Did I make a huge mistake?

Z

ZeeBabar

Banned
I recieved a pair of 9's against a 7 with a TC +3, split them (BS calls for me to stand), eventually ended with 4 9's , ended up with 19,19, 9+5+8 (busted), 17 but the dealer pulled a 4 under his 7, ended up with 21 and I lost all 4 hands or $500 bucks ($125 a hand).

At what TC do you split 9's? I only play I-18 and did not know the index for splitting.
 
sagefr0g

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
ZeeBabar said:
I recieved a pair of 9's against a 7 with a TC +3, split them (BS calls for me to stand), eventually ended with 4 9's , ended up with 19,19, 9+5+8 (busted), 17 but the dealer pulled a 4 under his 7, ended up with 21 and I lost all 4 hands or $500 bucks ($125 a hand).

At what TC do you split 9's? I only play I-18 and did not know the index for splitting.
Click to expand...
off hand, i don't know at what TC one would split 9's vs a 7 .
also don't know what the rules of the game you were playing were.
but you may find interesting the image below for a 6D, S17, DOA, DAS, RSA=0, RSP=4 game. (data provided courtesy of Cacarulo)
the image shows ev's for various actions for 9,9 vs 7 .

99v7-jpg.9007
 
Talmadge

Talmadge

Well-Known Member
Hi Zeebabar, you did the right thing. Split at TC3 or more if you can double after split or split at TC6 or more if you are not allowed to double after split. Its the same indices whether it is S17 or H17
 
S

stopgambling

Well-Known Member
it is better to do it at tc 6 because of the variance and the lost can impact your bankroll growth. the index is for max. EV only .
 
2

21forme

Well-Known Member
If you didn't know the index, why did you split?
Do you also not know Basic Strategy?
When will you learn that results of an individual hand don't matter in analyzing the "correctness" of a play?
 
Z

ZeeBabar

Banned
21forme said:
If you didn't know the index, why did you split?
Do you also not know Basic Strategy?
When will you learn that results of an individual hand don't matter in analyzing the "correctness" of a play?
Click to expand...
I stated in my OP that I know BS calls for standing and that I play I-18. I also knew that at some positive TC, I should split, did not know what that was. In the game, DAS was allowed.
 
sagefr0g

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
i'm gonna wong in here and say that a circa 0.035793 deficit on ZeeBabar's heuristic doesn't seem so tragic. but of course, similar to trying to take a picture of a cat, his action mushroomed into a four hand nuclear explosion.:eek:
there doesn't seem to be anything incorrect about the statements of either xengrifter, Spyros Acebos, gronbog, 21forme, imho, and i guess paradoxically? that, stopgambling and Talmadge are correct as well, that ZeeBabar's stab in the dark decision was indeed on target.
there is a supposedly wise old saying, "if on the road one comes to a fork in the road, and one doesn't know which way to go, then one should do nothing."
in this case ZeeBabar would have landed up standing, by default, assuming the dealer and pit would have lost patience with his inaction and moved on with the round. then he could have perhaps sued the casino for a vast fortune, by having a lawyer show that the forced action was in fact incorrect far as the index goes.:rolleyes:
but the fact is ZeeBabar was certain about bs, and uncertain about the index. that being the case, imho, he should have stood, unless his personal certainty equivalence was such that the risk of splitting was worth it to him .:cool:
wonging is fun ;)
 
M

Meistro

Well-Known Member
No not really. You are being unduly influenced by the results of the hand. Still you have been playing blackjack for how many years now and you still only know 18 index plays? Learn 2 or 3 new ones a day it is not very hard takes about 5 or 10 minutes of time.

99 v 7 is a split at +3 hi lo EV maximizing, but if you have made an aggressive wager (we shall define aggressive wager here as .5% of your bankroll or more) then you should probably stay on this hand until TC +5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top