Question about 4,4 vs 4

[uchicago]

According to my HiLo indices:

4,4 vs 4: Split at 3 or greater
8 vs 4: Double down at 5 or greater

So say the count is 5 or greater, do I split or double down a pair of 4s versus a dealer upcard of 4? My hunch says split because that opens up more possibilities, but I just wanted to make sure.

It would be a similar questions vs dealer 5 or 6. Basically, would one rather split than double down? Thanks.

 

[tthree]

According to my HiLo indices:

4,4 vs 4: Split at 3 or greater
8 vs 4: Double down at 5 or greater

So say the count is 5 or greater, do I split or double down a pair of 4s versus a dealer upcard of 4? My hunch says split because that opens up more possibilities, but I just wanted to make sure.

It would be a similar questions vs dealer 5 or 6. Basically, would one rather split than double down? Thanks.

The risk averse play is to double. It would have more long term profit and less variance. Mathematically speaking it is a double. Different people have different ways they prefer to manage risk/reward. If you choose to follow the more risky splitting route you need more of a bankroll.

 

[bj bob]

According to my HiLo indices:

4,4 vs 4: Split at 3 or greater
8 vs 4: Double down at 5 or greater

So say the count is 5 or greater, do I split or double down a pair of 4s versus a dealer upcard of 4? My hunch says split because that opens up more possibilities, but I just wanted to make sure.

It would be a similar questions vs dealer 5 or 6. Basically, would one rather split than double down? Thanks.

Your hunch is correct. Any time you are faced with a DD v. split option, always go the split route. #1, there may be multiple splits to come, thus allowing for the possibility of more $ on the felt in a favorable count and secondly, you are not limited to only one more card. Just imagine being dealt a 3 on a DD pair of 4"s.

 

[uchicago]

Haha.

So I hear doubling down rather than splitting = more long term profit and less variance, but I also hear splitting is better than doubling because of the opportunity to put more money on the table in a favorable count.

Responses?

 

[MangoJ]

The risk averse play is to double. It would have more long term profit and less variance. Mathematically speaking it is a double. Different people have different ways they prefer to manage risk/reward. If you choose to follow the more risky splitting route you need more of a bankroll.

If both options would have same EV, risk averse play would be to split.
Doubling has more variance then splitting. On doubling, you bet on the very same hand, with a correlation of 100% between both bets. On splitting, you bet on different hands (against the same dealer), correlation is about 30%.
Since risk averse play is to reduce variance, you split.

To the original question:
If the break even point of splitting is at +3, and break even for doubling is at +5, then you want to split at +5. The doubling will just break even, while the split will be +EV (assuming linear count).

 

[Solo player]

Split

If the game is DAS. I would split.

 

[tthree]

If both options would have same EV, risk averse play would be to split.
Doubling has more variance then splitting. On doubling, you bet on the very same hand, with a correlation of 100% between both bets. On splitting, you bet on different hands (against the same dealer), correlation is about 30%.
Since risk averse play is to reduce variance, you split.

To the original question:
If the break even point of splitting is at +3, and break even for doubling is at +5, then you want to split at +5. The doubling will just break even, while the split will be +EV (assuming linear count).

Now with most splits you are correct but look at the key cards for 44 v 5 or 6. Oops blew that one he was talking 44 v 4 wasn't he. Anyway you are right about 44 v 4 but 44 v 5 or 6 is a different situation. Doubling is highly dependent on the ratio of tens to low cards. The zero point cards have little affect on the decision. For splitting 44 the density of sevens is the most important factor in your decision (except v 4). Unless you are side counting sevens you are better off doubling. Doubling is highly correlated to your count for dealer 5 or 6 while splitting is most strongly correlated to the density of sevens. If the density of sevens is low splitting has a negative gain. With a side count of sevens you can safely determine the advantage or disadvantage to splitting and make an informed decision. Without that information the only informed decision you can make is doubling. Splitting is a loosely correlated guess.

 

[The Chaperone]

Ignore tthree

Assuming it's a DAS game, which based on the indexes, it obviously is, SPLIT.

 

[bigplayer]

The risk averse play is to double. It would have more long term profit and less variance. Mathematically speaking it is a double. Different people have different ways they prefer to manage risk/reward. If you choose to follow the more risky splitting route you need more of a bankroll.

I don't think you are correct on this. The best choice when double after split is offered is to always split 4-4 vs 4 if the index number calls for it. If the index is at +5 is still better to split 4-4 than to double. Variance should not even be an issue here since for both plays you 'll have either a max bet or close to it on the table. The lowest variance play is to just hit and that would be a pretty poor choice.

When DAS isn't offered then double at +5 or higher (44 vs 4).

 

[MangoJ]

Now with most splits you are correct but look at the key cards for 44 v 5 or 6. Oops blew that one he was talking 44 v 4 wasn't he. Anyway you are right about 44 v 4 but 44 v 5 or 6 is a different situation. Doubling is highly dependent on the ratio of tens to low cards. The zero point cards have little affect on the decision. For splitting 44 the density of sevens is the most important factor in your decision (except v 4). Unless you are side counting sevens you are better off doubling. Doubling is highly correlated to your count for dealer 5 or 6 while splitting is most strongly correlated to the density of sevens. If the density of sevens is low splitting has a negative gain. With a side count of sevens you can safely determine the advantage or disadvantage to splitting and make an informed decision. Without that information the only informed decision you can make is doubling. Splitting is a loosely correlated guess.

Thanks for the insight, but that wasn't quite my message. If a split and a double down have the exact same EV (of course, the EV will depend on the information you have available, i.e. the details of your counting system), then splitting has a lower variance than doubling.

