Last hand. - Hit or stand ?

[PlayHunter]

This chart agrees with Wong except that it does not recommend standing on 16 vs 8 but does recommend hitting 17 vs Ace.

I just found that paragraph now from Wong. "Push Is as Bad as Loss" => If a push is as bad as a loss, you should deviate from basic strategy in the following ways: Stand on twelve against 2 or 3, stand on sixteen against 8 or 9, stand on fifteen or more against 10, and hit soft eighteen against 8 and against ace.

What I wanted to ask you, is if it is not possible that this difference to come from the number of decks ? (or if hit soft 17 - but can`t have soft 17 with 8 up)

 

[gronbog]

What I wanted to ask you, is if it is not possible that this difference to come from the number of decks ? (or if hit soft 17 - but can`t have soft 17 with 8 up)

It is completely possible that the playing rules/conditions are a factor.

Another possibility is methodology. Most playing strategies are derived by CA analysis of a full shoe, giving exact percentages for the first hand of a particular shoe size. The theory is that, since the deck is cut after shuffling, any random point in the shoe should be representative.

My strategies are derived by iterative simulation of the actual playing conditions (number of decks, penetration, rules, handling of the cards, etc.). In this way any subtle effects of the playing conditions which are difficult/impossible to handle using CA are accounted for (e.g. the cut card effect). There is rarely a difference in the resulting strategy, but it does sometimes happen.

I have had the most success in recreating Wong's results when I use infinite decks.