Composition Dependent Basic Strategy
Second question: You're right.
Quote: HawksedI have mastered and successfully use the basic strategy. However, Composition Dependent Basic Strategy (Appendices 3a through 3c) requires an imposing amount of additional memorization. If the House Edge calculations provided by the Wizard of Odds website assume perfect execution of BS, how is the House Edge impacted by perfect execution of Composition Dependent BS. Also, is it correct to assume that Composition Dependent BS is useless when the casino uses continuous shuffling machines?
The difference between my "optimal" and "realistic" house edge is a factor of the type of basic strategy (composition- and total-dependent) and the cut card. Composition-dependent strategy lowers the house edge in any game, including with a CSM. However, in my opinion, learing composition dependent basic strategy is only worth the fuss in single-deck games.
You can see I indicate the effect in single-deck of composition-dependent strategy in my BJ appendix 3, "Using the composition dependent strategies on this page will lower the house edge by 0.04%." It is MUCH less for two or more decks.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/appendix/18/
Always: Stand on 16 vs 10 with 3 or more cards.
(While not clarified, it appears this holds true no mater if the dealer hits or stands on a Soft 17.)
When you are standing on a 3 card 16, you are basically hoping for the dealer to bust. You aren't expecting to win, you're just playing the math that's the lesser of 2 evils, if you will.
Suppose you were playing on a table where the Dealer is showing a 10 against 4 positions:
"1st Base": 5-7 Seat 2: 2-4 Seat 3: 8-6 "Third Base": 9-7.
With such a large lack of 10's in play, should car composition be "inferred" by any player? Except for Seat 2, ALL the other players would bust if a 10 was drawn and I wonder how likely that a 10 will be drawn considering there are so few 10s showing? I understand this scenario is rather specific, but in general, if you have any hard total greater than 12, regardless of however many cards make up a player's hand, should you ever look at the cards exposed on the table and let that affect Basic Strategy play?
I've seen hands dealt with a full table and with a Dealer 7, 6 players didn't have one 10 between them. When they started getting hard potential bust totals and BS tells them to hit, that's when all the 10's started to hit and busted almost everyone. I understand the randomness of the cards in a multi deck game lessens the odds of drawing 10s. On a single deck game you really have to expect that the deck is now rich in 10s.
As I understand it, the whole point of "composition hands" and how they effect BS, you stand on a 3 card 16 not to gain any great advantage, but just that mathematically, you are slightly less likely to lose if you stand and "hope" the dealer busts rather than draw, and more likely bust your own hand without giving the dealer a (small) chance to bust their hand. It just seems that if a 3 card composition hand effects BS, then table card composition should have some effect as well, even more so if there are several players/hands.
Quote: drsamuraiI've recently been studying card composition as it pertains to Basic Strategy. According to the Wizard's appendix 18:
https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/appendix/18/
Always: Stand on 16 vs 10 with 3 or more cards.
(While not clarified, it appears this holds true no mater if the dealer hits or stands on a Soft 17.)
When you are standing on a 3 card 16, you are basically hoping for the dealer to bust. You aren't expecting to win, you're just playing the math that's the lesser of 2 evils, if you will.
Suppose you were playing on a table where the Dealer is showing a 10 against 4 positions:
"1st Base": 5-7 Seat 2: 2-4 Seat 3: 8-6 "Third Base": 9-7.
With such a large lack of 10's in play, should car composition be "inferred" by any player? Except for Seat 2, ALL the other players would bust if a 10 was drawn and I wonder how likely that a 10 will be drawn considering there are so few 10s showing? I understand this scenario is rather specific, but in general, if you have any hard total greater than 12, regardless of however many cards make up a player's hand, should you ever look at the cards exposed on the table and let that affect Basic Strategy play?
I've seen hands dealt with a full table and with a Dealer 7, 6 players didn't have one 10 between them. When they started getting hard potential bust totals and BS tells them to hit, that's when all the 10's started to hit and busted almost everyone. I understand the randomness of the cards in a multi deck game lessens the odds of drawing 10s. On a single deck game you really have to expect that the deck is now rich in 10s.
As I understand it, the whole point of "composition hands" and how they effect BS, you stand on a 3 card 16 not to gain any great advantage, but just that mathematically, you are slightly less likely to lose if you stand and "hope" the dealer busts rather than draw, and more likely bust your own hand without giving the dealer a (small) chance to bust their hand. It just seems that if a 3 card composition hand effects BS, then table card composition should have some effect as well, even more so if there are several players/hands.
