Quote: gordonm888Let me make it clear that I am not criticizing Mike Shackleford - he did not do these calculations and this is not his dumpster fire.
Thanks, but I'll take some heat for this. I made some transcription errors from the BMM report, but I think that may be in error too. Let me at least post my own infinite-deck strategies. Stay tuned.
THANK YOU.



Here are my values:
Player | EV Stand |
16 | -0.327764 |
17 | -0.146722 |
18 | 0.160033 |
19 | 0.394391 |
20 | 0.608178 |
21 | 0.813650 |
Color met flattered bobbartop =)... to be honest I was investigating this privately with another member for our own personal greedy reasons =). Was kinda hoping this thread just died at the time lol.Quote: bobbartop...I'll be offline for a couple days, I am looking forward to your findings and taking the knowledge up to Table Mountain.
Where is Romes in this thread? He's got a good brain, he should like this stuff.
Did Gordon say "double hard 8 v. Ten"?
Quote: Wizard...
Player EV Stand 16 -0.327764 17 -0.146722 18 0.160033 19 0.394391 20 0.608178 21 0.813650
I've only had a quick look and agree your 16 and 17 figure. It looks as if I have an error with my higher values (also I'm ignoring some 20s winning vs 22s at this stage) and get the following...
0.899671098
0.608178243
0.394390647
0.160033043
-0.146722236
-0.327764348
Quote: WizardGordon, we have differences all over the place. May I ask for your EV numbers for a player 16 to 21 standing against a dealer 2 with a small hole card?
Here are my values:
Player EV Stand 16 -0.327764 17 -0.146722 18 0.160033 19 0.394391 20 0.608178 21 0.813650
I appreciate the opportunity to compare.
My dealer probabilities for 17-22 are not infinite deck. They are based on 6 decks such that a dealer hand with multiple cards of the same rank has a lower probability than with an infinite deck. This may lead to small differences between our numbers. My numbers are:
Player | EV-Stand |
16 | -0.3260876 |
17 | -0.145049 |
18 | 0.161052 |
19 | 0.394613 |
20 (not TT) | 0.6078688 |
20 -TT | 0.694298 |
21 | 0.8995276 |
The big difference appears to be in player 21. I wonder if you may have overlooked the rule that dealer 22 loses (not pushes) against player 21 and 20 (TT).
Also, you appear to have posted the same strategy for Small and Medium Hole Cards?
Quote: RomesColor met flattered bobbartop =)... to be honest I was investigating this privately with another member for our own personal greedy reasons =). Was kinda hoping this thread just died at the time lol.
That's funny, I did actually think to myself, "Gee, I hope I'm not messing up anyone's opportunity to beat the crowd on this". Sorry about that.
Correcting that, I now agree that when dealer has a Small Hole Card that player should HIT "3-3 vs 2" and "3-3 vs 3." I had previously recommended that player should split those hands.
However, correcting that error doesn't seem to flip any of the other decisions in my strategy charts.
First, yes, I didn't count that a 21 wins against a 22 in my Small Card strategy nor that table of EV's. In my defense, it looks like I did do it correctly for the other two strategies.
Second, I had a titling error, which caused the Small Card strategy to be given the file name for both the Small and Medium card strategies. Stupid.
For what little it is worth, I think I stand by my previous High Card strategy.
Let me make my due corrections. First those expected values for standing against a 2 and Small Card in the hole.
Player | EV stand |
16 | -0.327764 |
17 | -0.146722 |
18 | 0.160033 |
19 | 0.394391 |
20* | 0.608178 |
10,10 | 0.694199 |
21 | 0.899671 |
* Any 20 other than two tens.
Here are my new basic strategies. You may need to close and reopen your browsers to clear the old ones from the cache because I overwrote the previous strategies.


