Not sure if I made the right play

I recently had a hand in Spanish 21 where I began with 3 max bets out. Dealer has a four up. I split one hand, ended up with two doubles, which whiffed. Split aces on the next hand, got a nine on one hand, then a five on the other. Hit the A5, added a 2 so I'm at a 3 card soft eighteen.

Here's the current layout:

2 bets: stiff
2 bets: stiff
1 bet 20
1 bet soft eighteen
1 bet stiff

The TC is about +10. I went ahead and doubled the soft eighteen, but I'm not sure if this was a situation to be risk averse with so much money on the table. Got almost five percent of my bankroll on the table with the hand.

Was this the right play? And when should we start to be risk averse because we have too much money on the table compared to the marginal gain of the play?

I would have doubled, as you did.

I had a similar situation recently - big count, split 9s 4x, doubling on 2 of them and lost all the hands. **** happens.

I remember not too long ago I was on the end of a broadside from you (amongst others) for suggesting something very similar - playing risk adverse to reduce variance in contrast to just making the mathematically most advantageous play to maximise EV. Had second thoughts?

Definitely not a risk averse play. I too would have doubled the soft 18, as per the index. For what it's worth, I hope you won.

Ona side note... (sorta hijacking here).. have any of you guys ever questioned whether HI-LO is the best count for SP21? My thinking is the playing efficiency (and probably to some extent the BC) would be significantly increased with a count that tags the 7, and 9. Particularly in SP21. Any thoughts?

If I recall correctly you were talking about not doubling 11 v. 4 on one hand at high counts. I'm talking about a soft double in a game with no tens, with 8 max bets on the table.

I guess I'm curious as to what effect having multiple max bets on the table does to our index plays. This is probably a pretty complicated question, and actually may not be worth much CE at all.

hmm , that one's probably more than I want to think about in one sitting.. lol

Right off the top of my head I would say it has no effect on index plays. But it does have an effect on initial bet sizing. If your 3 initial bets were sized correctly, taking covariance into consideration, then why would it have and effect on the indicies?

I'm probably missing something here.. Any of you math whizzes want to tackle this?

I think it would affect indices, and possibly basic strategy if the count tanked back close to zero.

For example, we all have an index to split tens. But if you had 3 max bet hands of 20 out, would you split ALL of them out to 4 hands, or until you quit getting tens? I don't think so. Maybe if you had a TC of +20, but even then you might only want to get out to 7 or 8 hands before you slow down. The amount of money you already have on the table should affect your risk aversion.

It also might, theoretically, affect basic strategy. If the count tanked back to zero, and you already had, say, 6 max bets on the table with stiffs, would you soft double a2 vs 5? Maybe not...

I can't see it affecting the indices themselves since they are mathematically derived probablities based on the True Count. But I think I know where you are coming from... I've had the same experience. Mine were 8's split to four hands with Max bets.. (we're talking lots of money here). So I draw to them one at a time and get 10,(stand 18) 10, (stand 18), A (double to 19 per the index), A again. Oh CRAP! I've already been in my pocket twice covering splits and doubles). The true count now is still good for a double here against the dealers up card. Hmm Risk! What to do? OK I become risk averse here. I stand on a sure 19. The mathematically correct move would have been to double.

There was a pretty slim chance the dealer would beat me on all hands. Only two cards in the deck could do it. I then proceeded to lose every hand to the dealer's hard 16 after she drew a 5. I've thought about this hand a great deal. The conclusion I have come to is.. If it's the correct play do it! I will win in that situation the majority of the time because it is mathematically correct. In hindsight had I doubled down, not only would I have had a doubled 21 as one hand, (the next card turned out to be a 2 and would have in effect made the situation way less risky), but the dealer probably wouldn't have ended up with the 5 after the other 2 players hit their hands either. I lost 5 max bets to save one max bet. You never really know until the cards are dealt.

The point is, I see no reason to deviate from your indices for the sake of risk aversion. It won't pay in the long run. (however long that is :laugh

P.S. I didn't use the split 10's example because of the heat considerations of that play.

At this point I'd REALLY be pissed if we'd bet $1000 or more. Irked nonetheless.
Gold broke 1100 on November 6th. ELEVEN F**KING WEEKS AGO!

DID I MAKE THE RIGHT PLAY? zg

That was a good play. Doubling a soft 18 isn't a high-risk play. It's the A2 and A3 that are risky, but those aren't SP21 plays.

Yes, yes I thing someone has questioned that.


No way. 7 is a flat-out neutral card in SP21. 8 and 9 have half the EoR of the 10. In SP21 we're using huge spreads, so it's all about BC.

The Monkey Count is a very nice adjustment to Hi-Lo for SP21. I'm surprised AM didn't mention it above.

i would double that garbage also hahaha

then u look like a bad ass for doing all that fancy stuff get 2x more if you win


dude BR is a great thing to have and you need one...

but sometimes all my money ends up on the table for example

ill bring like 50 bucks with me and split something 3 times on a 15 dollar bet and have 45 bucks on the table



some of you would prolly think thats stupid to blast almost ur whole bank roll like that

its happend befor...

.

Yep.. I started digging into it a bit after I posted... and you are absolutely correct.

WELL DID I? zg

I am thinking that you had high EV, but your CE was lowered somewhat by increased variance due to the CO (cop-out) factor.