TMT : Table Minimum Tactics...
-
I always use these 8 Playing "Tactics" when Betting the Table Minimum :
DOUBLE 8 vs. 6
DOUBLE 9 vs. 2
DOUBLE 9 vs. 7
HIT 12 vs. 4
HIT 12 vs. 5
HIT 13 vs. 2
HIT 13 vs. 3
SPLIT 10/10 vs. 6
All 8 of these are listed on page 213 of Don Schlesinger's Excellent Book
"Blackjack Attack : Playing the Pros' Way"(3rd Edition/2005)...
For me,
all 8 of them have consistently proven to be very Advantageous and Effective,
no matter what the Count is...
Anyone else here experience this? -
I have not read the book, but my question is, if these tactics are so effective, why use them only with table minimum? Why not use them all the time?
-
Hi PJ...I personally DO use 5 of them ALL the time,
but NOT these 3 all the time :
DOUBLE 8 vs. 6
DOUBLE 9 vs. 7
SPLIT 10/10 vs. 6 -
Surfteq said:I always use these 8 Playing "Tactics" when Betting the Table Minimum :
DOUBLE 8 vs. 6
DOUBLE 9 vs. 2
DOUBLE 9 vs. 7
HIT 12 vs. 4
HIT 12 vs. 5
HIT 13 vs. 2
HIT 13 vs. 3
SPLIT 10/10 vs. 6
All 8 of these are listed on page 213 of Don Schlesinger's Excellent Book
"Blackjack Attack : Playing the Pros' Way"(3rd Edition/2005)...
For me,
all 8 of them have consistently proven to be very Advantageous and Effective,
no matter what the Count is...
Anyone else here experience this?
HITTING 12 vs. 5 is a pretty bold move, I'll bet that raises some eyebrows, huh?
Mike -
The list on page 213 of the Blackjack Attack Book also includes :
DOUBLE 8 vs. 5
HIT 12 vs. 6
SPLIT 10/10 vs. 5 -
Surfteq said:The list on page 213 of the Blackjack Attack Book also includes :
DOUBLE 8 vs. 5
HIT 12 vs. 6
SPLIT 10/10 vs. 5
I don't for a second doubt the validity of this strategy, but, where I play those moves would get me shot, I think, or at least beaten severely with chopsticks, about the head and face :/ (Or are we talking about tournament play?)
Mike -
For the doubles, you are a small favorite (9 vs 2, 9 vs7, 8 vs 6), but you
win more by hitting. 12 vs 5 is a bad play..7:5 underdog, 13 vs 2...9:5
dog. It's ok to make these plays from time to time just to let folks know
that you don't know what your doing. Like double for less on a hard 12. -
Sounds like I'm glad I never picked up that book. You should play BJ however you want if you're just trying to have fun. If you're trying to use math to win, though, find another blackjack book.
-
Hey, Funky Chicken...
Blackjack Attack/Playing The Pro's Way by Don Schlesinger is THE Blackjack MATH Book/Card Counter's "Bible" Par Excellence!!!...
well over 500 pages...and well worth far more than the $20.00 price...
Anyone who is even the least "bit" SERIOUS about Blackjack should get that Book ASAP!!!...
The following plays are part of his excellent "Illustrious 18" Basic Strategy variations...
DOUBLE 9 vs. 2
DOUBLE 9 vs. 7
DOUBLE 10 vs. 10
HIT 12 vs. 4
HIT 12 vs. 5
HIT 12 vs. 6
HIT 13 vs. 2
HIT 13 vs. 3
He adds DOUBLE 8 vs. 6 to the list on page 213.
I use ALL of the variations above, no matter what the COUNT is...
All I can say, is that they have made a very Powerful difference in my Blackjack Profits. -
Interesting quote from the late Lawrence Revere in his book
"Playing Blackjack As A Business"(1977 Edition),
"I did not, for many years, think that anyone could beat a Blacjack game.
Then I began to notice certain winners.
They were not counters,
but I saw as I studied their actions that they played in a different way.
The primary difference was that those who hit the most had the greatest success"(page 43). -
Sorry -- you're not going to convince me unless you can explain why thousands of mathmaticians all agree those are incorrect plays. From wizardofodds.com:
DOUBLE 9 vs. 2 : +0.061 instead of +0.074, you lose 0.13 by not hitting
DOUBLE 9 vs. 7: +0.10 instead of +0.17, you lose 0.07 by not hitting
DOUBLE 10 vs. 10: -0.01 instead of +0.03, you lose 0.04 by not hitting
HIT 12 vs. 4: -0.213 instead of -0.211 -- extremely close call
HIT 12 vs. 5: -0.19 instead of -0.17, you lose 0.02 by not standing
HIT 12 vs. 6 : -0.17 instead of -0.15, you lose 0.02 by not standing
HIT 13 vs. 2 : -0.31 instead of -0.29, you lose 0.02 by not standing
HIT 13 vs. 3 : -0.29 instead of -0.25, you lose 0.04 by not standing
The doubles -- especially the 2 and 7, are just bad plays. The hits are less questionable, but if you are playing strictly the mathmatics, the play is obvious. Does the book you are referring to even have an odds table? Don't believe everything you read.
