In what circumstances would you double down for less?
- Thread starter kilmet
- Start date
- Tags double down
it's theoretically possible you might want to double down for less if you have first card knowledge of an ace and bet big based on that knowledge and then pick up a soft double. or if you exhausted most of your triproll making the bet on the ace but still have a substantial bankroll in your chequing account so that you WANT to double for full but don't have the cash on you. or, a ploppy beside you makes a 20k bet, picks up 11 vs 6 and then decides he doesn't want to play any more and sells you his hand for 20k straight up. then you would double for less if you had less than 20k more on you since presumably will not be hitting again anyway.
or how about this. you have 11 v 6 on a 1k bet. problem is, you are running bad and have already turned in 9k in cash. you're out of chips. now you could buy the full 1k and give them your ID, but then you might get 86'd because you are in all the databases. So you buy just 995 and double for 995, forgoing $1 in EV for hopefully some extra longevity.
Obvious situation would be if you don't have enough funds to complete the 'full' double. BUT, if you are an AP (card counter) you should never put yourself in that position. Never start a session or shoe without enough funds to complete it and that includes double downs and splits. We card counters get those juicy plus count, advantageous situations so infrequently, so the last thing we want to do is walk away mid shoe from a strong plus count and advantageous situation.
There are some that are employing a "cover" type strategy of doubling down for less (usually much less), on non advantageous double down situations. One of the common one's is 12 vs 2. Players are doubling down on this for less, usually a very small amount like $5 on a much larger bet (some even go as low as to double for $1). The idea is that this play, which often the dealer must announce, will disqualify them in the eyes of the pit as a card counter.
Doubling 10 vs 10 is another one that is sometimes used for cover. While double down is the correct play at higher true counts, it is incorrect to double at most counts, but is close enough that it doesn't cost that much if you are doubling for significantly less.
I am not a fan of this particular idea of cover. I think unusual plays are just as likely to draw attention as deflect it.
There are some that are employing a "cover" type strategy of doubling down for less (usually much less), on non advantageous double down situations. One of the common one's is 12 vs 2. Players are doubling down on this for less, usually a very small amount like $5 on a much larger bet (some even go as low as to double for $1). The idea is that this play, which often the dealer must announce, will disqualify them in the eyes of the pit as a card counter.
Doubling 10 vs 10 is another one that is sometimes used for cover. While double down is the correct play at higher true counts, it is incorrect to double at most counts, but is close enough that it doesn't cost that much if you are doubling for significantly less.
I am not a fan of this particular idea of cover. I think unusual plays are just as likely to draw attention as deflect it.