Double for less

[DonR]

Is it ever justified to double your hand for less than your original bet (if the casino allows it, of course)? I am thinking of scenarios like when the count is very low and you didn't wong out, for whatever reason. Obviously, the best thing is to stay away from these negative counts, but if you are still in, does it make any sense to double for less? Is hitting only a better option maybe?

[Sonny]

When you double down, you are doing it because you have a good starting hand. If you double for less then you will win less money from those good hands, which will hurt you. You need those wins to offset the losses on your bad hands. Any hand that you normally double should be doubled for the full amount.

-Sonny-

[johndoe]

I can't think of any reason one would ever do this. You can always "double for zero" and just hit one card.

All doubling plays are +EV, so any doubling for less would be sacrificing EV. Perhaps if you have a really huge bet out, and you're hoping some variance reduction?

[zengrifter]

NEVER appropriate, except for cover to look like a sucker - sucker play. zg

[cardcounter0]

Not appropriate for the low count situations you describe (better to hit, maybe multiple times to improve your win %, and not put any additional money on the table).

It is appropriate in extreme high counts, when you have huge amounts bet, and because of variance and bankroll considerations, you would be overbetting. Better to double for less, sacrifice some EV, and perserve bankroll if you lose. Similar to not taking full insurance type situations.

[21forme]

I've doubled 12 v 2 for less (much less) for cover.

[rukus]

but as others state, 0% appropriate in 99% of the cases.

it is indeed appropriate in instances where you have an excessive fraction of your bankroll in the betting box already and you are risk-averse. there is a certain fraction of your bankroll that must be bet for this to come into play depending on the hand type, but it can happen. for instance doubling for less on certain soft hands because you bet very big once you knew an ace was coming.

just playing devil's advocate here

[DonR]

I should have probably asked a different question: would it make any sense to only hit, instead of doubling? For example, I have 9, 10 or 11, and the dealer is showing a bust card (say 4, 5, or 6). The count is pretty bad, let's say -5 (I know I shouldn't be playing at these counts, to begin with, lol, and that's exactly what I've been trying to stay away from lately).

So, under these circumstances, is the right play still sticking to BS and doubling, or maybe be more cautious and just hit, without potentially losing even more money, due to the increased house's edge. I guess the bottom line is: am I still favored to win because I have a good hand, having in mind that my edge is already decreased by 2% or so, in this particular case?

Thank you for all your inputs, gentlemen.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by DonR

I should have probably asked a different question: would it make any sense to only hit, instead of doubling?

Sure, there are indices for those plays too. In several cases you would want to hit instead of double in a negative count.

-Sonny-

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by cardcounter0

Not appropriate for the low count situations you describe (better to hit, maybe multiple times to improve your win %, and not put any additional money on the table).

It is appropriate in extreme high counts, when you have huge amounts bet, and because of variance and bankroll considerations, you would be overbetting. Better to double for less, sacrifice some EV, and perserve bankroll if you lose. Similar to not taking full insurance type situations.

Disagree. zg