If you have a more powerful counting system which allows you to make better decisions, then splitting and double down don't have same EV, and then of course you choose the option which best fits into your risk profile.

 

[tthree]

Here is the EOR values for the match ups (S17)

44 v 4
....A..........2.........3..........4.........5..........6..........7..........8...........9...........T....
-0.3487, 0.8650, 1.8739, 1.6624, 2.2947, 2.1373, 1.6687, -0.6784, -1.1790, -2.0740 doubling
1.2274, 1.7366, 3.6899, 2.4351, 2.0770, 0.6261, 0.2614, -0.7280, -1.5894, -2.4341 splitting DAS
44 v 5
-0.3709, 1.6197, 2.4375, 2.1879, 2.5100, 2.0327, -0.3604, -0.7370, -1.1971, -2.0306 doubling
0.9307, 3.9645, 4.0262, 2.5109, 2.6846, 0.8223, -3.2133, -0.7685, -1.5541, -2.3508 splitting DAS
44 v 6
0.2836, 2.1548, 2.9055, 2.2623, 2.4518, 0.0505, -0.3186, -0.4856, -1.1358, -2.0422 doubling
3.7826, 4.0223, 4.0252, 2.5864, 2.6750, -2.9183, -3.5049, -0.5278, -1.3687, -2.1930 splitting DAS

As you can see for 44 v 4, the seven is a factor in doubling but the ace is factor in splitting. For an ace neutral count splitting would be more correlated to the count but for ace reckoned count doubling would give a more accurate decision due to the ace acting like a low card rather than a high card but it was counted as a high card. This makes the count a very bad indicator of the correct decision for splitting with an ace reckoned count.

For 44 v 5, the seven is most important for splitting decisions and the ace acts more like a low card again. For doubling the ace acts as a high card but seven has a small affect on the decision. Both ace neutral and ace reckoned counts have a much better correlation to doubling than splitting.

For 44 v 6 the ace totally over rides the ten for splitting and the seven is equally important. For doubling the ace is almost neutral and the seven has a small affect. Ace reckoned counts are served terribly by the splitting index. It has almost no correlation to the decision. Ace neutral counts do better but the seven still hurts the splitting correlation. Doubling on the other hand has a strong correlation for both types of counts.

In case you don't know this the rate at which gain is accumulated after the index is exceeded is a function of the correlation of your index to the correct play. A high correlation means a quick increase in gain while a weak correlation means an anemic increase in gain as the TC increases beyond the index.

It is still a matter of style but the math favors doubling over splitting except for the dealers 4 where doubling is better for ace reckoned counts but splitting is favored for ace neutral counts.

 

[comatoseb.j.]

According to my HiLo indices:

4,4 vs 4: Split at 3 or greater
8 vs 4: Double down at 5 or greater

So say the count is 5 or greater, do I split or double down a pair of 4s versus a dealer upcard of 4? My hunch says split because that opens up more possibilities, but I just wanted to make sure.

It would be a similar questions vs dealer 5 or 6. Basically, would one rather split than double down? Thanks.

That is a common sense deck composition strategy. Double double double. I dont care if the deck is ace neutral. you stand to get alot more stiff low totals splitting not wanting to take another card on either hand in a positive count. Double the 4 4 against a 4 get the ace if the ace is count is neutral and do better than doubling and getting a ten in an ace short deck.

 

[kewljason]

One consideration that hasn't been mentioned is eating up of cards. If you split you are probably eating up 3 or 4 cards before the dealer plays out his hand. More if a second split opportunity comes about. That could be 5-6 cards. If you double, that is 1 card. This could the difference beween a whole extra round played with you max bet out. If playing heads up or with 1 other player change that 'could be the difference' to 'would be the difference'.

 

[comatoseb.j.]

One consideration that hasn't been mentioned is eating up of cards. If you split you are probably eating up 3 or 4 cards before the dealer plays out his hand. More if a second split opportunity comes about. That could be 5-6 cards. If you double, that is 1 card. This could the difference beween a whole extra round played with you max bet out. If playing heads up or with 1 other player change that 'could be the difference' to 'would be the difference'.

Agreed I like the way you think jason.

 

[tthree]

I just want to say for the newbs, 44 is a really weak split. Usually double or split is not an issue. 55 you always double and 33 you never double. The issue with 44 is a question of how you like to deal with risk and reward. You really should consider how your counting system matches up with the EOR tables in post #11. The answer to the question is not the same for all counting systems.

 

[comatoseb.j.]

​

This I know but it sounded as if the original poster was a newbie and I wanted to turn him onto the the easiest play for the best advantage giving his question

 

[bigplayer]

Possibly Cutting off your own nose despite your face

One consideration that hasn't been mentioned is eating up of cards. If you split you are probably eating up 3 or 4 cards before the dealer plays out his hand. More if a second split opportunity comes about. That could be 5-6 cards. If you double, that is 1 card. This could the difference beween a whole extra round played with you max bet out. If playing heads up or with 1 other player change that 'could be the difference' to 'would be the difference'.

Unless you've run concrete numbers on this you probably should not worry about this. With a high count splitting 4-4 vs 8 is probably worth way more in EV than an unknown extra round with a high count and corresponding 2%+ advantage. Eat up cards in negative rounds with splitting and minimal bets out to force a shuffle...by all means. If you're gonna make on the fly changes to offensive maneuvers with very high player edges for an extra round of unknown cards with a high count but comparatively low player edge (2% with 1 max bet vs 5% with possibly 3 or 4 max bets) you need to be sure of your numbers.