If you are going to split Tens...

[cardcounter0]

If you are going to split Tens, you might as well double down on Soft 20 also.
The count at which to Double down on A,9 is the same as splitting Tens.
I think either play has equal likelyhood of A) making you look like an idiot, or B) bringing attention and heat.

Remember to keep those sessions short! :laugh:

 

[kewljason]

Personally I'm not crazy about either play, cardcounter. I occasionally split tens, but usually wait for a higher count than called for. When I do make this play, I leave at the end of the shoe. As for Doubling A9, I don't do it. Am willing to give up a bit of EV. Here is my reasoning.

When you split tens you are creating two hands and with an abundance of high cards out are likely to draw at least one good hand, so if the dealer doesn't break as desired, you most likely push. (turn a max bet win into a push)

If you double on A9 and draw a low card and dealer doesn't break you more likely turned a max bet win into a double max bet loss! Very hard on the varience.

 

[cardcounter0]

I am not crazy about either play myself. However, if you are of the philosophy of "heat be dammed, I am going to extract every bit of +EV possible", then at the count that splitting tens is +EV, double on soft 20 is also +EV. Both moves draw attention and heat, and both moves involve taking a possible winning 20 hand and putting more money on the table.

You are also at the count where splitting 9,9 vs A (after losing your insurance bet) and double down 10 vs A comes into play. Two more +EV increase variance type plays.

 

[Mimosine]

double down 11 vs A comes into play.

this play has a lower index if i recall that XXv5/6, and is also basic strategy for the majority of games in the US.

 

[kewljason]

However, if you are of the philosophy of "heat be dammed, I am going to extract every bit of +EV possible",

Boy it would be great to be able to have that philosophy. I would start by spreading 1-100 or larger if my bankroll could support it. Unforetunately, I have 3 casinos that I play 7 or 8 hours in each, every week, so I can't get away with that philosophy.

The number for doubling 11vs A is much lower than splitting 10's. Its basic strategy for hit 17 games. splitting 9,9, vs Ace is one I have never made. Don't even know the number for it. I only play about 30 strat change plays. I don' t think it would come up enough or be worth enough to be worthwhile for me. But again, I guess if one has the previosly mentioned philosophy, it would be.

 

[bjcount]

However, if you are of the philosophy of "heat be dammed, I am going to extract every bit of +EV possible",

Boy it would be great to be able to have that philosophy. I would start by spreading 1-100 or larger if my bankroll could support it. Unforetunately, I have 3 casinos that I play 7 or 8 hours in each, every week, so I can't get away with that philosophy.

The number for doubling 11vs A is much lower than splitting 10's. Its basic strategy for hit 17 games. splitting 9,9, vs Ace is one I have never made. Don't even know the number for it. I only play about 30 strat change plays. I don' t think it would come up enough or be worth enough to be worthwhile for me. But again, I guess if one has the previosly mentioned philosophy, it would be.

The index # for splitting 9,9vA should be about the same as splitting 10'sv 5/6

BJC

 

[zengrifter]

I use the same index for 10s and A9. zg

 

[cardcounter0]

Sorry, I mistyped. That should be double 10 vs A. I edited the original post.

10 vs A
TT vs 5,6
A,9 vs 5,6
A,8 vs 4
9,9 vs 7
9,9 vs A

All become +EV at TC +5,6

And don't forget about the non-variance plays
8,8 vs T
15 vs T
16 vs 9

which become active at TC +5

If you think you are not going to draw attention or heat, or have good "I'm an Idiot, I split Tens" cover going on, you might as well throw in some crazy double downs and splits while you are at it.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

If you are going to split Tens, you might as well double down on Soft 20 also.
The count at which to Double down on A,9 is the same as splitting Tens.
I think either play has equal likelyhood of A) making you look like an idiot, or B) bringing attention and heat.

Remember to keep those sessions short! :laugh:

Little bit of a difference though- your risk is spread over 2 hands with the split and consolidated on one with the DD.

Also, although the split-10's is a valuable index play (two of the Illustrious 18) DD on A9 is not. It doesn't increase your EV in proportion to the way it increases your risk. Thus I avoid it.

 

[zengrifter]

Little bit of a difference though- your risk is spread over 2 hands with the split and consolidated on one with the DD.

Also, although the split-10's is a valuable index play (two of the Illustrious 18) DD on A9 is not. It doesn't increase your EV in proportion to the way it increases your risk. Thus I avoid it.

You avoid it until WHAT COUNT? You don't shun A9 doubles entirely, do you?

Does anyone have a comparison of the split 10s and double A9 (against 5-6) for EV and STD? zg

 

[cardcounter0]

Also, although the split-10's is a valuable index play (two of the Illustrious 18) DD on A9 is not. It doesn't increase your EV in proportion to the way it increases your risk. Thus I avoid it.

A9 isn't on the I18 more because of frequency. TT is much more likely a hand than one that requires an Ace. Frequency is also why double A8 vs 5,6 wasn't part of the original I18, they are next in line at #19-#22 along with double 8 vs 5,6.

Like the Grifter, I would be VERY interested in some EV and STD numbers for these plays if anyone has them.

 

[RG1]

...And don't forget about the non-variance plays
8,8 vs T
15 vs T
16 vs 9

which become active at TC +5...