Like I said, though, if you want to just have fun, play anyway you like. My grandfather plays by the "you should count on every card being a 10" method and disagrees with a lot of my plays. He has the time of his life, though, which is worth more than any bit of money he would win over the long haul. -
FC...The Book lists those plays according to the Count...
I play them ALL the time BECAUSE THEY WORK,
NOT because of the MATH. -
I agree with Surfteq. Im not a card counter. But some of these techniques made a difference in my profits.
The math may be against a play, but it still does work most of the time. Sometimes i stand 10 vs 6.
I still think double 9 vs 7 is slightly dangerous -
Those may seem like they work a lot of the time because they are close plays. However, if that was the best mathematical way to play them, they would be that way in Basic Strategy, which they are not. Therefore, I think they are wrong plays even if they seem to win money sometimes.
-
I have a friend who always doubles a 10 against a dealer's Ace. I tell him its not a great play, but he continues to do it anyway and continues to win money. Chance is a strange creature.
-
Mostly for FunkyChicken to reply:
I agree to keep with the mathematics/simulations for basic strategy.
I just wanted to make sure that the odds/percentages you give for the doubles assume you are betting twice the amount as usual. Since both bets have positive outcomes betting twice as much on a slightly higher risk may end up being the better move.
What does your book say about splitting 2,2 and 3,3 vs dealers 2 or 3 or 6,6 vs a 2? Is there much difference? -
The odds is less important than the variance when you are talking about 2x the money. Big bets with big variance on the hand means big bankroll swings. Hence the "risk averse" indices some use, which factors this issue in. Anyone would probably be willing to lower their EV by 10%, if they could reduce the variance by 50%. RA indices are not that good of course, but that illustrates the point. Doubling 11 vs 6 is a good play with low variance. Doubling 9 vs 2 is not as good and has way more variance.
If you have experienced some of the huge negative swings, you will understand. Until then, probably not... -
Rat brings up a good point about variance. Rat, do you know of an online site that posts such basic strategy tables to account for variance (i.e. risk averse tables?).
BSforBJ, I wasn't getting that from a book, but from www.wizardofodds.com. Its a great site. Under appendix 1 under Blackjack, you can look up the expected return for any decision on any play. It accounts for the fact that you are doubling your bet -- although from looking at the tables, I don't think it accounts for the double size of your bet when splitting (as you are technically then playing two single-bet hands).
If you are dealt a 2,2 against a 2, the expected return is:
Split: -0.08
Hit: -0.11
If you are dealt a 2,2 against a 3, the expected return is:
Split: -0.02
Hit: -0.08
However, remember what Rat said about variance. In each case, if you were just considering one hand, you would be losing less in that hand by splitting. However, you still have losing hands. Therefore, you wouldn't want to double your money on those losing hands unless by doubling you are losing less than by just hitting (i.e. If I told you, you were going to lose $1 on on one hand if you hit, but $0.75 on each of two hands if you split, you wouldn't want to split -- you are technically losing less on each hand, but combined, you lose more; it would only be worth it if you lost under $0.50 by splitting).
The strategy card on that website says to split if you can double after split, but otherwise hit. That goes for 3,3, versus 2 and 3 as well.
The book I have used makes it a bit simpler. It says split 2's and 3's against 3-7 (and not against 2's). This simplification shaves away a bit of your edge, but its simplicity makes up for the complication in my opinion.
6,6 versus 2 on wizardofodds says split if you can double after split, otherwise hit. Again, the book I have used has you just hitting against 3-6. -
I don't have any chart pointers, no. The idea is that for a single play, you'd like to have the simulator software break it down by true count, so that you would get the EV for any specific true count, along with the standard deviation at that true count.
Personally I play hi-lo "by the book". I started with the I18 + fab 4 (surrender indices) and added some here and there over time, particularly those for doubling, since with a big bet and a high count, you really want to know the correct EV-maximizing play... -
Chicken... two points for your friend that DD 10 against a dealer Ace.
1.) For hit soft 17 a stand is a 3% winner, a double is a 3% loser.
2.) For Stand soft 17 a stand is an 8% winner, a double is a 1/2% loser.
Its not only a "bad" bet, but turns a winner into a loser.
He WOULD do better splitting 9's against a dealer Ace...
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!