From: hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall)
Subject: Re: Double Exposure and Ace-Side Count
Keywords: Double Exposure,Ace-Side Count
Organization: NASA/ARC Information Sciences Division
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:11:18 GMT

In article <87013@netnews.upenn.edu> casale@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Michael Casale) writes:
>Hi there,
>	I've just recently stumbled onto this group and its incredible
>amount of gambling information.  It's been really helpful and the FAQ is
>great.  However I have a few questions.
>
>First, Tropworld is offering Double Exposure blackjack (as you probably know)
>where the hole card is shown.  However dealer wins ties.  I imagine with
>this kind of rule change, the casino is still coming out ahead so regular
>basic strategy can't be used.  What would be the proper strategy to use and
>what would be a good counting system?

Proper double exposure playing strategy can be found in Wong's _Professional
Blackjack_.  See also 21 NEWS, issue #2, available via anonymous ftp to
soda.berkeley.edu in the file v1n2.ps.Z. Just about any blackjack counting
system will do, but you want one that includes aces in the main count (e.g.,
high-low) if blackjacks pay 3 to 2 and one that does not include aces in the
main count (e.g., Hi-Opt I) if blackjacks pay even money (which is the
typical case.)  I don't know anyone who has deeply studied this to
see which system is truly the best, or even to find the linear effects
of removal for the each card.

>Is Double exposure with the proper
>system anymore or less profitable than regular A.C. blackjack?

Card counting is more effective on double exposure games than for regular
blackjack.  For a system like Hi-Opt I or High-Low, you get nearly 1% of
advantage per count level in double exposure, but only 0.5% for regular
blackjack.  Alas, the A.C. game double exposure has a base (dis)advantage
worse than -0.8%, as I vaguely recall, compared to the regular game with
more like -0.4%.

>Or should I just forget about it?

It will be hard to make a profit, but backcounting and huge spreads
(both possibly disguised via team play) could be used to make the double
exposure game more profitable than the regular blackjack game.  Penetration
will be of parmount importance.  With bad penetration or a small spread,
double exposure will be less profitable than regular blackjack.

>Second,  I've been gambling for about three years now using basic strategy,
>and  High-Low for counting.  I've done okay, especially when I team up
>with others to increase my bet size and reduce my variance.  But I'm looking
>to improve.  A friend of mine uses Hi-Opt1 with an Ace side count.  He 
>says the Ace side count really helps with the shoes in A.C.

Cough bullshit cough.

>But the FAQ 
>doesn't seem to show a real advantage using Hi-Opt with the side count over
>plain old Hi-Low.  What gives?

From the FAQ:

                  EXPLANATION OF COUNTING SYSTEMS
  ===========================================================================
  COUNTING           COUNTING VALUES         "BEST" EFFICIENCY  CORRELATION
  SYSTEMS      2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  X  A  SOURCE  PLAY+ace  BET+ace INSURE
  --------     ----------------------------  ------  -------- -------- ------
  Hi-Opt I     0  1  1  1  1  0  0  0 -1  0  Humble   61-63   .88-.97  .85
  High-Low     1  1  1  1  1  0  0  0 -1 -1  Wong     51-63   .97      .76-.85

The betting correlation of Hi-Opt I with an ace side count used precisely
is the same as that of High-Low with no side counts.  Given the choice of
side counting 32 aces, and computing adjustments every time you bet, or
not side counting aces, which would you choose?  In reality,
most players are pretty crappy at doing ace adjustments properly for betting
even on single deck, IMO.

In single deck simulations, High-Low generally marginally outperforms
Hi-Opt I with a side count of aces, for some obscure reason. 

>Is it worth it for me to learn a side count,
>or should I just graduate to a multilevel system instead?

I'd highly recommend Wong Halves (doubled).  Preliminary results shows that
it kicks Hi-Opt I's butt on double deck, and I believe the results would
translate upwards.  For single deck, the difference is not so impressive
but still significant.

Another possibility is Zen.

But High-Low is really pretty good.

-- 
Michael Hall            \It's easier to count cards than to remember which
NASA Ames Research Center\bet you are supposed to use next in some silly
hall@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov \progression, anyway.
Newsgroups: rec.gambling