The expected return for standing on 20 clearly says your expected return is 0.675 EVERYWHERE, the wizards site and every other site in the world, the reason is that those odds are set, they are simple to figure out
Yet nolan insisted they were 0.70, from page 1 to page whatever
You don’t understand what the odds actually mean (for example, a couple of pages ago you were cheerfully multiplying all the numbers by x2 or x4), and yet you attempt to use these same numbers, and your misunderstanding of them, as the basis for your entire argument. It’s really comical.
0.704 is the return assuming an infinite number of decks and a certain set of rules. You can find the 0.704 figure on the Wizard’s site here:
http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix1.html – I posted that a few pages ago, did you look at the time? I could make a screenshot showing the 0.704 if you like.
Read the bit at the top and you will see which rules that applies for. Notice it’s for a theoretical, infinite deck game. These are generic figures; obviously no real BJ game has an infinite number of decks.
If you want a specific set of decks and a specific set of rules, these are the tables to use:
http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix9.html
You will find the 0.675 on this chart (4 decks, hit soft 17):
http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix9-4dh17r4.html
Or if you look at this one (1 deck, stand soft 17):
http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix9-1ds17r4.html
it is 0.697.
Gee, those numbers keep changing. Can the Wizard not make up his mind? Or perhaps, these different numbers relate to different scenarios? Perhaps changing the number of the decks and the rules alters the returns? Just a thought.
But forgive me, I’m a little confused.
I thought your argument was that:
“Standing on 10,10 vs 6 is not as good as splitting”
and
“This is one of the most disputed hands in BJ history”
and
“Many people say you should split 10,10 against a 6”
That was your argument, wasn’t it?
So what does it matter if we use a figure of 0.675 or 0.704? Either figure is still significantly better than splitting
Have a look at http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix9.html again. Choose any set of rules, any number of decks, then compare standing versus splitting. Get back to me when you’ve found an example where the latter is better than the former, or even where it is close or ‘marginal’.
For example, in the case of 4 decks, hit on soft 17 (http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix9-4dh17r4.html), the total overall return is 0.675762 for standing or 0.175780 for splitting. On which planet is that close, marginal or disputable?
In my previous post I gave you three ways to prove your point, none of which you seem willing to do. Instead your only argument is that Nolan is quoting inconsistent figures – but, as you’ll see above, it’s your misunderstanding not Nolan’s.
Hahahahahaha. Thanks again, you always cheer me up 
PS. Yeah I know I said I was done, but it’s gone back from annoying to fun again. Bring it on Nick!