split index for 3,3 vs 8
- Thread starter BJmath
- Start date
I would listen to these guys. I don't use HILO (HIOPT II) and play mostly shoe S17 games. I will say if the reference is right (I am not doubting it) I am surprised by it. That hand relies so much on neutral cards I can't imagine those are risk averse indices. The EOR table has 6, 7 and 8 as the only cards valuable in surplus. 2, 3 and 4 are pretty valuable in deficit as the 6 in surplus but not near as important as the 7 and 8 are in surplus. A pretty weak correlation to most counts without the side counts.
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
I don't have an index specifcally for DD, but the index I have for shoe games is to split 3/3 v 8 @ TC of 5. The index for splitting 2/2 v 8 is also 5. These are 2 indices I never use and I really can't understand the logic behind them. It seems to me like these splits would work better at lower TCs. At TC5 you're probably at or close to your max bet so why would you want to split and double the money you have on the table (or more if resplits occur) to make what would very likely be 2 poor hands that you may bust out? And even if you don't bust out the dealer is very likely to make a hand with an 8 showing. The only times I make these splits are in negative counts with minimum bets out to eat cards.
Thank you. This is useful information, which seems to suggest it is unclear when to split 3,3 vs 8 (or at least hit may not always be the appropriate play). On the othre hand, I think tthree's reply was very insightful. Whether DAS makes a difference should depend on the remaining #'s (or proportions) of 7 and 8.AOII ASC said:
One reason why I had this question was that when I simulated this index using CVData and a toy high-level counting system, I got conflict results. When I used the original counting system, I got an index to split when TC > -4.1 (this number has been converted so that you could somehow think of it as the index for a hi-lo system). In a different simulation run where I divided each tag value by 2 and used the "half point support" option (so that supposedly the resulting indices should be consistent, i.e., also approximately half of the indices generated from the 1st set). This turned out to be indeed the case for essentially all indices except for this one: 3,3 vs 8. The second simulation run suggested to split 3,3 vs 8 when TC > -1.8 (also converted and comparable, with the half tag values already taken into account; otherwise the index was -0.9). Both simulation runs were based on the beat-to-death method, i.e., with a HUGE number of simulations. I think these inconsistent results basically agreed with what tthree suggested, i.e., the counting of the non-neutral cards has little correlation with a correct play for this (essentially only relevant cards would be 7 and 8).tthree said:
My above indices also disagreed with the basic strategy for 2D from Wizard of Odds: http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/strategy/2deck.html. That is, my indices suggest to split as a basic stragegy (when TC = 0). But I noticed that all others' indicess mentioned above (i.e., split when TC > some positive number, despite for different # of decks) were essentially consistent with the basic strategy.
Maybe without side counting 7 or 8, one (reference) play would be using the H17 or S17 index and ignoring DAS here (especially for hi-lo system which treats both 7 and 8 as neutral). For certain counting system assigning a positive tag value to 7, there then is a very remote correlation of the TC with the splitting decision.
Last edited:
bejammin075
Active Member
3,3 vs 8 has to be one of the most worthless indexes
I recently did my own cvdata index sims with Zen, and spent a lot of time looking at the output files. 3,3 (and 2,2) vs 8 were the most worthless of the whole bunch. Prior to that I had been including thoose indexes in my practice, but dropped them after seeing the sim results. I think the best option is to just hit. There was NO correlation up & down the whole TC range. 7,7 vs 8 was better, so I kept that (split at TC 7, DAS, no index for nDAS, for Zen). I suspect that indexes like 3,3 vs 8 are just archaic things that still persist for some reason.
I recently did my own cvdata index sims with Zen, and spent a lot of time looking at the output files. 3,3 (and 2,2) vs 8 were the most worthless of the whole bunch. Prior to that I had been including thoose indexes in my practice, but dropped them after seeing the sim results. I think the best option is to just hit. There was NO correlation up & down the whole TC range. 7,7 vs 8 was better, so I kept that (split at TC 7, DAS, no index for nDAS, for Zen). I suspect that indexes like 3,3 vs 8 are just archaic things that still persist for some reason.
