Scavenger Play??

M

MrSmith

Active Member
I recently played at a table where a woman refused to split her aces. This happend twice in 1 shoe. Is it a good scavenger play to buy her hand? Is it dependent on the count? Is it dependent on table rules? The odds of seeing this again may be minimal but I'm curious to know for any possible future opportunities. Thanks.

The game is 6D/H17/DAS/RSA/DD Any 2/No Surrender/80%PEN
 
Fairly crummy game, but a pair of Aces generally have positive expectation, the True Count is not all that relevant, unless the T.C. is seriously negative. At that point it is no longer worth splitting.

The real question is how much was the dopey ploppy betting.
If the bet was tiny, it wasn't worth it for a couple of percentage points.

With Hi-Lo I suspect that that index is probably −4, and, with RSA, −5.
 
Im estimating here, but If you can do it against any dealer card except A or 10 and especially when the count is tc+1 or Greater you should have good fortune buying this split.
Essentially, If you made sure that you only bought the hand in an "offensive split" situation you would have +ev.
 
Im not 100% sure how important TC would be in this decision, but assuming that this is at a TC of 0, you should always offer to buy one of the aces no matter what card it is against. Even against an A you still have a ~6% advantage, and it increases rapidly from there.
 
MrSmith said:
I recently played at a table where a woman refused to split her aces. This happend twice in 1 shoe. Is it a good scavenger play to buy her hand? Is it dependent on the count? Is it dependent on table rules? The odds of seeing this again may be minimal but I'm curious to know for any possible future opportunities. Thanks.
Click to expand...
See THE INTERVIEW page-11.
There are many hands that you can and should buy whenever able. zg
 
With Hi-Lo I suspect that that index is probably −4, and, with RSA, −5.
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Actually Flash - it's about TC-11 or so - don't have my indexes immediately handy, but it has to be really in the toilet before hitting, rather than splitting is the better option.
 
Was she not splitting against an Ace? Maybe she was an AP and the TC was -3 ;)

Other indexes are not even worth considering.
 
Gamblor said:
Was she not splitting against an Ace? Maybe she was an AP and the TC was -3 ;)

Other indexes are not even worth considering.
Click to expand...

If the TC was -3 I wouldn't be playing that shoe anymore. :)

So if I understand all the advice correctly it appears that as long as the TC of the shoe is "playable" and the ploppy is betting within my spread it is always a good idea to buy the hand...especially if RSA is offered. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks. :)

P.S. I wong in and out pretty hardcore so if I have money on the table the shoe is "playable" by my definition. :)

I also agree with the first response that the game is mediocre at best but it's all I have around me without jumping on a plane. :( Hence the aggressive wonging.
 
i recently sat at a table where a guy refused to split 2's against a dealer 6. His bet was 10 of my units (sizable amount for that player) and TC was close to +1.

Had I not been so focused on the discard tray figuring out TC I would have noticed that he refused the split and got a 9 to a 13.

dealer ended up busting.

just goes to point out that you have to constantly be vigilant with those scavenger plays because the player often only has about 5 seconds of decision time before the dealer moves on to the next hand
 
Freightman,

I respectfully take exception to what you posted.

Hi-Lo with it's poor playing efficiency is not a good count to use to examine the sensitivity of Ace-Ace to the True Count.

I had it simmed' (Risk Averse) using my count — Hi-Opt II — which being an Ace-Neutral Count is very accurate for this play.

Advanced Omega II or Halves, counting NINES would be perhaps more accurate still.

An Ace-reckoned count, handling Aces and Faces as equivalent is inaccurate because the Tens are uber-powerful and Aces are quite negative without RSA.
 
FLASH1296 said:
Freightman,

I respectfully take exception to what you posted.

Hi-Lo with it's poor playing efficiency is not a good count to use to examine the sensitivity of Ace-Ace to the True Count.

I had it simmed' (Risk Averse) using my count — Hi-Opt II — which being an Ace-Neutral Count is very accurate for this play.

Advanced Omega II or Halves, counting NINES would be perhaps more accurate still.

An Ace-reckoned count, handling Aces and Faces as equivalent is inaccurate because the Tens are uber-powerful and Aces are quite negative without RSA.
Click to expand...

Flash - I'm disappointed - I thought that something more grammatically eloquent - utilizing such words as "egregious" or righteous" would have peperred your reply :) Nice to hear from you again.

Your comments make sense, Personally, I use halves, which does incorporate 9,s into the count, and which is a very valuable tool for this particular problem. Halves, though Ace reckoned, when combined with an Ace side count is more than adequate for this purpose. The decision to split would be enhanced in a lousy count by a lousier Ace poor deck - would you agree? The preceding comment assumes no RSA. If RSA is offered, then split looks okay.

I think another point to be made, regardless of how bad the count is, would be to split if you are in your own locale where you are known (at least I am:)) to be a solid player - i.e. why would you not split? This obviously applies to play all conditions, which I am used to in my own limited trading area.

Respons es aside, and to quote a line from Star Trek Generations, think it's time to relax and admire a couple of low mileage pitwoofies.
 
Just to clarify. It's safe to assume my last comment is correct? Somehow my topic wandered off it's original intended path. :) Thanks.
 
MrSmith said:
Just to clarify. It's safe to assume my last comment is correct? Somehow my topic wandered off it's original intended path. :) Thanks.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. IF you were playing that -3 shoe it MIGHT still be viable high-EV to do it. Anyone know the cutoff? zg
 
zengrifter said:
Not exactly. IF you were playing that -3 shoe it MIGHT still be viable high-EV to do it. Anyone know the cutoff? zg
Click to expand...

Good point, I brought it up since its the index to hit AA v A, but still might be positive EV, but I think its not.

For BS, EV of splitting AA v A is pretty low: 0.1091.

For BS, EV of hitting AA v A is slightly negative: -0.0205

I would doubt the EV of hitting AA v A would go up with a lower count, unless some weird counter-intuitive thing happens with AA v A in lower counts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top