In the thread "Bet or Cards", Reachy has been discussing Tournament Basic Strategy. That thread is getting quite tangled, so I want to separate out some of the discussion topics. First, I agree with toolman that using the phrase "Basic Strategy" in the description of these ideas is going to cause confusion. I propose "TSS: Tournament Situational Strategies". I'm pretty sure this idea is exactly what Reachy is working on. There are a handful of tournament situations that arise over and over. Depending on the size of your lead or deficit, here are some of the strategy sets that are important. 1) Prevent full swing against opponent. (Play to minimize L/W outcome) 2) Create full swing against opponent. (Play to maximize W/L) 3) Push or win is OK. (Play to minimize L). 4) Push is no good. (Play to maximize W). 5) Prevent half swing. (Play to minimize L/W and P/W outcomes) 6) Create half swing. (Play to maximize W/L, W/P, P/L outcomes.) The 4 & 5 strategies are what you've been discussing most lately, and I would think they've been published here at BJT somewhere, but I can't remember for sure. I did publish just such a strategy in Blackjack Confidential magazine long ago. I'll post them here tomorrow. The 1 & 2 strategies are the subject of my most recently submitted All-In Magazine article. We're still one issue away from its publication, so it won't be the next issue, but the one after.
TSS - brilliant I like it Ken, I like it a lot. TSS is a brilliant suggestion. Although I will not be involved in any of the "strategies", the name removes it from the "basic strategy" concept that I objected to. Bravo, Ken, Bravo.
Words of Wisdom Wow Ken three things come to mind: 1. That thread did get off kilter didn't it? 2. You actually read all the posts from Reachy and me! :joker: It's a wonder you have any hairs left! 3. Great idea with TSS - helps eliminate confusion and sounds great! No wonder You're The King!
I like it! I was anticipating Ken's input with a slight sense of trepidation as I feared he would tell me that I was talking out of my elbow and should therefore drop what I was doing. Thankfully he didn't. I have been looking for "guidance", if you like, since a lot of what I have been looking at has come to nothing. I realised that I needed to define a fairly narrow set of situations that were similar enough to allow a general set of rules to govern the actions that a player takes in them. That is/was my current stumbling block. As for the name, I like TSS. As I said it doesn't really matter what it's called, that's a question of semantics. I appreciate that it may be confusing to include the phrase "basic strategy" and have no objection at all to it being dropped. And to anybody who uses Curt's Revenge of any strength or Ken's/Wong's Win Both Ways table, be aware that you are already using a TSS, whether you like it or not! Toolman1 - I know you're not going to respond since you said you wouldn't () but can I pose a couple of questions to you? When you say that you won't be involved in any of the "strategies" in relation to TSS what do you mean? Do you mean that you won't use any of the strategies that Ken proposes in his next article in All In magazine regardless of how easy they are to apply at the table or how much additional edge you can get? Do you use Curt's Revenge? Do you use the Win Both Ways table? Cheers Reachy PS. I know that this is a minor technical point in the TSS discussion but I was hitting 12's all the time last night, and 13's vs 2&3! The other upside of this strategy is that players who religiously stick to BS think you don't have a clue and when other players underestimate you...
Questions, Questions, and more Questions The quick answers are yes, no research, no, of course, yes. Now, in order to clarify my answers, I'll go into detail. can I pose a couple of questions to you?" Yes, you may. When you say that you won't be involved in any of the "strategies" in relation to TSS what do you mean? " I only meant that I won't be doing any of the research and/or math needed to develop the type of strategies you are working on - it's your project and you will rise or fall on your own. I only meant this comment as a clarification, when I thanked Ken for the name suggestion, that I was only interested in keeping the integrity of the term "basic strategy" in tact. Do you mean that you won't use any of the strategies that Ken proposes in his next article in All In magazine regardless of how easy they are to apply at the table or how much additional edge you can get?" No. I always read and try to apply Ken's strategies. Hey, he's KING KEN isn't he. His information is always rock solid and right on the money. Any tournament player would be a fool to ignore what he says. Do you use Curt's Revenge?" Of course! Nothing else need to be said. Do you use the Win Both Ways table?" Yes. But I have to admit it's a bit much for me to memorize. I'll use it as much as I can recall the most important parts. Personally, I have found it of limited use in the situations I have encountered. Maybe if I did commit the whole table to memory I would use it more. But I'll just have to muddle along. Now that the questions and answers are over, I have a comment or two. You took the phrase I used "I wouldn't respond" from a different thread and tried to apply it to this thread. Not a good practice. In the other thread you were constantly misinterpreting and twisting my words to the point that I just gave up. Not trying to argue now and please don't comment on this paragraph. The issue is over. I only made this point because you made the comment and I don't want others on the site to think I am being uncooperative. Now we can drop it and please - no PM. OK? (don't answer that ) So, just so things are perfectly clear. Anyone on the site can ask me a question at any time. If you feel my limited knowledge and experience can be of use then ask away. I'll do my best to answer. OK. I'm getting off the soap box now. Now Reachy, get to work on the TSS. I want results and I want them now!
