Surrender 8s and 7s ?

This has been something I've been thinking about quite often recently. I know we should be surrendering 8s versus a 10 at a TC >= 0, but does that mean we should surrender 7s versus a 10 at a +3? Since we're treating it as 14 anyway? Also 8s versus 9 and Ace at +2, should we be surrendering? But in particular, I'm curious about the 7s versus the 10. I haven't surrendered 8s vs 9s and Aces yet but I have been surrendering 7s vs 10s at a +3. Thoughts ?

I have been surrendering 8,8 vs T at TC=+2, 7,7 vs T at TC=+3 for shoe games. I think you are on the right track. However, Gronbog and I are discussing about this on another site. 

The indices depend on the rules, specifically, whether or not you can DAS or S17 or H17. For Hi-Lo, 6 decks:

Surrender 8,8 vs. T at +2 if DAS is allowed and S17. Otherwise, surrender at +1. Surrender 7,7 vs. T at +2 for all the rules combinations.

For DAS, S17, you don't surrender 8,8 vs. 9 or Ace. For DAS, H17, surrender 8,8 vs. Ace if > -5 but <+1. Surrender 7,7 vs. 9 at +6 and vs. Ace at +3. Finally, if NDAS and H17, surrender 8,8 vs. Ace at > -5 and < +2. Surrender 7,7 vs. 9 at +6 and vs. Ace at +3.

Think I got them all!

Don

Just curious, how come we surrender 7s vs 10 at a +2? If I'm not mistaken, I thought we surrender 14s vs a 10 at a +3?

Pairs are NOT generic totals. Do you consider 8,8 as 16? Learn to distinguish the two. When you hold 7,7, you hold two of the very cards you want the most, if you hit, to make 21. So, you are better off surrendering slightly earlier than generic 14.

The edge at +2 is very slight. If you were to hit, the difference is very small. But, the edge is there to surrender, and so we do.

Don

Ahh I see. No, I don't consider 8's as 16 but I understand what you're saying with the 7's. I will keep that in mind

Clarification to the above: "Surrender 8,8 vs. T at +2 if DAS is allowed and S17" should be S17 or H17; the +2 is for DAS regardless of dealer action on 17.

Don

To find the hit/surrender index for the 7,7 vs T hand for an 8 or 6-deck game, I compared the Hit EV values for these four hands:

10,4 vs T,

9,5 vs T,

8,6 vs T,

7,7 vs T,

at various remaining deck compositions and dealing depths, and found that their numerical values are very close. My calculation says that you just treat a 7,7 pair as a hard 14. 

Bad information again.

Keep posting S..t, it's the only serious board that hasn't stop you yet.

Well, show your calculation here. 

No need for calculations, Don Schlesinger and Dave Brolley just published their new book where it's clearly shown that for shoe games (6-8),  the surrender index for 14 vs 10 is +3 while for 77 vs 10 it's +2

PLEASE, get that f.....g TROLL out of your pages.

This is the last time I give an answer when this A.....e is in the thread.

You show yours. You can't because you never did it.

I calculated the Hit EV values of these four hands:

T, 4 vs T;

9, 5 vs T;

8, 6 vs T;

7, 7 vs T.

at these two fixed True Count values, TC=+2.63 and +2.39, which were calculated before the cards were dealt out. The result is that the EV value varies monotonically (and smoothly) across the above hands; therefore, I skip the middle two hands and present only these two end hands:

T, 4 vs T;

7, 7 vs T.

Firstly, we set the Card Rank = [2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 7, 8, 9; T, A].

Now, we pick a corresponding Deck Composition = {28, 28, 28, 28, 28; 32, 32, 32; 128, 32}, and then calculate the Hit EV for:

7, 7 vs T, EV=-0.5001; T, 4 vs T, EV=-0.4915.

Then, we do the same for five other Deck Compositions:

{32, 32, 32, 32, 32; 32, 32, 32; 144, 36}:

EV=-0.5002; EV=-0.4924.

{21, 21, 21, 21, 21; 24, 24, 24; 96, 24}:

EV=-0.5022; EV=-0.4907.

{24, 24, 24, 24, 24; 24, 24, 24; 108, 27}:

EV=-0.5022; EV=-0.4917.

{7, 7, 7, 7, 7; 8, 8, 8; 32, 8}:

EV=-0.5198; EV=-0.4845.

{8, 8, 8, 8, 8; 8, 8, 8; 36, 9}:

EV=-0.5180; EV=-0.4860.

Based on this, I say we just put all these four hands into the same basket of hard 14 vs T because they are close in terms of Hit EV.

You can't calculate indices by doing representative decks. That method isn't reliable.

Don

And he still didn't show any calculations. He just posted the results which he made up.

The above is my best calculation, to two decimal places. Let’s move on now, unless you want to say something more about this.  We have a far more important calculation to consider, that is, the 16vsT HiLo index.   

On Norm’s forum, Cacarulo posted this:

“In the case of 16vT, 4D, Hi-Lo, my indices are as follows:

16 vs T = +0.1

T6 vs T = +1.0

97 vs T = +0.0.”

I do not quite understand his result. For a 2-card 16vsT hand, I do not need a hit/stand deviation index because I surrender almost all of them. For a 3 or more-card 16vsT hand, I need a hit/stand index. Is the listed TC=+0.1 good only for multiple-card 16vsT? Or is it good for all hard 16vsT? 

Your "BEST CALCULATIONS" are more profitable at live tables than online

Had me thinking about 77 vs 10.  From Wongs' Professional Blackjack Appendix E: 1 Deck Dealer shows 10:  EV Hit 77 vs 10 = -.516 (a surrender), Split 77 reg = -.632, split 77 das = -619 (no slit).  For 6 deck EV Hit 77 vs 10 -.474 (not a surrender i.e. not < -.5), split 77 reg = -.638, das = -.628.