EasyRhino
Well-Known Member
Table composition: You know, the idea of modifying play strategy on close calls depending on what's visible on the table. Here's the Fred Renzey article where I first saw it mentioned:
http://renzey.casinocitytimes.com/article/some-blackjack-hands-are-best-played-two-different-ways-at-times-1052
I've also heard it referred to as the rule of "45" when dealing with player 16s. There was a also an old lengthy exchange at blackjackforumonline, where they came up with the idea that a multihand16 should be stood on, unless there were more 6s than 5s on the table.
I kind of like doing a table composition play for 16v10. It's just more fun. However, I get the impression that Mr. Renzey wrote the article for a BS player, or at most, someone using his Ace/10 count.
Personally, I'm using the KO count. Theoretically, I already know the balance of small and large cards left based off of the entire shoe, not just what's on the table.
Are any table-composition plays still valid, or should they be ignored in favor of strategy indices based on count?
http://renzey.casinocitytimes.com/article/some-blackjack-hands-are-best-played-two-different-ways-at-times-1052
I've also heard it referred to as the rule of "45" when dealing with player 16s. There was a also an old lengthy exchange at blackjackforumonline, where they came up with the idea that a multihand16 should be stood on, unless there were more 6s than 5s on the table.
I kind of like doing a table composition play for 16v10. It's just more fun. However, I get the impression that Mr. Renzey wrote the article for a BS player, or at most, someone using his Ace/10 count.
Personally, I'm using the KO count. Theoretically, I already know the balance of small and large cards left based off of the entire shoe, not just what's on the table.
Are any table-composition plays still valid, or should they be ignored in favor of strategy indices based on count?