Gramazeka
Well-Known Member
Exact index for Hi lo for 6 deck DAS 3,3 vs 8 hit or split = +5 TC. Exact index 2,2 vs 8= 3.4 TC.
EV 3,3 vs 8 ( 6 deck, split= 4 hand)
Hit TC 4= -0.2560
Hit TC 5= -0.2666
Hit TC 6= -0.2774
Split TC 4= -0.2582
Split TC 5= -0.2665
Split TC 6= -0.2754
p.s.
Index for not infinite deck.
EV 3,3 vs 8 ( 6 deck, split= 4 hand)
Hit TC 4= -0.2560
Hit TC 5= -0.2666
Hit TC 6= -0.2774
Split TC 4= -0.2582
Split TC 5= -0.2665
Split TC 6= -0.2754
p.s.
Index for not infinite deck.
Last edited:
AOII ASC
Member
3,3 ≠ 21
Eureka! Earlier I posted a single-deck index of 0. Gramazeka's sims show a TC os 4.7 for shoe games. It's because the pair of 3's robs the dealer of the opportunity to make 21. tthree posted that a side count of 7,8 would be valuable. I thought so too, but it appears 2's & 3's are more important to the dealer.
You are looking for the double-deck index. In 1D 50% of 3's are gone, 2D "only" 25%, as opposed to 2/32 or 6.25% in an 8D shoe game. I propose a TC of +1 for double-deck games, though I have no math to back that up. A positive TC in Hi-Lo should have fewer 2's and 3's.
I've been considering this question, BJMath, in addition to your CV simulations with varying results including negative numbers for a TC. I see this as similar to 7,7 vs. 10 in single-deck games.
Eureka! Earlier I posted a single-deck index of 0. Gramazeka's sims show a TC os 4.7 for shoe games. It's because the pair of 3's robs the dealer of the opportunity to make 21. tthree posted that a side count of 7,8 would be valuable. I thought so too, but it appears 2's & 3's are more important to the dealer.
You are looking for the double-deck index. In 1D 50% of 3's are gone, 2D "only" 25%, as opposed to 2/32 or 6.25% in an 8D shoe game. I propose a TC of +1 for double-deck games, though I have no math to back that up. A positive TC in Hi-Lo should have fewer 2's and 3's.
I've been considering this question, BJMath, in addition to your CV simulations with varying results including negative numbers for a TC. I see this as similar to 7,7 vs. 10 in single-deck games.
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
Uh, you might want to rethink that. How do taking 3's rob the dealer of the opportunity make 21 unless it's a game where the dealer hits hard 18 (which I've never heard of before)?AOII ASC said:
AOII ASC
Member
Good observation. In shoe games hit 3,3 vs. 8 since your max bet is out & splitting is risky towards your BR. The player's advantage for this hand is about -23, you wanna minimize losses. You will likely bust one or both & the dealer rarely busts 8.21gunsalute said:
A 3 would only help if it's in the hole, the dealer wouldn't hit a hard 18. This hand does not provide much in strategy deviation. I may be wrong, but splitting this hand is only relevant in single and double deckers with an average sized bet out. The Omega II count i use doesn't even have indices for this hand, always hit 3,3 vs. 8.
Dealer 8 up + 3 in hole = 11. 11 + 10 = 21. If the count is high and you have 3-3 the chances for the dealer to also have a 3 in the hole is much lower than normal in a high count there are, on average, a normal amount of medium cards and a higher amount of big cards so you have a better chance of splitting 3-3 and winding up with hands stronger than 18 than if you'd just hit your 6.21gunsalute said:
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
Actually you have a good chance of busting out both hands rather than just busting out one.bigplayer said: