I've read over the BJ literature and cannot determine whether re-splits were taken into account when ranking 10/10 splits vs. 5 & 6 as the fourth and fifth most productive index plays of the Illustrious 18. I'm curious because when splitting normal pairs, there's only about a 14% chance for re-splitting. But when splitting 10's at a qualifying count, there's at least a 58% potential for re-splits. Hence, I think the two EV's would be substantially different.
I-18 and splitting 10's
- Thread starter Renzey
- Start date
zengrifter
Banned
I believe this to be a totally original question deserving of an analysis. zgRenzey said:
Don Schlessinger on the RGE pages has replied that he does not suppose re-splitting was included in the figure. I've been guessing not as well.zengrifter said:
My software says that with 10/10 vs. 5 at a +7 TC, the gain from standing is +70% EV, and from splitting is +77%. Since my actual splits of this hand in the casino have so often turned into 3 and 4 hands, it made me wonder whether re-splits were used in the 77% figure. My next question is, what would the real fugure be if it weren't, and might it cause splitting 10's to move up the ranking ladder ahead of standing with 15 vs. 10???
Ferretnparrot
Well-Known Member
Correct me if im wrong, but I am pretty sure that once we have split the hand, and we have another pair of tens, the fact that the hand originated from previously splitting another pair is irrelevant, and now we traeat it as a pair of tens and the original index still applies?
If splitting a tens the first time is a good ideas, then splitting them a second time would also be a good idea, so it shouldnt matter the chance of re splitting.
However, I do agree that the probibility fo resplitting tens is higher than normal pairs, and I do think that the index numbers for splitting them may be a bit different based on how many hands you are allowed to split to, if it is unlimited or say to only two hands there may be a small difference.
If splitting a tens the first time is a good ideas, then splitting them a second time would also be a good idea, so it shouldnt matter the chance of re splitting.
However, I do agree that the probibility fo resplitting tens is higher than normal pairs, and I do think that the index numbers for splitting them may be a bit different based on how many hands you are allowed to split to, if it is unlimited or say to only two hands there may be a small difference.
zengrifter
Banned
Splitting AND re-splitting 10s creates fairly high variance, yes?
Is that something that should also be factored into the consideration? zg
Is that something that should also be factored into the consideration? zg
Southpaw
Well-Known Member
I recently generated RA indices for splitting tens for the Zen count. The index nearly doubled for the plays because of the high variance involved when one throws away a winning hand for the prospect of gaining more. However, this is still a move that I advocate doing when called for.zengrifter said:
SP
Edit: Let me take that back. The indices for splitting tens may not have nearly doubled, but they did increase quite significantly.
Last edited:
zengrifter
Banned
ZGI - page 11 >>Southpaw said:
Splitting 10s is a risky yet lucrative play that most counters avoid -
but I’ve watched you split tens many times.
How do you establish yourself as a 10-splitter without drawing heat?
I’m an enthusiastic 10-splitter, though I fancy that my top-bet 10s get split at a higher true count
typically than the strict EV-based indices suggest, thus a bit more ‘risk-averse’… and as the
number of splits increases, my index rises higher into RA territory.
I also establish myself early on
as a 10-splitter by splitting and re-splitting tens incorrectly a couple of times with small bets out,
even against a 3 or a 7 perhaps. Besides the obvious cover value, it’s also an excellent way to
clear the table of excess players - and if I’m lucky enough to cause the loss of others’ bets due to
the ‘obnoxious’ splits, I chuckle at the player’s loss and announce that “it will work better next time!”
If a ploppy invades my table I will often immediately ask them in mock surveyesque fashion “would
you play at the same table as some crazy yahoo who splits 10s?”
More times than not they will passionately reply “NO!” Then I turn to the dealer and say, “Hurry up
Sally - deal me some 10s!” The other players usually get the message. I'm also fond of getting
another player at the table to split their tens – usually a wild redneck or one of ‘the brothers’ – I put
up the other half, going “partners” - in which case the index need only be well below what even
doubling on 10 would be.
but I’ve watched you split tens many times.
How do you establish yourself as a 10-splitter without drawing heat?
I’m an enthusiastic 10-splitter, though I fancy that my top-bet 10s get split at a higher true count
typically than the strict EV-based indices suggest, thus a bit more ‘risk-averse’… and as the
number of splits increases, my index rises higher into RA territory.
