ES, ENHC, A's
January 21st, 2011 at 12:57:39 AM
permalink
Any input on playing ESA? If one SURRENDERS, no Insurance is available on this game. Still it is advisable to ALWAYS SURR accordingly, correct ? Realizing that the most profitable decision in a BJ game is the INSUR wager.
Any input/advice on playing ENHC? I am using the same indices in a S17, ENHC game for hitting 16-13 vs. A as I use for a Regular HC, S17 game - correct ? In this ENHC game, the dealer takes all; hence, no splitting 88 vs. A,10; no splitting AA vs. A; no doubling 10 vs. A,10; no doubling 11 vs. A; and change indices for doubling 11 vs. 10 [to +5 from -3], and for splitting AA vs. 10 to [to -8 from -11]. Any other notable adjustments required for ENHC games?
Any input on "ACE side count + making adjustment for Insurance decisions" ? A greater adjustment required IF Aces are counted in running count ? I've always side-counted Aces; they are neutral in my count for playing decisions, but they weigh heavily for betting parameters. Also, with a shortage of Aces remaining, I take Insurance earlier{but I have NO defined indices} ? Revere does have mention of it in his BJ Business, but the few indices provided therein are for Revere's 2-level count that incorporates an A count in the running count{I do NOT incorporate a count for A's in RC}. I'm inclined to continue with my advanced count since the A side count also allows for a much improved grasp on upcoming BJ probabilites, along with fine-tuned timing for Doubling or NOT on 10 + 11.
Any input/advice on playing ENHC? I am using the same indices in a S17, ENHC game for hitting 16-13 vs. A as I use for a Regular HC, S17 game - correct ? In this ENHC game, the dealer takes all; hence, no splitting 88 vs. A,10; no splitting AA vs. A; no doubling 10 vs. A,10; no doubling 11 vs. A; and change indices for doubling 11 vs. 10 [to +5 from -3], and for splitting AA vs. 10 to [to -8 from -11]. Any other notable adjustments required for ENHC games?
Any input on "ACE side count + making adjustment for Insurance decisions" ? A greater adjustment required IF Aces are counted in running count ? I've always side-counted Aces; they are neutral in my count for playing decisions, but they weigh heavily for betting parameters. Also, with a shortage of Aces remaining, I take Insurance earlier{but I have NO defined indices} ? Revere does have mention of it in his BJ Business, but the few indices provided therein are for Revere's 2-level count that incorporates an A count in the running count{I do NOT incorporate a count for A's in RC}. I'm inclined to continue with my advanced count since the A side count also allows for a much improved grasp on upcoming BJ probabilites, along with fine-tuned timing for Doubling or NOT on 10 + 11.
January 21st, 2011 at 6:57:04 AM
permalink
If you make a post that is heavy in jargon, only those versed in the jargon will be able to respond. I'm probably not the guy with these answers anyway, but I can't follow all that much of this.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
January 21st, 2011 at 8:09:53 AM
permalink
Well, the question is pretty specialist.
No hole card doesn't change most of the game, except for play against 10 and A. There a lot is different even in BS, so all standard CDE and count exceptions go out the window.
Most of the counting gain comes from betting variance, insurance and strategy changes only add slightly. I presume there is no question at all about forgoing BS surrenders like 16v10 for the sake of making an insurance bet, and this only refers to choosing between insurance or 15vA surrender.
Insurance only barely begins to break even above TC+3. The risk of busting 15vA at the point of insurance breaking even, however, goes up a full 4% and the probability of dealer bust barely changes. Given that, insurance is not worth it.
At exceptionally high TC (10), the probability of dealer busting doesn't go up further, while player bust skyrockets to 80% range with just a few percent for beating the dealer, suggesting standing. With dealer blackjack at 41% and bust at 11.7%, insurance gives 88.3% loss of the main bet and 41% win on insurance, a EV -0.65 move, while surrender is a -0.5 value, making it by far a better option.
Interpolating, this means you should always follow the surrender index over the insurance index.
No hole card doesn't change most of the game, except for play against 10 and A. There a lot is different even in BS, so all standard CDE and count exceptions go out the window.
Most of the counting gain comes from betting variance, insurance and strategy changes only add slightly. I presume there is no question at all about forgoing BS surrenders like 16v10 for the sake of making an insurance bet, and this only refers to choosing between insurance or 15vA surrender.
Insurance only barely begins to break even above TC+3. The risk of busting 15vA at the point of insurance breaking even, however, goes up a full 4% and the probability of dealer bust barely changes. Given that, insurance is not worth it.
At exceptionally high TC (10), the probability of dealer busting doesn't go up further, while player bust skyrockets to 80% range with just a few percent for beating the dealer, suggesting standing. With dealer blackjack at 41% and bust at 11.7%, insurance gives 88.3% loss of the main bet and 41% win on insurance, a EV -0.65 move, while surrender is a -0.5 value, making it by far a better option.
Interpolating, this means you should always follow the surrender index over the insurance index.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