What you say is true. If you care to go further than composition-dependent strategy changes, just start counting. The reason 3-card 16v10 is a stand is that it's so borderline ANY deviation in the distribution of remaining cards towards 10s dictates a stand.
If you want to look at the whole table to make your decision, just count using Hi-Lo: 2-6 is +1, 10s and As are -1. If you end up with a positive number, stand. If you end up with negative or 0, hit. (You don't need to adjust for true count because the strategy number for this play using Hi-Lo is 0. So, 0/N (where N >0) is still 0.)
Even better if you can keep the count for the whole shoe, and then, you know, raise your bet when the count gets up there....
Quote: BleedingChipsSlowlyIn the Wizard of Odds site "Ask the Wizard #57" entry (https://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/57/) Rodney from Clarence, New York asks for clarification about hitting a hard 16 versus a dealer's 10 when the 16 hand is comprised of more than two cards. An analysis is presented for 3-card-16 cases using eight decks. It turns out that contrary to basic strategy tables for 2-card-16 hands standing rather than hitting marginally improves the expected return from -0.540355 to -0.540293. I see that the margin of difference can be improved substantially by adding an exception to standing: hit when you have a 10 or 6 but not if you also have a five for both. With that exception the optimal play is selected for each of the 16 hands given, and the expected return value improves to -0.539615. I have two questions about this improvement. Perhaps some math guru can answer them. Does the table presented hold true in terms of whether standing or hitting is better for each particular hand when 6 decks are used? For the switch to standing an advantage of one unit for 1117910 hands played is cited. What would be the advantage be if the exception were also incorporated in play? Thanks!
Yes. About 1 unit per 100,000 hands. This is 99.9% meaningless. You might not lplay 100,000 hands your whole life, let alone a million. And due to variance, you are far from guaranteed that 1 extra unit...you could easily lose 2 extra units by following the stated strategy instead of following the wrong one. You should just count, then it is a 100% meaningless. You hit or stand depending on count, not hand composition.
Quote: drsamuraiI've recently been studying card composition as it pertains to Basic Strategy. According to the Wizard's appendix 18:
https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/appendix/18/
Always: Stand on 16 vs 10 with 3 or more cards.
(While not clarified, it appears this holds true no mater if the dealer hits or stands on a Soft 17.)
When you are standing on a 3 card 16, you are basically hoping for the dealer to bust. You aren't expecting to win, you're just playing the math that's the lesser of 2 evils, if you will.
Suppose you were playing on a table where the Dealer is showing a 10 against 4 positions:
"1st Base": 5-7 Seat 2: 2-4 Seat 3: 8-6 "Third Base": 9-7.
With such a large lack of 10's in play, should car composition be "inferred" by any player? Except for Seat 2, ALL the other players would bust if a 10 was drawn and I wonder how likely that a 10 will be drawn considering there are so few 10s showing? I understand this scenario is rather specific, but in general, if you have any hard total greater than 12, regardless of however many cards make up a player's hand, should you ever look at the cards exposed on the table and let that affect Basic Strategy play?
I've seen hands dealt with a full table and with a Dealer 7, 6 players didn't have one 10 between them. When they started getting hard potential bust totals and BS tells them to hit, that's when all the 10's started to hit and busted almost everyone. I understand the randomness of the cards in a multi deck game lessens the odds of drawing 10s. On a single deck game you really have to expect that the deck is now rich in 10s.
As I understand it, the whole point of "composition hands" and how they effect BS, you stand on a 3 card 16 not to gain any great advantage, but just that mathematically, you are slightly less likely to lose if you stand and "hope" the dealer busts rather than draw, and more likely bust your own hand without giving the dealer a (small) chance to bust their hand. It just seems that if a 3 card composition hand effects BS, then table card composition should have some effect as well, even more so if there are several players/hands.
There is no point in learning composition dependent strategy. It is just as easy to learn strategy deviations. It is easier to learn counting. The exception, I suppose, being you are only interested in a couple common hands like 16 v. 10 and you are playing single deck.
Quote: BizzyBThere is no point in learning composition dependent strategy. It is just as easy to learn strategy deviations. It is easier to learn counting. The exception, I suppose, being you are only interested in a couple common hands like 16 v. 10 and you are playing single deck. You learn some C-D when learning more about couning, can't help it. I can't forget that that 10-2 v. 4 is a hit at a CSM. C-D to me means you play at a CSM and flat bet $5 and think counting is immoral.