15 v T and 16 v 9 are not "non-variance" plays. They are changing the decision that gives you the best EV and the best chance of winning that one initial bet. Hit/Stand indexes don't change variance. Double, split, surrender and insurance decisions change variance. Examples of "non-variance" plays that increase your EV would be not doubling A2 v 5 or A4 v 4 when the count is negative. Also 88 v T is a "non-variance" play but the index is +8 not +5 atleast in shoes.

 

[cardcounter0]

"Hit/Stand indexes don't change variance."

15 v T and 16 v 9 are, by definition, "non-variance" plays.

"not doubling A2 v 5 or A4 v 4 when the count is negative."

are variance decreasing, not non-variance.

Also 88 v T is a variance decreasing play and the risk adverse index is +5.

 

[RG1]

"Hit/Stand indexes don't change variance."

15 v T and 16 v 9 are, by definition, "non-variance" plays.

"not doubling A2 v 5 or A4 v 4 when the count is negative."

are variance decreasing, not non-variance.

Also 88 v T is a variance decreasing play and the risk adverse index is +5.

I see what you are saying. I misunderstood. You weren't saying 15 v T and 16 v 9 are variance decreasing, you are saying they are non-variance which means they have no effect on variance.

I still don't see why you lumped 88 v T in with 15vT and 16v9. Are you saying 88 v T is a non-variance play in one post and then a variance decreasing play in another? That can't be right unless I am completely confused.

 

[cardcounter0]

I just threw in 8,8 vs T because it is a basic strat "crazy cover" play that kicks in at +5 along with the rest. I grouped neutral or decreasing variance plays as a counter to the variance increasing plays, that everyone seems uncomfortable with. Except they seem comfortable with the classic splitting Tens -- which the pit seems to be most aware of.

Sometimes it is good to "group" plays in your head by TC, (at least for me), so when you get a hand at a certain TC you know how to play it quicker and don't seem to be pausing and calculating. It looks like you are more playing on the flow or whim rather than following a system.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

"Hit/Stand indexes don't change variance."

15 v T and 16 v 9 are, by definition, "non-variance" plays...

Just to be technical- not exactly. Hitting these hands decreases variance by an infinitesimal amount. The reason is: suppose you are at a count where hitting and standing have exactly the same advantage. If you hit, you are going to make some hands that are going to end up being pushes, whereas if you stand you are going to win or lose every hand. Those pushes mixed into the results decrease your swings which decreases your mathematical variance.

But on the other hand, hitting on these hands consumes a card, and in games with a cut card (almost all of them) consuming even one card in high counts decreases your chances of playing an extra round which decreases your overall EV. These index plays become an issue only at very high counts. So I'd probably bias my decision ever so slightly towards not hitting.

 

[Traveller]

Sorry, I mistyped. That should be double 10 vs A. I edited the original post.

10 vs A
TT vs 5,6
A,9 vs 5,6
A,8 vs 4
9,9 vs 7
9,9 vs A

All become +EV at TC +5,6

And don't forget about the non-variance plays
8,8 vs T
15 vs T
16 vs 9

which become active at TC +5

If you think you are not going to draw attention or heat, or have good "I'm an Idiot, I split Tens" cover going on, you might as well throw in some crazy double downs and splits while you are at it.

This true 5,6 you talk about, is this the point at which you might consider making these plays, if so for how many decks and what rules?

T.

 

[cardcounter0]

This true 5,6 you talk about, is this the point at which you might consider making these plays, if so for how many decks and what rules?

I, personally, do not split TT simply because it is the classic flag to the pit that you are counting. I won't double A9 for the same reason, unless I am on a hit and run (and if it is the last hand and I'm picking up my chips to leave, I will split TTs before I run). The rest I blend in as cover, since they are unusual, it looks like I play hunches and enforces to the pit that I don't adhere to strict basic strategy.

I don't CONSIDER these plays, I DO THEM. They are all +EV at a true count of +5 (+6 for the vs dealer 5 plays). The number of decks or H17/S17, DAS/ NDAS seems to have little effect on these.

I used to play with around 40+ indexes, simply because I knew them. The I18 is what makes you money, but I felt knowing a bunch of other BS variations was a means of providing cover. That way not hitting/hitting 16 vs T, or sometimes standing on 12 vs 3, wasn't my only noticable departures from basic strat.

 

[Traveller]

I, personally, do not split TT simply because it is the classic flag to the pit that you are counting. I won't double A9 for the same reason, unless I am on a hit and run (and if it is the last hand and I'm picking up my chips to leave, I will split TTs before I run). The rest I blend in as cover, since they are unusual, it looks like I play hunches and enforces to the pit that I don't adhere to strict basic strategy.

I don't CONSIDER these plays, I DO THEM. They are all +EV at a true count of +5 (+6 for the vs dealer 5 plays). The number of decks or H17/S17, DAS/ NDAS seems to have little effect on these.

I used to play with around 40+ indexes, simply because I knew them. The I18 is what makes you money, but I felt knowing a bunch of other BS variations was a means of providing cover. That way not hitting/hitting 16 vs T, or sometimes standing on 12 vs 3, wasn't my only noticable departures from basic strat.

The reason i ask is because the index numbers for 99 v 7 is +3 as is doubling 9. The index for splitting 10's against 6,5,4 is 4,5,6 respectively. Some of your others are also off, or am i missing something here?

T.

 

[cardcounter0]

The reason i ask is because the index numbers for 99 v 7 is +3 as is doubling 9. The index for splitting 10's against 6,5,4 is 4,5,6 respectively. Some of your others are also off, or am i missing something here?

T.

Risk. These are risk adverse numbers.