I also establish myself early on
as a 10-splitter by splitting and re-splitting tens incorrectly a couple of times with small bets out,
even against a 3 or a 7 perhaps. Besides the obvious cover value, it’s also an excellent way to
clear the table of excess players - and if I’m lucky enough to cause the loss of others’ bets due to
the ‘obnoxious’ splits, I chuckle at the player’s loss and announce that “it will work better next time!”
If a ploppy invades my table I will often immediately ask them in mock surveyesque fashion “would
you play at the same table as some crazy yahoo who splits 10s?”
More times than not they will passionately reply “NO!” Then I turn to the dealer and say, “Hurry up
Sally - deal me some 10s!” The other players usually get the message. I'm also fond of getting
another player at the table to split their tens – usually a wild redneck or one of ‘the brothers’ – I put
up the other half, going “partners” - in which case the index need only be well below what even
doubling on 10 would be.
Southpaw
Well-Known Member
Wow ... buying another player's ten split. That is really profitable, assuming the dealer is not showing too intimidating of an up-card. Have never thought of such a thing, though I imagine it may take quite an act to convince a ploppy to throw away his 20.zengrifter said:
SP
TT v 6, multiple splits
For what it's worth splitting tens versus 6 and resplitting at every opportunity appears to max out EV wise at about 2 splits when count is around the index for splitting.
Below shows data from 8 decks with composition altered to 14,14,14,14,14,16,16,16,72,18 (2-A). This is a reasonably average HiLo TC = +5.
Split data shows EV for splitting at every opportunity and stopping if and when 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 splits are reached.
Dealer up card: 6
Player Hand: 10,10....computing....please wait
Player Stand EV: 0.7235466874
Player Hit EV: -0.8324454365
Double EV on 20: -1.664890873
Split[1]: 0.734350398
Split[2]: 0.7371691241
Split[3]: 0.7370474814
Split[4]: 0.7356571088
Split[5]: 0.7337203066
Split[6]: 0.7315913254
Split[7]: 0.7294548791
Split[8]: 0.727408875
Split[9]: 0.725503639
For what it's worth splitting tens versus 6 and resplitting at every opportunity appears to max out EV wise at about 2 splits when count is around the index for splitting.
Below shows data from 8 decks with composition altered to 14,14,14,14,14,16,16,16,72,18 (2-A). This is a reasonably average HiLo TC = +5.
Split data shows EV for splitting at every opportunity and stopping if and when 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 splits are reached.
Dealer up card: 6
Player Hand: 10,10....computing....please wait
Player Stand EV: 0.7235466874
Player Hit EV: -0.8324454365
Double EV on 20: -1.664890873
Split[1]: 0.734350398
Split[2]: 0.7371691241
Split[3]: 0.7370474814
Split[4]: 0.7356571088
Split[5]: 0.7337203066
Split[6]: 0.7315913254
Split[7]: 0.7294548791
Split[8]: 0.727408875
Split[9]: 0.725503639
zengrifter
Banned
Drunk rednecks and blacks - "If you got the balls to split those, I'll put up half!"Southpaw said:
Rensey's BJBB2 has the best overview of scavenger hand interactions. zg
Last edited:
zengrifter
Banned
The problem I have with this type of sim-analysis is that it shows the long-view,k_c said:
but I feel like it doesn't adequately reflect the actual value IN THAT MOMENT? zg
Firstly, it's not a sim. It's an exact calculation. :whip:zengrifter said:
Secondly, you may have a point. The data just shows EV of someone with a pair of tens versus a 6 that chooses a strategy of splitting at every opportunity up to a certain number of splits at the very beginning of the hand and following through with that strategy come hell or high water. Each new splitting opportunity will have it's own modified EV, though, depending upon what additional cards have been seen.
KC, very enlightening -- thanks a ton! I think this shows that re-splitting 10's vs. 5 or 6 at TC +7.5 basically doubles the gain beyond standing as compared to splitting one time only. Since standing with 15 vs. 10 is worth 37 thousandths of a percent in the I-18 computations and splitting 10/10 vs. 6 was worth 17 thousandths (with another 17 thousandths for splitting 10/10 vs. 5), splitting and re-splitting the two hands as a combined strategy would seem to be worth more than the 15 vs. 10 index play. Did I jump to any conclusions? Anybody?k_c said:
I do believe that those who don't split 10's for cover reasons might want to re-think it. I know they say that only two kinds of players split 10's -- idiots or counters. But more glaring than that is that only one kind of player insures his 13. In either case you either slip it past'em, or you don't.
Last edited: