Is it ever justified to double your hand for less than your original bet (if the casino allows it, of course)? I am thinking of scenarios like when the count is very low and you didn't wong out, for whatever reason. Obviously, the best thing is to stay away from these negative counts, but if you are still in, does it make any sense to double for less? Is hitting only a better option maybe?
Double for less
- Thread starter DonR
- Start date
Sonny
Well-Known Member
When you double down, you are doing it because you have a good starting hand. If you double for less then you will win less money from those good hands, which will hurt you. You need those wins to offset the losses on your bad hands. Any hand that you normally double should be doubled for the full amount.
-Sonny-
-Sonny-
I can't think of any reason one would ever do this. You can always "double for zero" and just hit one card.
All doubling plays are +EV, so any doubling for less would be sacrificing EV. Perhaps if you have a really huge bet out, and you're hoping some variance reduction?
All doubling plays are +EV, so any doubling for less would be sacrificing EV. Perhaps if you have a really huge bet out, and you're hoping some variance reduction?
zengrifter
Banned
NEVER appropriate, except for cover to look like a sucker - sucker play. zg
cardcounter0
Well-Known Member
Not appropriate for the low count situations you describe (better to hit, maybe multiple times to improve your win %, and not put any additional money on the table).
It is appropriate in extreme high counts, when you have huge amounts bet, and because of variance and bankroll considerations, you would be overbetting. Better to double for less, sacrifice some EV, and perserve bankroll if you lose. Similar to not taking full insurance type situations.
It is appropriate in extreme high counts, when you have huge amounts bet, and because of variance and bankroll considerations, you would be overbetting. Better to double for less, sacrifice some EV, and perserve bankroll if you lose. Similar to not taking full insurance type situations.
it is 100% appropriate in *certain* situations
but as others state, 0% appropriate in 99% of the cases.
it is indeed appropriate in instances where you have an excessive fraction of your bankroll in the betting box already and you are risk-averse. there is a certain fraction of your bankroll that must be bet for this to come into play depending on the hand type, but it can happen. for instance doubling for less on certain soft hands because you bet very big once you knew an ace was coming.
just playing devil's advocate here :devil:
but as others state, 0% appropriate in 99% of the cases.
it is indeed appropriate in instances where you have an excessive fraction of your bankroll in the betting box already and you are risk-averse. there is a certain fraction of your bankroll that must be bet for this to come into play depending on the hand type, but it can happen. for instance doubling for less on certain soft hands because you bet very big once you knew an ace was coming.
just playing devil's advocate here :devil:
I should have probably asked a different question: would it make any sense to only hit, instead of doubling? For example, I have 9, 10 or 11, and the dealer is showing a bust card (say 4, 5, or 6). The count is pretty bad, let's say -5 (I know I shouldn't be playing at these counts, to begin with, lol, and that's exactly what I've been trying to stay away from lately).
So, under these circumstances, is the right play still sticking to BS and doubling, or maybe be more cautious and just hit, without potentially losing even more money, due to the increased house's edge. I guess the bottom line is: am I still favored to win because I have a good hand, having in mind that my edge is already decreased by 2% or so, in this particular case?
Thank you for all your inputs, gentlemen.
So, under these circumstances, is the right play still sticking to BS and doubling, or maybe be more cautious and just hit, without potentially losing even more money, due to the increased house's edge. I guess the bottom line is: am I still favored to win because I have a good hand, having in mind that my edge is already decreased by 2% or so, in this particular case?
Thank you for all your inputs, gentlemen.
zengrifter
Banned
Disagree. zgcardcounter0 said:
ihate17
Well-Known Member
Overbetting
If one were to double for less because of bankroll considerations, I take that as they were overbetting their bankroll to begin with. If you have a huge bet out, you should have been aware that their is a possibility that you might split to 4 hands and land up with 4 doubles, having 8 huge bets on the felt.
I know this is highly unlikely but many times I have had 6 max bets on the felt and had 5 just the other day (dealer busts are extremely sweet in these situations)
So if you feel you must double for less in these situations it is just plain overbetting in my opinion.
ihate17
cardcounter0 said:
If one were to double for less because of bankroll considerations, I take that as they were overbetting their bankroll to begin with. If you have a huge bet out, you should have been aware that their is a possibility that you might split to 4 hands and land up with 4 doubles, having 8 huge bets on the felt.
I know this is highly unlikely but many times I have had 6 max bets on the felt and had 5 just the other day (dealer busts are extremely sweet in these situations)
So if you feel you must double for less in these situations it is just plain overbetting in my opinion.
ihate17
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
Congrats of Blackjackinfo.coms 100,000th Post!Sonny said:
I was watching when this was posted
HarryKuntz
Well-Known Member
You have a huge 51% advantage if you know your first card is going to be an ACE but it's not 100% and its not a guaranteed win. In this situation, you should have out your max bet or as much as you can afford but you still shouldn't be over betting your BR. As 17 says, what happens if that Ace gets paired up? You could be on your way home very, very, quickly!rukus said:
Over betting your BR is a common schoolboy error and it's a sure fire way to go broke.
zengrifter
Banned
Actually Rukus is correct - if you KNOW you'll get an Ace then you can make a huge bet, like say 25% or more of your BR,HarryKuntz said:
and you would NOT be overbetting. But if I then got a doubledown hand, I doubt that I'd double. zg
zengrifter
Banned
Where is that # listed? mjack said:Congrats of Blackjackinfo.coms 100,000th Post!
I was watching when this was posted
Sonny
Well-Known Member
Any sort of location play. Usually it involves one or more of the following techniques: sequencing, spotting, cutting, steering, indexing and reading (other players may use different terms for these techniques). These are way beyond the realm of counting.DonR said:
-Sonny-