Open Board

[ Read Responses | Return to Index | Return HOME ]
[ Previous | Previous in Thread | Next in Thread | Next ]


Re: My final take on this controversy.

 Posted by Zenfighter on 11 February 2005, at 12:46 p.m., in response to Response to Zenfighter's analysis, posted by Arnold Snyder on 9 February 2005, at 4:01 p.m.
REMOTE_HOST: ; REMOTE_ADDR: 80.58.2.42

Password:

 

 

1) C-D BS First card expectations for 6dks and AC rules.

 
 

2 = -13.1286%

 
3 = -15.2188%
 
4 = -17.5455%
 
5 = -19.6566%
 
6 = -20.7619%
 
7 = -17.9363%
 
8 = -8.3063%
 
9 = -0.8658%
 
T = 14.3441%
 
A = 50.7904%
 
 

A ^ A = 12.4089%

 
2 ^ A = -45.1230%
 
3 ^ A = -46.8196%
 
4 ^ A = -48.5898%
 
5 ^ A = -50.4795%
 
6 ^ A = -52.1001%
 
7 ^ A = -52.4371%
 
8 ^ A = -43.7309%
 
9 ^ A = -35.4166%
 
T ^ A = -19.9805%
 
 
 
 
 
Exact cost for the 80% of the hands where neither the player nor the dealer gets a first card ace.
 

(Note here, that for the T and 9 the expectation improves, while for the other ones it improves too. I mean to say that the player suffers less negative expectancy when the ace is wiped out of the average expectation. Anyhow, the EV is depressive).

 

 

T 17.20 .266666 4.586655

 
9 2.01 .066666 0.133999
 
8 -5.36 .066666 -0.357330
 
7 -15.07 .066666 -1.004657
 
6 -18.15 .066666 -1.209988
 
5 -17.09 .066666 -1.139322
 
4 -14.96 .066666 -0.997323
 
3 -12.59 .066666 -0.839325
 
2 -10.46 .066666 -0.697326
 
 

Total .800000 -1.524617

 
 
 
 

1) Player = 10 aces, dealer = 10 aces

 

E(X) = 0.10 * 50.79 + 0.10 * (-34.17%) + (-1.5246%) = 0.1374%

 

E(X) = + 0.14%

 

Obviously AC rules are better than a – 0.50% off the top, thus for such a game the penalty will reduce the expectation even more. EV = + 0.05%.

 

2) Player = 11 aces, dealer = 9 aces

 

E(X) = 0.11 * 50.79% + 0.09 * (-34.17%) + (-1.5246%) = 0.987%

 

E(X) = 0.99%

 

3) Player = 12 aces, dealer = 8 aces

 

E(X) = 0.12 * 50.79% + 0.08 * (-34.17%) + (-1.5246%) = 1.8366%

 

E(X) = 1.84%

 

4) Player = 13 aces, dealer = 7 aces

 

E(X) = 0.13 * 50.79% + 0.07 * (-34.17%) + (-1.5246%) = 2.6862%

 

E(X) = 2.69%

 
 

McDowell’s techniques seem to work best under ENHC rules, where back betting is a distinct possibility, and crowded and/or semi-crowded playing conditions are the norm. Obviously the head-on play, while playing a single hand against the dealer should be avoided like the plague. I’d add also that waiting the appearance of predictive aces, while sitting at the table and paying “the rent”, strikes to me an utmost craziness. What about card counting meanwhile with a generous 1 to 16 spread? The final result will be that your top card counting’s bet and the other one could both be “smoothed” somehow.

 

Sincerely

 

Zenfighter

 


Responses


Password:


The Open Board is maintained with WebBBS 2.24.092606.