Double Down for Less

Firstly, I want to apologize if this has already been answered in a previous thread, and feel free to simply link me to it if it has.

At a recent trip, I saw other players "Doubling Down for less" and the dealer allowing this.

So my question is regarding indices (or perhaps more correctly RA indices?). For example (these are not the correct indices, I know), if 8vs6 should hit at TC<+2, but double down at TC>+2, at +2 would it be mathematically correct to double down for less, as it's between the 2 extremes?

Thanks in advance.

I really can't think of a reason.

I really can't think of a good reason to double for less. (unless you don't have enough money) Usually when I see someone do that, I offer to make up the difference... if it's the correct play to double.

Doubling for less is an EV diminishing move for the player. Let's take the hand from your example as an illustration. When you have 8 against a 6 (shoe game) at a +2 TC, it's just a tad better to double than hit.

At +2 if you hit this hand with a $100 bet up there, you'll win it 57% of the time and lose 43% (counting pushes as a half win and half loss), for a $14 average gain. If you double, you'll win it only 53.75% of the time and lose 46.25% (handling pushes the same way) because you can't hit again when you catch a 2 or a 3. But since you now have $200 riding on it, your net gain is $15.

So now let's suppose you double for half at +2 TC. You're still going to win the same 53.75% of the time and lose 46.25% -- but here it's for just $150, yielding a net average gain of $11. That's worse than just hitting it!

This is a typical characteristic (the worst of 3 worlds) when you double for less (with hands that may possibly want a second hit), and it's all because you willfully elected to reduce your win frequency on the hand -- without maximizing the amount of your bet. You gave the house the better part of the trade-off.

With other hands where you're going to take just one card whether you double or hit (such as with 9 against a 6), doubling for less usually produces a net gain in between that of just hitting, and doubling for the max.
I don't know whether doubling for "most" with these types of hands might produce a feasible risk averse EV, but I doubt it. Maybe somebody else could look into that??

double is the play, but if one hits and pulls a 2, should hit the 11 again.

Just thought of a reason.

There is one rare example I have seen and where I DO double for less. There are certain stores that will allow you to double down but not draw on hands split from Aces. In this situation they will split your cards and hit the first one. If the hand is one that can be improved by taking another card then you would Double for the minimum to be dealt another card.

Example:

Say you receive A,A on the initial hand. The Dealer has a 7. You would then split. On the first Ace you draw a 2 for soft hand A,2. Since you know 3 or 13 IS A LOSER against the 7... you then Double Down for Less (table min) and receive one more card. (hitting is the correct strategy for this hand ) Thus hopefully Improving your hand. (50% chance) You are essentially buying another card.

I've only seen this rule in a few places... But It makes splitting Aces much more attractive.

-db

Does the double down wager have to be table minimum, or could it just be a $1 chip?

I was trying to remember as I was writing my reply. It seems like the double for less rule was down to table min..., but I could very well be wrong. I don't get to play that particular game very often. Certainly if you Can do it for a buck, I would.

Absentminded me! I should've given something like 10 vs. 6 as that kind of example.

Probably varies between casinos. I saw someone doubling for less with a pink at a $5 table last time I was at the AC Borgata.

At the places like this I have played at, one of which I know is the same game as D-Bo, you must double at least the table minimum.


Renzey, what about the benefits of doubling for less that you talk about in the "Nifty 15" camouflage plays in BJBBII?

I absolutely love that book BTW, excellent work......:1st:

Homeschool

I once tried to double down for MORE. All I got was puzzled looks from everybody.

Only time I double for less is when I have a 12 vs dealer 2 or 3. I will throw down an extra dollar or two and take my chances. In this situation you are only going to hit once anyway. (Credit to Mr. Renzey) This play always wakes up the table!

Otherwise, ALWAYS put up the max amount on a true double down hand. It's the right thing to do.

Yeah, doubling for less on split aces that don't allow re-draws is the only benefit here. It's actually a pretty clever play, especially if you have max bets out. It does have to be table min., but if you're at a $5 table and get a 2 to go with your first ace with $100 on the spot, it's a no-brainer.

If you knew your first card was an ace (53%? advantage) so you bet the table maximum, which was a decent percentage of your total bankroll - say 15%, for example - you may choose to double for less on some soft doubles, like A6 vs 3 for example.

Doubling for "way" less with say, 12 vs. 2 is a "trade-off" play. You're trading off a tiny bit of EV, hopefully in exchange for a big boost in "sucker" image.
It can't come out of left field though, after playing all your other hands completely by the book. It ought to be mixed in, in a short period of time with say, taking Insurance for way less and maybe splitting 3/3 vs. 8 after you've correctly stood with 16 vs. 10 -- making you look like an "outside-the box" player.

Those 4 plays together will cost a $25 bettor around $1 or $2 over whatever course of time it took him to do them.

Doubling for (way) less on 12 vs 12 is well worth the price for entertainment value, but I doubt it does you much in the way of cover.

Say you wong into your first shoe of the day at +1.5 TC betting $50. Immediately, the dealer has an Ace up against your 19 and you insure for $5. Three hands later, you correctly stand with 16 vs. 10. Four hands after that, you split either 2/2 or 3/3 or 7/7 vs. 8 -- and a couple of hands after that, you double for $2 or a $2.50 chip with 12 against a 2, 3 or 4. Your total "throw away" cost was about $1.50, but what's your image for the rest of the session??

This makes perfect sense to me, thank you.

Seems after reading the other comments, the only reasons to double for less would be:
1. Entertainment or camo value
2. If it's the only way you'd be allowed to hit a set of split aces. I personally haven't been to any casinos that only let you get additional cards if you double, but if it were a rule, I imagine it would be advantageous to basically "pay for another card" as said in certain situations.

A positive!

It's good to see Mr. Renzey posting more again. His contributions to this forum are accurate and helpful.

BillyC1