+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Is assigning the 2 a tag really necessary?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,973

    Default Is assigning the 2 a tag really necessary?

    Don S. SCORE in sims indicate the 2 is somewhat insignificant. What are you thoughts regarding the EOR for the 2?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,973

    Default

    Mr Griffin assigned the 2 an EOR of .38. He assigned the 7 an EOR .28. That is only a difference of .1.

    My understanding is his study started with a single deck of cards. But I do not know what tools he had to work with back in the 70's. Could he have made a mistake?

    SCORE certainly suggests a discrepancy in single deck straight up sims. Give the 8 a value other than 0? SCORE suffers.
    Make the 7 and 2 the same value? SCORE suffers. Give the 2 more value than the 7. SCORE really suffers.

    Give the 7 more value than the 2. SCORE improves. Reducing the 2 to 0 in Wong Halves and making the 7 a 1? SCORE soars.
    Last edited by Moses; March 4th, 2020 at 11:09 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,973

    Default

    So in Hilo. The 2 is increased to reflect the same value as the 5. The 7 drops all the way to 0. For simplicity purposes? Yet we have self professed "Pro's" killing casinos with poor deck compositions? Hmmmm. I don't think so scooter.

    They count some of the cards some of the time on as many tables as they can see. 6 decks coming out of a shoe. C'mon maaaan.

    I count all but one card in one deck at one table all the time. I see every card played. Quite often, it's the one I don't allow for that bites me in the ass.
    Last edited by Moses; March 4th, 2020 at 11:06 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,973

    Default

    Jack Jackson writes: Practicing a hybrid count(DD only) derived from the RPC count ive become pretty efficient for the "play of hands" in "double deck" games.. And although other hybrid counts could be used i felt this one was best in terms of "EoR" in correlation to betting and playing decisions, while trying to keep it as practical as possible...

    Count 1> 12222100-2-2(2-A)
    Count2>112232100-3(A-X)

    As you may have already noticed Count 1 is for betting while count Count 2 is primarily used for hands 12-16 and insurance purposes..Now, without making things to complex it may obvious to some why count 1. has a higher "playing efficiency" for doubling on 10 than count 2 would..Likewise Count 2. has a much higher "playing efficiency" for doubling on 11 than Count 2. would..Therefore, its easy enough to reason why only one index is needed for hands 10-16, and insurance purposes..But heres where i start to get a little confused. And even though i have a pretty good idea on whether or not Count 1. or Count 2. should be used for the remainder of the hands, im still unsure if Ndas, re-splitting or even if H17 makes a difference in which count becomes the one more efficient to use..For example, if re-splitting Aces is not allowed then its safe enough to assume that Count 2. would be a more accurate decision since it tags the ace as +1(as well as soft hands A2-A6)...

    So heres one of my questions: Although im pretty confident and fairly certain only 1 index is needed for doubling on hands
    7-10 and Count 1. would have the better efficiency for the play of these hands, im still uncertain when it comes to splits and whether or not double after splitting plays a factor or not.. Note that I have reason to believe that Count 1. would be better when "double after splits" are allowed and Count 2. for when they are not..What really brought this to My attention was when it came to splitting XXs.. I started noticing "in practice" (on a blackjack program) that there were many times when the index for splitting XXs was falling a little short of one count but high enough for the other and other times it was the exact opposite even the EV showed splitting...

    What im trying to say here, is that since (what i believe) BOTH count 1 and count 2. have an almost EQUAL playing efficiency for splitting XXs i decided to learn BOTH indexes FOR THESE HANDS ONLY (and of course since its such a valuable index). So my main question i ask is, if the index for count 1. for example is +8 for splitting XXs while the index is +10 for count 2 wouldnt it be okay to make this play on whichever index comes first?

    Note:I ask this because BOTH counts are very efficient for this particular hand, unlike doubling on 10 and 11 where one count is superior over the other one..

    Moses writes: My first question is can you actually perform both counts? The reason I ask is because you've come up with good ideas in the past but couldn't actually perfom the feat. My second question is why are you building a strategy for splitting XX? Nothing will get you bounced quicker in the DD game. No?
    I would think a simple ten count, for insurance purposes, would accomplish what you're trying to achieve in terms of dollars. This assumes you are betting a high frequency
    level. This increases SCORE but also generates interest from managers to your game. The PE for count 3 is 677 vs 556 for count 1. Do you really need that much more PE?
    IF your playing more indexes than the i18 and straight up? The answer may be yes. If not, why go to the trouble? Again, that is going to get you into trouble when other players at the table start squawking. In a straight up game? The increase in PE decisions on minimum bets will often result in preferential shuffling which in turn kills more chances at premium bets.

    But thumbs up Jack. At least you ask a legit blackjack question on a blackjack forum.

    So a thought. I like Freighter's style of Wong Halves with a Ace side count. Or Wong Halves and a 10 count if you can perform 2 counts. But I don't see the value of the 2 in a conventional count for the pitch game. Freighter and I disagree as gentleman. The talk is always side count the 7 in a pitch game. This provides a better look at 14 when your larger bets are out. However, simply dropping the two and upping the 7 to 1 in Wong Halves is a nifty way to get more value for your larger dollar investments with less taxing on your brain.
    Last edited by Moses; May 28th, 2020 at 06:24 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,973

    Default

    A surplus of two remaining could create a lower TC and miss out on a strong deck composition. A deficit creates a high TC and thus more volatility on weak deck compositions. No way can a player give the 2 the same tag as the 5 and not expect increased volatility.

    Someone needs to explain Mr. Griffin's calculation on EOR consideration given to the 2. It's had a monumental gross effect in the counting world.
    Last edited by Moses; August 24th, 2020 at 10:38 AM.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts