the EORs for hands in blackjack

recently, i am keen on learning the playing strategy deviations, there are strange things, i cannot help to write them out.

for decks, the betting strategy is ok, they are in logic, when fewer decks, the house edge becomes smaller, EOR is more effective under the same rules.

for example, if 6 decks, house edge is 0.6%, then 1 deck, it is 0.1. EOR of card 5 in 6 decks is about 0.14%, in 1 deck, it is about 0.86%. so there are 6 times difference.
which explains why single deck/double decks is so coutable.

coming to hands, let's give some examples:
9V3, in six decks, we should double instead hit, the EOR(or goodness) of hit is -1.98% compared to double . now comes to EORs for dealt cards to left cards for this hand: the 10 is 0.37. which means, if 6 of tens is removed, we should double instead of hit.

come to to 4 decks of this hand,
the EOR(or goodness) of hit is -2% compared to double . while Eor of 10 is about 0.56%. 0.56 is 1.5 times of 0.37. just like 6 decks/4 decks=1.5. but the EOR of the hands of 9V3 between 6 decks and 4 decks is almost the same.

another strange thing:
in 8 V6, the Ten's removal is bad for change the strategy from hit into double.
while 9v3, .......
thanks goodness, i found the logic for this kind of changes now. that is goodness of thinking by writing.

to share more, i want to write why some counting systems are not so powerful for playing strategy.
the ready knowledge is A.
there are other cards, for example 3 cards of 16 Vs 10. the card A is not so bad for playing strategy. to be more specific:
the Tens is -0.25, meaning the removal of Tens will make u to hit more. in reality, you are betting very small on negative count, you are very 'brave'.
whille A is 0.11, meaning the removal of As will make u stand more. but the counting system: 10 A, they are all -1.
now coming to card 6.
6 should be 0.39. while
2 0.07
3 0.19
4 0.41
5 0.59
6 -0.40
so card 6 works so different in this hand.
i doubted for the result, but by intuition, 16+6=22, 10+6=16. the card 6 is worse to be given to player. so the result should be right.

there are also other hands, like A7, A8, 2 3 is so important to the player.

for this kind of info, we can do nothing on changes of the strategy deviations. the good thing is that we can understand the playing efficiency is always beyond our capacity and explains why so many counting systems and books on blackjack.

Hey Tom,

Single deck and Double deck aren't necessarily "more countable." They're just easier to count due to true counts. The reason EOR is more important in SD is because it directly affects the TC. In 6D and 8D the TC is diluted, and removing 1 card there clearly does not have the same impact. To get the same impact on a 6D game, you'd need to remove 6 of that card to get the same SD effect.

Situations such as 16v10 are a negative situation whether or not you count an "A" is good for you at that point. The idea of Ace being negative is because the top most advantage we have in the game is the player gets paid 3:2 for his blackjacks, where as the dealer does not. So instead of stressing over a one off situation (which many pro's just simply stand every 16 because the EV is so negligible) we'd rather focus on tracking our advantage and odds of getting a blackjack because again that's one of our biggest advantages in the game. Also, 17 is a loser hand and practically no different from 16 (you still need the dealer to bust to win).

If you actually re-created a count to take in to account "situations" such as 16v10 where an Ace is "good" it would be a TON of work and worth rather close to nothing. So while these situations do occur, they're a rather moot point.

I definitely like that you're thinking outside the box, and attempting to track things using a different approach than others... That's the kind of thinking that will get you places and find advantages others will not find... but don't dig too deep on things that don't change much and/or won't affect your bottom line but by pennies (for a mountain of work) =).

hi, ROMES,

thanks for the reply. it is being appreciated.

for single deck and doubles decks, i think we are just vaule it by different ways.

for 16VS10, if we lose less, it means we win more. it is not pratical to put much attention to that card 6(if 13, it is card 8, 12, 9), but there are chances we can just count the cards on the table when the running counts of prevous hands is 0 or so. on that A, there are differences between betting and playing, no? for playing, A is always working differently in many situations.

for mountains of work, i also think it is not possible to do counting systems for all hands, but only by knowing the contradictions of cards to hands, i can find the motivation to learn the indexes.

thanks for your time again.

No we value it the same. 16v10 is very much like basic strategy surrendering in the sense that it's a defensive play in order to "lose less" as to try to up our EV. It's the same as wonging out at a negative True Count as well. By not losing that amount per negative True Count, we're effectively raising our EV/hour by that amount.

What I'm saying is 16v10 is a crap situation that will result in pennies per hour difference between hitting and standing, which is why many professionals trade the pennies for "cover" in the sense that they ONLY play 16v10 ONE WAY. Always hitting, or always standing... like most ploppies. Some PB's have picked off AP's by watching when they play 16v10 and seeing if they change their strategy (based on the count) because almost all ploppies either hit or stand the hand, but not both. The amount of work to count the aces and decide on hitting/standing 16v10 (when in some cases it's gotten AP's picked off) just doesn't seem worth it for the pennies per hour difference it might make. That's what I was referring to.

Thanks for putting the time, effort, and passion in to thinking outside the box about this situation and bringing it up for discussion though!