I just don't get it! Standing if you can't DD??? Why?!

[FreeStyle]

I've always wondered this on A,7 versus 3-6. BS says to double down. But if it's not allowed it says to then stand instead?! If you double down you get a card and BS must be sure it it's going to be a good hand since it's telling you to DD. But if you can't DD it says to stand...taking away the possibility of getting a better hand by hitting.

So my question is, why don't we just hit if we can't DD? Seems like that would be the correct move for times when we can't DD on hands we are supposed to.

This fact used to really bother me and now it's bothering me again since I am encountering it more and more while I learn more indexes that say to do the DD and then stand if you can't.

Some insight please!

 

[daddybo]

Each double down situation is different depending on your cards and the dealer up cards, the count, etc. In the situations you are refering to, it is more likley for the dealer to bust instead of the player improving his hand. So if you can't double then there is no reason to risk adding another card to your hand in the absence of increasing your wager.

Blackjack is not about winning more hands than the dealer; it's all about having more money on the winning hands and less money on the losing hands. It's that simple.

 

[21gunsalute]

You have 18. If you can't double there is no sense in hitting it. If you hit soft 18 the odds are 2 to 1 that you'll end up with 17 or less rather than improve your hand (only an A,2 or 3 will improve your hand. 4,5,6,7,8 or 9 will give you 17 or less). You wouldn't normally hit soft 18 against against a dealer 8 or less. You double it if you can because you have a better than 50% chance of remaining at 18 or improving you hand, and 18 is usually good enough to win against a dealer 3-6, so it's worth the chance to double your money.

 

[somtum]

I don't know the math percentages but I'm sure by standing on for example a S18 vs 5 you will win more often rather than by hitting or doubling down.

You might then wonder...why does the strategy card say to double down if you'll win more times by standing than doubling down?

It's like this.. you'll lose a little more often by doubling down but you'll win more money.

Let's say you make a $1 bet with a 1% advantage. After 100 hands your Expected Profit is $1

But if you double down with a $2 bet, the 1% advantage now becomes a .75% advantage.

Well.. $2 a hand with a .75 advantage had an Expected Profit of $1.50 after 100 hands

You just made more money with your $2 double down bet even though it decreased your advantage.

 

[Sucker]

Assuming a single deck game, Las Vegas Strip rules; you have A-7, & dealer has a 5 up:

If you stand, you will:

win 54.9 %
lose 32.7 %
push 12.4 %
If you bet $1 per hand; after 100 hands you will have risked $100 and you can expect a return of $122.20, for a profit of $22.20.

If you double, you will:

win 54.9 %
lose 37.5 %
push 7.6 %
If you bet $1 per hand; after 100 hands you will have risked $200 and you can expect a return of $234.80, for a profit of $34.80.

If you hit, you will:

win 54.9 %
lose 37.5 %
push 7.6 %
If you bet $1 per hand; after 100 hands you will have risked $200 and will expect a return of $117.40, for a profit of $17.40.