What if any, changes are needed as cards are dealt?

For example:

.....Dealt A,5 - Basic Strategy HIT
.....Dealt A,3,2 - ??? is this now concidered a 16 or an A,5?
How does it change (if any)
.....Dealt A,2,2,A - ??? is this now concidered a 16 or an A,5?

Even on a bigger scale does any Betting Strategy (based on the charts, not card counting) change as the cards are dealt. Example:

.....Dealt 7,8 any difference than Dealt 3,4,5,3 are both 15 and the chart should be followed?


I do not mind reading so please point to any threads that you think will help, I searched some but got all kinds of weird returns. Or please make suggestions on how to search. Is there a term for these examples?

Thank you all,
TJ

Strategy cards specify A,5 because they can't fit "Soft 16" in that space.

A,5 is a soft 16.
A,2,3 is a soft 16.
A,2,2,A is a soft 16.

Reference the A,5 strategy line.


Whether you can hit a small card on the 2, 3 or 4 card soft 16 is the same logic as busting the 2, 3 or 4 card 15:



7,8 and 3,4,5,3 are both 15. But there is a huge difference. The difference is a simplified version of counting cards.

If you're playing a single deck game, and the dealer's up card is five or lower, and you haven't seen any other cards, then with the 7,8 you've got 30 bust cards out of 50 remaining. With the 3,4,5,3 there are 32 bust cards out of 48 remaining. Simple division says you're far more likely to bust with the four card 15. If the dealer's up card is a 6 or higher, subtract one from the numerator in the calculation.

If you're playing a two deck game, then add 52 cards to the denominator when you divide. You're still more likely to bust that four card 15, but it's not an big of a difference.

Go to a 6 or 8 deck game, and the difference is more negligible. That is, unless you've been counting since the beginning of the shoe.

Take a look over at Wizard of Odds under “composition dependent strategy":

Appendix 15

Edit: Appendix 15 probably wasn’t the best link. Take a look at his general blackjack strategy page and scroll to the very bottom. Several of the appendices relate to composition dependent strategy.

Thank you DJ and DOC:

All my stratagies are only related to multi-deck.

To sum-up:
An A in the mix remains Soft, is the execption (A,A,10)? This now becomes Hard 12 right? And now follow the chart as a Hard Count?

In multi-Deck the number of cards dealt does not mean much, just add them up and follow the chart?

TY, TY, TY
TJ

PS - Does anybody know where to find a betting chart for JUST Hit or Stand (no DD or splits, etc)

Take a look at Appendix18.

UUGH! I missed that one, perfect!

TJ

Now that I have re-read Appendix 18 myself, I have a question for the Wizard. In the table for basic strategy exceptions for 1 deck H17, there are a couple of lines that are a little surprising. For soft 18 vs. 10 or A, the table says to hit with 2, 3, 4, or 6 cards but to stand with 5. I'm curious about what kind of effect comes and goes like that. I know, do it because the computers says so, but I have no intuition on such a flip-flop sort of strategy.

Quote: TJerome

An A in the mix remains Soft, is the execption (A,A,10)? This now becomes Hard 12 right?

You wouldn't think of it as a soft 22, would you?

A 'soft' total is any 12-21 total that you can hit a 10 and remain unchanged, except it becomes 'hard'. (Of course, I don't know anyone that would hit on a soft 21. Or a soft 20 or 19 or 18 for that matter!)

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Of course, I don't know anyone that would hit on a soft 21. Or a soft 20 or 19 or 18 for that matter!

Uh, ... I hit soft 18 against a 10 or A. As noted in my post above, I'm still trying to understand some of the exceptions to that.

There are actually composition dependent choices you could make even before any additional cards are played. For instance consider the basic strategy rule for two player cards that sum to 12 against a dealer 3. The rule is to hit.

But if you actually look at the expected values, you see that the optimal choice really depends on the composition of the cards that sum to 12.

Blackjack Appendix 9
1 deck, dealer hits on soft 17

		Hit	Stand	choice
7	5	-0.22206	-0.20708	Stand
8	4	-0.22991	-0.21476	Stand
9	3	-0.25592	-0.25804	Hit
10	2	-0.21963	-0.26243	Hit

The basic strategy simply chooses the EV given that you know the player cards sum to 12. In other words it calculates the EV over the probability that each of these four instances will occur. Another way to say this is that the a weighted average EV is calculated. You can see that player 10,2 against a dealer 3 has the greatest improvement in EV, and it is also the most likely composition to occur. So clearly the decision based on the weighted average is going to be to hit.



A strategy card always makes certain simplifying assumptions so that it is easier to remember. Also the overall improvement in EV to the game is fairly insignificant. If you actually had a computer and could calculate the highest possible EV if you knew every card that had been played it wouldn't matter that much. Small rule changes in the game have a much more significant effect.

The Wizard does actually calculate some of these composition dependent exceptions in his appendix for Boss Media I presume that if you are playing on the internet you have the freedom of spreading out all sorts of complex charts that you couldn't use in a land based casino.

I read somewhere that Edward Thorpe when he was developing his strategy originally tried to remember every card that was played. Part of his research indicated that such complete knowledge did increase EV, but the improvement was not significant enough to justify trying to do something that was nearly impossible to do consistently. Certain assumptions (like using the sum of the player cards instead of the composition dependent sums) was sufficient. Of course, he probably made most of his money on the last deal on the deck, because the casinos weren't savvy enough to deal part way through the deck. He also had a mobster as a partner, so he was told when the casino was getting frustrated enough so that they began to cheat.