against one or another or even 10, 8 type hands back and forth. This obviously should reflect later hands might be a bit less favorable..

.
yep, that's the sort of thing Dubey get's into, especially for the very next round, because that is what his simulation was set up to discover, ie. what happens on the next round.
but he doesn't disagree with card counting, so he also encourages the idea of gleaning the advantage that the ratio of high cards to low cards foretells.

The one I find curious in which I wouldn't have ever thought of myself is the odds of having more of an advantage on the next hand following a hard double-down. I'm guessing the reasoning behind this is the likliehood of being dealt 5,4 or 5,5 to double down totals. Then if you're unlucky enough to draw a 2-5 on your double-down card then I can see how that would take 3 "bad" cards out of the way and maybe open the next hands for more favorability...

I also find the non-ace splitting of pairs to signal later favorable hands for the player to be interesting as well. I guess the idea is that two hands are likely to rid of more cards (hopefully low ones)? Although I can think of cases where splitting would equally lead to higher cards being removed as well - like if splitting 8's or 9's and drawing 9's or 10's to each hand. This, overall, wouldn't be good as largely high cards are being played out...

yeah, well it seems to me your catching onto the concepts pretty well.
giving me some insights and things to think about, i must say. lol.

But, all in all, a very interesting article. As a basic strategy player not expecting to get a huge jump in advantage but merely utilizing some innocent plays to get closer to zero, I find these things interesting...

there you go again with that innocent plays, sort of stuff. interesting.
maybe you, like me just need to trick your self into believing your gambling, then you won't have to worry about it, lol.

 

[sagefr0g]

Be sure to read the paragraph starting "the problem with this system".

Only playing a deeply dealt one deck game, with good rules, including BJ pays 3-2 can these rules swing the advantage to the player. To do so requires you to wager $5 on most hands and $100 after hands in which the 10 rules apply, and even then The advantage will be $1-2 hour. So the question is "how many single deck, deeply dealt, 3-2 blackjack games with good rules still exist? and if you find one, how long can you spread $5 to $100??

any game that is not single deck and all these rules will do is very slightly lessen the house advantage, not swing it to the player.

hmm, i don't think it's required to go from $5 to $100.
well maybe if you want the $1-$2 hour advantage. i'm not sure about that.
it's to late tonight for me to look that stuff up in the book, lol.:sleep:

and it's true that Dubey's stuff was directed mainly for single deck.
however Dubey did claim that his stuff could be used with six deck.
admittedly he did state how crummy six deck games are and to avoid them.

lmao, you play 8 decker's don't you kewl?
just yanking your chain, lol. :joker::whip:

 

[kewljason]

hmm, i don't think it's required to go from $5 to $100.
well maybe if you want the $1-$2 hour advantage. i'm not sure about that.
it's to late tonight for me to look that stuff up in the book, lol.:sleep:

and it's true that Dubey's stuff was directed mainly for single deck.
however Dubey did claim that his stuff could be used with six deck.
admittedly he did state how crummy six deck games are and to avoid them.

lmao, you play 8 decker's don't you kewl?
just yanking your chain, lol. :joker::whip:

I play both 6 and 8 decks, frog. Might be able to use his stuff at 6 decks, but it's not going to swing the advantage to the player. Just cut the house advantage by a tiny amount. But I guess if you are not counting and just looking for as even a game as you can get, every tiny bit helps.

 

[sagefr0g]

I play both 6 and 8 decks, frog. Might be able to use his stuff at 6 decks, but it's not going to swing the advantage to the player. Just cut the house advantage by a tiny amount. But I guess if you are not counting and just looking for as even a game as you can get, every tiny bit helps.

right every bit helps, lol.

i'm not trying to challenge you on this, just i'm truly interested to know.
have you seen a simulation on Dubey's methods for six deck and just what the results are?

me, i just use his stuff as part of my own voodoo approach. i haven't the foggiest what the results would be for Dubey's stuff with six deck.
i wish i had his code so i could run a simulation for six deck, sort of thing and see what the actual results would be.

 

[kewljason]

right every bit helps, lol.

i'm not trying to challenge you on this, just i'm truly interested to know.
have you seen a simulation on Dubey's methods for six deck and just what the results are?

me, i just use his stuff as part of my own voodoo approach. i haven't the foggiest what the results would be for Dubey's stuff with six deck.
i wish i had his code so i could run a simulation for six deck, sort of thing and see what the actual results would be.

No I have not, but basically, it has to do with the make up of players and dealers hands and the values of the cards, just as counting does. So just like when counting the value of each individual cards seen, will be worth less with a six deck game. At least thats my thinking.

 

[Fun_at_21]

Be sure to read the paragraph starting "the problem with this system".

Only playing a deeply dealt one deck game, with good rules, including BJ pays 3-2 can these rules swing the advantage to the player. To do so requires you to wager $5 on most hands and $100 after hands in which the 10 rules apply, and even then The advantage will be $1-2 hour. So the question is "how many single deck, deeply dealt, 3-2 blackjack games with good rules still exist? and if you find one, how long can you spread $5 to $100??

any game that is not single deck and all these rules will do is very slightly lessen the house advantage, not swing it to the player.

I definitely read it. And even knew before reading it that these aren't situations that are going to bring any large chunk of benefit. As mentioned, I don't even want (or really even believe) in the player having any defined long term advantage. Indeed, if they just slightly add some tiny percentage points to me as a helpless (but happy) basic strategy player, then that's all I could expect from them...

 

[Fun_at_21]

Might be able to use his stuff at 6 decks, but it's not going to swing the advantage to the player. Just cut the house advantage by a tiny amount. But I guess if you are not counting and just looking for as even a game as you can get, every tiny bit helps.

Yes, that's more of what I'm after in a nutshell...