Blackjack strategy: Fact, not opinion

[neversplit5s]

Why do some people like to debate Blackjack strategy like they would religion or politics? The best way to play each hand (whether it be BS, counting indices, etc.) is mathematically based by determining the most optimal move, not what feels like "the best way" to go. I hear statements like "I don't hit 12 vs. a 2 because I always end up drawing a 10 and busting" or "I don't split 8s vs. a 10 because I always end up turning one losing hand into two losing ones" from many ploppy-types.

 

[21forme]

Because some people are stupid.

 

[Friendo]

Because some people are stupid.

Precisely. And we need these people, because without a steady cash flow, the casinos will close.

I place high priority on encouraging progressions, alternative new-age Zen approaches to the game, and hunch play in general. I do not embrace any of these techniques in my own play, but I strongly encourage voodoo players to get as much action as possible.

It speaks well of the morals of this site that we attempt to help progressionists see the uselessness of their strategies, but it's time to leave them be, and perhaps encourage them to experiment.

Let's just lay off the progressionists and those with "alternative" basic strategies - strategies such as have been suppressed by the government and oil companies - because their money is our money, with the casino merely a middleman. We need them for our livelihood.

 

[DirtHawker]

Are you talking about debating with players out on the casino floor, or are you talking about the debates here on the message boards? Because here, there is much more to it than just what's the highest EV move.

 

[neversplit5s]

Are you talking about debating with players out on the casino floor, or are you talking about the debates here on the message boards? Because here, there is much more to it than just what's the highest EV move.

The former, hence the "ploppy-types" in the last sentence of the OP. With the latter even with other factors like risk aversion taken into account it's still mathematically (and not "hunches") based, am I right?

 

[tthree]

The former, hence the "ploppy-types" in the last sentence of the OP. With the latter even with other factors like risk-aversion taken into account it's still mathematically (and not "hunches") based, am I right?

My risk averse strategy is never split 88 v T. My BR is to small to risk more in a bad situation to have 2 slightly better bad hands that risk twice as much because it will save me money in the long term. My BR demands the short term be the primary consideration.

 

[1357111317]

My risk averse strategy is never split 88 v T. My BR is to small to risk more in a bad situation to have 2 slightly better bad hands that risk twice as much because it will save me money in the long term. My BR demands the short term be the primary consideration.

If you arent comfortable splitting 8s v a 10 on max bet you are overbetting.

 

[LovinItAll]

My risk averse strategy is never split 88 v T. My BR is to small to risk more in a bad situation to have 2 slightly better bad hands that risk twice as much because it will save me money in the long term. My BR demands the short term be the primary consideration.

It's just a crummy position, but splitting the eights is a better play by (I think) about 50%, so it's not as close as it might appear - a much easier decision than 16 against the dealer's T, for example.

Just a thought. If I'm wrong about the %, please don't skewer me

 

[tthree]

If you arent comfortable splitting 8s v a 10 on max bet you are overbetting.

Im not comfortable splitting them on my min bet. I surrender or hit. Min bet is a hit. Other bets are surrendered.

 

[blackjackomaha]

Why do some people like to debate Blackjack strategy like they would religion or politics? The best way to play each hand (whether it be BS, counting indices, etc.) is mathematically based by determining the most optimal move, not what feels like "the best way" to go. I hear statements like "I don't hit 12 vs. a 2 because I always end up drawing a 10 and busting" or "I don't split 8s vs. a 10 because I always end up turning one losing hand into two losing ones" from many ploppy-types.

Even if those plops knew correct strategy, sometimes they are too attached to their money to make the plays. As Friendo said, these plops are the reason we are able to profit. They keep the A/C running, lights on, and chips flowing.

Unfortunately, I've even seen some amateur AP's unwilling to make the correct plays due to money issues. If the math dictates a certain play - make it. That's a concept that plops will NEVER understand!

 

[LovinItAll]

Im not comfortable splitting them on my min bet.

No kidding, right? I always split them anyway - or ask for a re-deal, which never seems to work.

 

[MangoJ]

Im not comfortable splitting them on my min bet. I surrender or hit. Min bet is a hit. Other bets are surrendered.

 

[tthree]

No kidding, right? I always split them anyway - or ask for a re-deal, which never seems to work.

Surrender is the correct index play for any count that would not have my min bet out for 88 v T. The strategy table I have has an splitting index for this hand matchup as "no" and the PE is .67, since that is about the highest PE you can achieve I am not going to argue.

 

[Gamblor]

Im not comfortable splitting them on my min bet. I surrender or hit. Min bet is a hit. Other bets are surrendered.

But your supposed to surrender 88 v 10 at an index of 1 (could be off by point or two, but its really low), and thus in all likelihood anytime you are betting above min?

I love splitting 88's v 10 at min bet (neg or neutral count), eat up them cards.

 

[21gunsalute]

But your supposed to surrender 88 v 10 at an index of 1 (could be off by point or two, but its really low), and thus in all likelihood anytime you are betting above min?

I love splitting 88's v 10 at min bet (neg or neutral count), eat up them cards.

I recently split 7's against a 10 at a very negative count. Ended up with 3 hands and 2 of them were multiple card 20's. Unfortunately the dealer also had 20, but I didn't lose anything more than the one bet I would have lost anyway. Ate up a ton of cards in the process.

 

[tthree]

But your supposed to surrender 88 v 10 at an index of 1 (could be off by point or two, but its really low), and thus in all likelihood anytime you are betting above min?

I love splitting 88's v 10 at min bet (neg or neutral count), eat up them cards.

I play mostly at crowded table but that is a good point anyway.

 

[Gamblor]

I play mostly at crowded table but that is a good point anyway.

Yeah, more of an effect with less players. Also my bad, misread your post, thought you didn't surrender at above min bet.

 

[Gamblor]

I recently split 7's against a 10 at a very negative count. Ended up with 3 hands and 2 of them were multiple card 20's. Unfortunately the dealer also had 20, but I didn't lose anything more than the one bet I would have lost anyway. Ate up a ton of cards in the process.

Interesting. Maybe I should try that Lets split those deuces against 10's at a neg count!

And also clear out the table.

 

[21gunsalute]

Interesting. Maybe I should try that Lets split those deuces against 10's at a neg count!

And also clear out the table.

Not something I would normally do (splitting the 7's against a 10), but the situation called for some drastic measures. We had 3 APs playing 2 spots each. The count was so negative we all looked at each other like "What are we going to do now. We can't all wong at once." We all started cracking up when I kept drawing card after card and made like two 5 or 6 card 20's. Can't remember what happened with the other hand but I think it involved drawing 3 or 4 cards too.

 

[Gamblor]

Not something I would normally do (splitting the 7's against a 10), but the situation called for some drastic measures. We had 3 APs playing 2 spots each. The count was so negative we all looked at each other like "What are we going to do now. We can't all wong at once." We all started cracking up when I kept drawing card after card and made like two 5 or 6 card 20's. Can't remember what happened with the other hand but I think it involved drawing 3 or 4 cards too.

Cool, completely agree. Yep, wouldn't do it every time. Just something I now plan to pull on occassion, at the right times. First have to look into the EV of these plays though Another arrow in the quiver.