Why is LS worth less in fewer # decks?

Why is Late Surrender worth less for the counter in a double deck game vs six deck? Is it the assumed larger spread required to beat the six deck game? Is there anything else? Am I missing sonething? Thanks.

Because blackjack occurs slightly more often in double deck games, thus giving you less opportunity to surrender.

Quote: BJ4Profit

Because blackjack occurs slightly more often in double deck games, thus giving you less opportunity to surrender.

That doesn't sound right...

LS is a lot more valuable to a counter then to a BS player.

Ibeatyouraces. I understand that LS is a lot more valuable to the counter than to a BS player. My question is for the COUNTER, why is LS less valuable in a 2 deck game than for a 6 deck game. Lets say in a hypothetical world without heat, I spread 1-12 on double deck and the same 1-12 on 6 deck shoe, would LS be less valuable for the 2 deck game based on the commonly heard premise that "LS becomes less valuable as the number of decks decrease." My question is why? Is it only true when we are comparing apples with oranges in the case of the commonly assumed different spreads between the two games.

Quote: Wino

Ibeatyouraces. I understand that LS is a lot more valuable to the counter than to a BS player. My question is for the COUNTER, why is LS less valuable in a 2 deck game than for a 6 deck game. Lets say in a hypothetical world without heat, I spread 1-12 on double deck and the same 1-12 on 6 deck shoe, would LS be less valuable for the 2 deck game based on the commonly heard premise that "LS becomes less valuable as the number of decks decrease." My question is why? Is it only true when we are comparing apples with oranges in the case of the commonly assumed different spreads between the two games.

Ok, we know I'm no expert, but I'll bite anyway.

LS would be more valuable in 6 deck than 2 deck because of penetration and the opportunity for the index to override the LS in certain cases. If the count is -something, meaning more little cards available, the -EV of hitting a hand you might otherwise surrender has got to be rising proportionately, so it's one case where playing a - count can result in a slightly better game for you by NOT surrendering some hands, but when the deck's +EV, you're surrendering everything in sight to save your higher dollar bets (half, anyway).

Penetration on DD is, what, 1.5 decks at best, so maybe you have a couple hands to apply the index for the strategy change once the - TC is apparent. Penetration on 6 deck is 4-5 decks, so you might have a dozen hands where that applies, and the worse the -TC gets, the more opportunities for LS (or not) will show up. It doesn't happen in isolation (even though the stat is isolated out for your evaluation), so you're still stuck on a -EV game, but it is a decision you can make to mitigate some of the expected value loss as opposed to Wonging out if you need to stay in the shoe for cover or whatever reason. I don't know what the index would be to change your strategy, though, maybe -3 or worse?