Triple Deck Composition-Dependent Surrender

I noticed that the Wizard's article about composition-dependent surrendering in Blackjack didn't include 3-deck blackjack, which I have seen in California.

I took matters into my own hands and here is what I found.

In 4-deck blackjack, you surrender a 16 against a 9. In 2-deck blackjack you don't.
In 3-deck blackjack, you surrender a [9+7] against a 9 but not a [10+6] against a 9.
This is true for S17 and H17.

Everything else is the same for S17, now let's talk about H17.

Like 4-deck blackjack, you always surrender an 16 against an Ace including [8+8].
Like 2-deck blackjack, you surrender a 15 against an Ace unless it's [8+7].

To be clear, this is talking about Late Surrender. I hope this esoteric information will bring happiness to someone.

As I told you, these are marginal differences. We counters always neglect. We care about substantial differences, such as:

1. Are these triple deck games in existence? If yes, where are they?
2. Is a blackjack hand paid 3:2 or 6:5 there? This is an EV difference of delta=1.5-1.2=0.3.
3. The EV difference between 9,7 vs 9 and 10,6 vs 9 is barely 0.0009, so it’s really negligible to anybody who bets $10.

1. Yes, in the SF Bay Area
2. 3:2
3. Okay but it's not negligible anymore when I bet $100,000/hand which I totally do all the time

A typical blackjack table usually has a table limit of $500 or $1000. If $1000, $1000x0.0009=$0.90.

Quote: aceside

A typical blackjack table usually has a table limit of $500 or $1000. If $1000, $1000x0.0009=$0.90.
link to original post

Many of us enjoy Harris' posts about gaming math. If they don't scratch your itch, that's okay, that's your opinion. But you don't represent the opinion of many of us who fight for every 0.1% on every hand. Even 0.09 percent.

I guess we’re not gonna write a scientific paper out of this. I still hope Harris can consider the pair splitting problems that have been bothering me for some time.

I have a couple things on my plate right now but I am going to make an engine that can solve your problem and others in blackjack and blackjack-like games.

(abbreviated)

Quote: harris

3. Okay but it's not negligible anymore when I bet $100,000/hand which I totally do all the time
link to original post

I'm choosing to believe that is intended as a charming exaggeration, rather than an absurdly improbable claim that will get someone making bizarre calls to cardrooms all afternoon.

The largest bet I’ve ever made is $50 😂
Of course I was joking but there are probably places in Macau where one could drop $100,000 or more on a single hand. Maybe even in Vegas (I’ve heard of $100k baccarat hands)

I wasn’t joking about three deck poker existing in California though

Quote: harris

The largest bet I’ve ever made is $50 😂
Of course I was joking but there are probably places in Macau where one could drop $100,000 or more on a single hand. Maybe even in Vegas (I’ve heard of $100k baccarat hands)

I wasn’t joking about three deck poker existing in California though
link to original post

Thank you.
Some people around here take the number of zeroes in the wager fairly seriously.

Slightly off-topic but today I was interested in whether 3-deck S17 blackjack would have the same strategy as 4-8 deck.

I found that triple deck is more like 4-8 deck an interesting composition-based exceptions.
You should double a 7/2 against a 2 but not a 6/3 or 5/4.

Quote: harris

Slightly off-topic but today I was interested in whether 3-deck S17 blackjack would have the same strategy as 4-8 deck.

I found that triple deck is more like 4-8 deck an interesting composition-based exceptions.
You should double a 7/2 against a 2 but not a 6/3 or 5/4.
link to original post

No just use the count!

Comp dependent plays are a flimsy, special case of counting where you are considering the cards in your hand and disregarding everything else happening or that has happened at the table.

Example- the best known comp dependent play: in single deck, stand on 77 vs. 10.

But what if it's my neighbor who has the 77 and I have 86? Why would one of us play our hand differently than the other? Or if I'm playing heads-up with the dealer, I have 95, and I saw two 7's on the last hand? What's wrong with those 7's, why would I see those any differently?

It turns out, even the simplest counting, that uses as many seen cards as possible, is more powerful than comp dependent plays and likely easier to learn too.

I don't understand why surrendering 7/7 vs 10 is a comp dependent play while splitting 7/7 vs 5 is not considered a comp dependent play...

Anyways you're right but comp dependent plays would be (slightly) useful if you were the only one playing at a table with a shuffling machine. right?

Your math is correct, while some blackjack authors overstretched this problem. If the composition of the remaining deck is different, then the strategy may differs. In another forum, we have intensively discussed the surrender Hi-Lo deviation index for the 7,7 vs 10 hand. You just treat (7, 7) the same way as (10,4) because composition difference is tiny compared to the error of the Hi-Lo true counts.

Quote: harris

I don't understand why surrendering 7/7 vs 10 is a comp dependent play while splitting 7/7 vs 5 is not considered a comp dependent play...

Anyways you're right but comp dependent plays would be (slightly) useful if you were the only one playing at a table with a shuffling machine. right?
link to original post

In the case of a standard split the composition is the play, so it's implied. There is only one composition of a hand where you can split 7's vs. a 5. In a couple of BJ derivatives where you can split any 2 initial cards it's all different.

There are no CSMs where they use 1 deck, or even a small number of decks. Fewest I'm aware of is 5. But what you're describing could be used in some online games, where they are dealing single deck and shuffling after each hand. Games like that used to be good for online bonus hustling, when a 12x playthrough on a table game could secure your bonus. The good old days! I did some work on that and it turns out that aside from 77 vs. 10, the only plays of value were on 16 vs. 10. Basically, if you have seen more 5's than 6's you stand, and if you've seen neither then if you have seen more cards under 5 than 10's you stand. Worth about a pip, but it's not nothing.