T.t.t.s. I am a neophyte. Ken and others that are working on this sort of thing have studied mathematics to a far higher level than I and have the requisite programming skills that I don't. They also possess a vast amount of TBJ expereince and proven ability. With all that in mind do not expect anything of value to emerge from Reachy's Tournament Blackjack Laboratory. In fact you'd probably better stand clear since it's likely to explode or at least release a poisonous gas. Both of the threads on the topic of TTS/TBS/BTS/RSI/DUI have been immensely useful to me. I'm personaly looking forward to Ken's response to RKuczeks post on probability drift in the other thread. I also have a fat book on probability sitting on my bookshelf, just looking at me, reminding me that I haven't read it yet and that I really should. Having just finished one of the books I have on the go I shall dive in tonight, it'll be my "ablutions" read. And, as if it doesn't need restating, KEN, FINISH WRITING YOUR BOOK AND PUBLISH IT! You will make a killing, I'll buy 23. Cheers Reachy
Just remember that's what they said about the Muppet Lab too! To this day one of the most profitable syndicated shows on cable! PS. I smelled something Reachy and it wasn't poisonous gas - but it was obnoxious - crumpet by-product maybe! :joker:
Must-Win Strategy From my article in early 1998 in Blackjack Confidential, here are the details of the "Must-Win" strategy, where a push is as bad as a loss. Code: 2-deck game: Dealer S17 H17 ----------------------------- Ace h18s19 h16s19 2 h12s18 h12s18 3 h12s18 h12s18 4 h12s18 h12s18 5 h12s18 h12s18 6 h12s18 h12s19 7 h17s18 h17s18 8 h17s19 h17s19 9 h16s19 h16s19 Ten h15s19 h15s19 ================================================== 1-deck S17 H17 --------------------------- Ace h17s19 7 h18s18 h18s18 6-deck S17 H17 --------------------------- 4 h12s19 5 h12s19 6 h12s18 The S17 column in most cases mirrors a normal basic strategy. Against a dealer’s 4 through 7, there is no change from normal playing strategy. We can summarize the changes in the 2-deck S17 games as follows: Play basic strategy, except hit hard 17 against Ace, hit soft 18 against 8 or Ace, stand with 12 against 2 or 3, stand with 16 against 9 or 10, and stand with 15 against 10. [FONT="] [/FONT] Comparing the H17 game to the S17 results, we find only two differences: To the previous strategy, add the following: Stand with 16 or 17 vs Ace, and hit soft 18 against a dealer 6. The single-deck and six-deck charts only show differences from the two-deck chart.
When a push is as good as a win Same idea, but now a push is just as good as a win: Code: 2-deck game: Dealer S17 H17 ----------------------------- Ace h17s18 h17s18 2 h14s18 h14s18 3 h14s18 h13s18 4 h13s18 h13s18 5 h13s18 h13s18 6 h13s18 h12s18 7 h17s17 h17s17 8 h17s18 h17s18 9 h17s19 h17s19 Ten h17s19 h17s19 ================================================== 1-deck game: Dealer S17 H17 -------------------------------- 3 h13s18 5 h12s18 6-deck game: Dealer S17 H17 -------------------------------- 3 h14s18 Like before, only differences from the 2D game are shown in the 1D and 6D lists.
Quick ? Ken, I am trying to read the above charts. One question: In a single deck game that I "Must-Win", why would I hit a hard 18 against a dearler 7? Stretch
v. interesting! I think there is a little confusion with the table. Stretch; H18 means hit to 18 or more, it doesn't mean hit 18. Ken, I realised a while back that I'd duplicated some of your work. I didn't notice straight away because we present it differently. For example the attachment is my version of your "Push is as good as a win" (6Deck H17). The yellow boxes show the differences from BS. I first realised I was duplicating your work, and in a sense thought I must be on the right track, when I examined the scenario of BR1 vs BR2 where BR1 can surrender back to beat a push from BR2. I came up with a chart very similar to the one below (more complicated) then realised is was practicaly the same as your update of Wongs with the addition of surrender. It also came up with different ways of dealing with dealer ace. If you are interested I will post it here. Cheers Reachy
Ah, I misread Stretch's question and thought he was asking why to hit 17, not about hitting 18, which he shouldn't. Thanks for seeing that, and clearing up the confusion Reachy. As noted, the totals in my table are hit-to numbers. As for the surrender-back-to-beat-the-push table, I don't think I've worked any of those out for myself, instead playing them by feel. Feel free to post if you would like to share your work.
