An update to the site
  • I've spent the last few weeks with the new versions of CVCX and 678v.2003 to update the the method at the site. For those interested, feel free to print out the new charts. TOSS THE OLD ONES !

    Note: 2 deck H17 has NOT been updated yet. All the S17 pages are finished.

    After the discussion about risk avoidance, I altered the charts published to account for risk. For 6&8 decks S17 there are only 3 changes to Basic, all involving surrender. PM or e-mail me if you'd like a chart.

    good cards,

    N&B
  • Nice job, Nickels - Looks good. I'd like to take a look at 2D, H17 when you get it finished......Grif'
  • What is the site address? :?:
  • Look at the bottom of N and B's post and click on the "www" button.
  • OK, the H17 2-deck is finished, and its a bit different.

    Well Grifter, how does "shared-risk partnership" sound for that "third alternative". I think Ken might like that.

    N&B
  • Very interesting, Nickels......What is the calculated EV of the 2D, H17 just as you have it posted?

    I am still studying the "shared-risk" concept myself, so I don't know what Kenny would think about that, but I bet he'd be impressed with how far you have taken the A-5......Nice work.

    Grif'
  • For the Basic Strategy Player +0.143% +/- .003 Total Player Adv.

    For the A5 player +0.145% +/-.003 Total Player Adv.

    This assumes a mixture of both strategies at the table. I will run a few same strategy sims today. I expect that these runs will be to the detrement of the players, and will lose 10-15% of the posted TOTAL player advantages above.

    NOTE: 678 blackjack CAN NOT properly simulate the strategies, as there is NO hand composition adjustment allowed. Your results using 678 will be different, and more variable.

    N&B

    ps: the same strategy results are done. If both players simulated use the same method, the Total Player Avantage drops to 0.133%, and 0.135% for Basic, and A5 respectively. Not as much as I suspected, but still noticible... about 7% [for EACH player. Both players COMBINED lost 1/7th of their total chips compared to the mixed strategy presented on-site. They won 86% of the chips that the mixed strategy wins] <---updated for clarity <br />Variability increases to +/- .005%.
  • I made a mistake on the "2-deck STAND 17" chart, it will be fixed today, very shortly. Its a "good" mistake as you will win a little more. The hand 66 vs. dealer 7 will be changed from SPL at ZERO to ALWAYS SPL.

    Sorry about that.

    N&B
  • I think you mean "split", Nickels.
  • Yes I do... Thanks Grif... The charts are now corrected on-site.

    N&B
  • After updating the H17 chart for 2 decks, I decided to apply the 3 card 16 rule for the Stand 17 charts. There is a small overall gain to the strategy, and a nice gain for the situation itself.

    The "old" charts indicated a "catch-all" point of Hit/Stand. The "new" ones are correct Basic Strategy inspired, including a "rule of 6" condition.
  • I did some work on the progression page (it badly needed it) and cleaned it up a bit. I 'think' its better. I did forget the 'Play across the shoe' rule and that will be fixed right away.
  • I made some clarifications to the progression, and added a suggested ramp of 4x 5x 6x 8x 10x 12x (repeat 12x). Essentially, you bring 40x, but use a 12x cash-in for each session. You should track your peak bankroll, and risk 12x to that maximum bank. The buy-in of 12x covers a "straight drain" situation.
  • In experimenting with various ramps on paper, I've decided to alter the ramp after the 1x 2x 3x 3x to 4x 6x 9x, then repeat 4x 6x 9x. What this does is allow the player to cover a double down for the "win" scenario, and to risk only 1x for the "Lose 1x". By reducing the bet after the 9x wager wins, the player takes a pile of chips. The number of wins to get to the +24x goal is reduced. Aggressive Ramp Removed...too vunerable to DD losses.
  • The straight press-when-you-win progression has been changed to the first 6 terms in the A5 progression. The old 1-2-3-4-6-9 just doesn't cover DD well enough. Sorry for the delay to this but recently I have been distracted by other projects for Blackjack. I think thats about it for the progressions

    Good cards,
  • Today I published a page I have long awaited. For quite a number of years, I have thought that the A-5 Method could apply itself to a progression. After recently putting in some ramps based upon variance and Win % on the Progression pages, I decided to investigate the simulation and real-play of taking the progressions from a 1-dimensional method to a 2-dimensional method. The result is a hybrid progression.

    As long as the A5 count indicates a particular level, thats the one used. When the score varies (and it does) one also jumps to another level.

    For those interested, click on the www box beneath this post, and click on the hybrid progression box.

    Good Cards,
  • The hybrid has been made easier on the wallet with very little change House Advantage. Its only 3 terms per level and spreads a more reasonable 1 to 5. This has been added as a SECOND page to the write-up.

    It uses the "unique bets" as on the first page. I got nearly the same effect, by allowing the top bet to repeat, but varying according to A5 score.

    Much much better than new !
  • Nickels - Interesting, and it has to be easier on the wallet than the 1-10. Have you tested any double deck with it?......Grifter
  • The published run is 6D S17 DOA DAS LS. Should be OK for 2 H17 DOA DAS LS. No LS puts it deeper in the red, as does playing H17 6D. But it will ease the pain.

    Final answer on published run is -0.006%. Consider it even.

    Uh oh Avatar reload.
  • How would you relate the A-5 count system to True Count values?
    I use the KISS II system and can relate the KISS to TC. But have not looked at the A-5 values vs TC or KISS
    Enjoyed your web site...... :wink:
  • It doesn't really relate to TC counting (ie: hi-lo) due to the insufficient # of ranks being counted. Especially since 10's are NOT involved/ considered. Tried many times to TC the A5 method, but the gains are very small, you have to double the RC and estimate a 1/2 deck, blah, blah, blah. Useless. Works the best as a RC.

    Zen, on the other hand is IMHO the best all-around 21 method. But its level 2. And it weakens the value of an Ace, which I've discovered separately, and independently, is a good move. PM me if you'd like more.
  • As most of you have seen by clicking the WWW button beneath my posts, the site details the A5 method. Recently an idea came to mind about it, and its rather large spread of 1-8 just to be a little profitable.

    Considering the advent of table-bots, and other House Advantage Protection measures installed, the large spread of the initial method is getting quite dangerous for the casual player.

    A decision was made to explore the avenue of the "Alternate Method" that has been on-site for quite a while. Player needs only a 1 to 4 spread to be effective. Then, the 6-deck shoe was evaluated at mid shoe of 3 decks. The results indicate several tweaks should be made as a separate chart... and they are.

    Today after some 1Billion round sims, the Alternate Method has been published, with a write-up. The 1st 3 decks play as the normal A5 method as far as play strategy is concerned. But when 1/2 the shoe is gone the Play Strategy is adjusted, along with the "Add 1 to the Score" rule from the original "Alternate Method".

    The results are that a player can have a 0.19% Initial Bet Advantage just betting 1-4 WITHOUT jumping from 1 to 4 directly. This is due to the "Two-Layered" Strategy. The quit-points are -6 full shoe and -4 in the last half. This will keep sessions short, and you would play 62/100 hands compared to Basic.

    You will find this Alternate method as a link FROM the STAND SOFT 17 Page.

    Good Cards!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!