Does anybody have the stats on surrendering 88 as opposed to hitting 88 vs a 10..........I think hitting is the correct move.But I always surrender.

What counting system are we talking about? Also, Early or Late surrender? And splitting is the preferred option over hitting... Here is what it says in Wong's Professional blackjack book, this is for HiLo 4 decks H17; 88 surrender down to tc of -2 (Early sur) 88 surrender at true 1 (Late sur) Basically you ALWAYS SPLIT THE 8'S UNLESS IT'S A SURRENDER STATED ABOVE! This is with DOUBLE AFTER SPLIT of course, please specify.

I'm sorry let me rephrase my question.........I meant surrendering 8's as opposed to splitting 8's........Just want to know how close a call it is vs a 10.I'm a b/s player and the rules are s17 late surrender das

Don't forget the reverse 8-8 vs 10 index at high true counts IF surrender isn't an option Stand on 88 vs 10 at +6 and up in no-DAS games Stand on 88 vs 10 at +8 and up in DAS games.

So you don't count then? In that case always split the 8's and hope for a 3 for a double, or make a hand out of both the hard way lol.

EV of 88 vs 10 in DAS Game is -0.483, in N-DAS game is -0.493 EV of Surrender is -0.500 It's better to split until you get to the appropriate positive index to surrender.

I think the posters above have assumed that if you apply basic strategy, you are accepting you're playing a -EV game and are flat betting a sum each hand you are comfortable playing with and can afford to lose. In this case always split the 8s if surrender isn't available, although in the UK we don't do this when the dealer shows a 10 or A. If you spread your bets in line with a counting system considerations are different. What about splitting 8s against a dealer 9 in a very high count - where you have a max bet out, and the probabilities of 10 cards coming out increase, and there's no surrender option (as in the UK)? In both splitting or standing (or hitting) the odds are you'll lose - although over the long term you'll lose less through splitting. Problem is that you double your max bet in order to do so. The maths say to split, but your wallet may say otherwise (not a worry if you're a correctly capitalised AP, although not everyone is or plays with a dedicated bankroll).

No hole card, and those nasty dealer naturals win all bets - not funny if you've split a hand three or four times. The sums make splitting 8s against a 10 or A a -EV play for ENHC games.

the games here (that i usually play) are no hole card BUT dealer natural only takes original bet. does that make a diff really?

one thing i hate about no hole card is insurance is less accurate, because assume there are 4 total players at the table. my tc after adding up all the hands on the table is exactly true 3 and the dealer has an ace. by the time the players finish their hands the count could have dropped dramatically due to face cards being pulled and then the dealer pulls something like a 9. there goes my 19 and my insurance.

The accuracy is the same. You wouldn't have had more information if the dealer had a hole card prior to the insurance bet. This is the same incorrect logic that leads some to argue that being at first base has a better betting correlation because more cards are used up when you are at third base. You are making the best decision you can when you are given the option.

Is that true? It just seems more accurate with hole card since it's there already before players make their decisions on their hands.

But you don't know the order of the cards. When you make the insurance bet, the 10 can be underneath the ace just as easily as the xth card in the deck.

hmm well that's good to know, me and some counter friends of mine always thought hole card was more accurate for insurance. thanks sleight, its nice to learn something new everyday haha.:joker:

You're absolutely correct. Even though sitting at third base gives you more cards to base your decision to hit, double, stand, or split, you can only make the best decision possible for the particular moment in time no matter where you sit. A correct decision to double down at first base may be taken away by the time the dealer reaches third base. You can only make the best decision available at any given time. But what about the observation that positive counts generally do not appear until later in a shoe? Doesn't that give a slight edge to the guy at third base, since he is more likely to see a positive count where he can ramp up his bet, than if he were sitting at first base? That would have some effect, or am I wrong about that?

Um, I think your first paragraph contains the answer to your second paragraph. Everyone at the table has to place their bets at the same time, so there's no opportunity for third base to ramp up his bets any more than anyone else.

You're right again. A double down situation in a positive count is more likely to occur later rather than earlier in a shoe, but you are still limited by your original bet. It's all an optical allusion that one seat has any more edge than another, unless maybe you're HCing or doing something that is really seat dependent. Being an extrovert means I am more apt to think out loud before I have actually thought it out completely. But the good side of it is that someone with the answers will correct any mistake in my thinking, and after all, the main thing is to get it right in the end, is that not right? Thanks.