splitting 10s

[Renzey]

I think it's the other way around. KO underestimates your advantage at the beginning, and overestimates your advantage late in the shoe.

Scott -- KO does underestimate your advantage early in the shoe because early on, the running count never reaches +4. Now late in the shoe, the running count is also mostly under +4, and it will overestimate your advantage. But if the running count happens to be over +4 late in the shoe, it will now underestimate your advantage.

 

[Kasi]

i guess my ignorance of this play isn't 100% my fault. using the google "illustrious 18" gives tons of websites that show splitting 10s is one of the most important plays for hi/lo, but in "KO blackjack" (the book), it is NOT listed.

having only just started to use KO, i am beginning to realize its shortcomings, but i never would have thought that the "illustrious 18" would be different amongst different systems. guess now i'll be playing the illustrious 20!

maybe Vancura and Fuchs took out splitting 10s because it is too obvious to the pit.... hmmmm.

If it makes you feel any better Schlesinger originally wanted to only have 16 plays and wanted to call it the "Sweet 16" excluding the 10's vs 5 & 6. He's a great believer in sacrificing win rate for longevity. But Griffin talked him into including them letting players do what they want the information.

They are valuable because u have a big bet out when they happen.

If he could re-name them, he would call them the "Elite 18" aftter the NCAA Elite 8.

 

[Kaiser]

The only experience I've ever had with splitting 10s was when a new player walked up and sat down at a 6 deck table I was at. He wasn't wonging in, because the count was pretty neutral. His third or so hand was a pair of 10s against a 6 and he tries to split.

Dealer asks him a couple times if he's sure he wants to split, he confirms, then she tells him that most people never split 10s. So he asks me if I would and I say no, I probably wouldn't. He asks if he's "allowed" to and the dealer says yes, but you should never split up a good hand like 20, it's the best hand you can have besides blackjack, etc. So the guy is sitting there saying "well geez, I usually do against a 6 though. Whatever, I'll stand then."

Dealer proceeds to rattle off a 21 and clear the table. The guy almost had an aneurysm. It was hilarious. :laugh:

 

[Kasi]

Well if you're gonna do it, do it against a 6 I guess.

I once saw this girl who obviously had no idea split 10,10 into 4 hands vs a dealer 10 and win every one.

After that, she thought she knew how to play

 

[EasyRhino]

Scott -- KO does underestimate your advantage early in the shoe because early on, the running count never reaches +4. Now late in the shoe, the running count is also mostly under +4, and it will overestimate your advantage. But if the running count happens to be over +4 late in the shoe, it will now underestimate your advantage.

I'm really close to understanding this.

How about: If the running count happens to be over +4 (roughly the pivot), any point in the shoe, KO will overstate the advantage, with increasing overstating as the running count increases.

If the count is under +4, KO will understate your advantage, with increasing understating as the running count drops.

Coincidentally, since the RC is generally low at the beginning of the shoe, and generally high at the end (due to the very design of the system), you will most often see underestimation of advantage early in the shoe, and overestimation at the end.

However, if the running count quickly jumped to +4, and then stayed at +4 for the duration of the shoe, then the measurement of advantage would be fairly constant across the deck (and that would become a very exciting shoe).

How's that?

 

[21forme]

When the RC equals the pivot point (+4 in 6D), TC = +4 regardless of the number of cards played. Picture a graph where the y axis is TC and the X axis is RC. You can draw a series of lines representing the # of cards played - they all intersect at (4,4). However, the slopes differ as the rate of change of TC per RC depends on the number of cards played,being steepest with more cards played.

At one deck played, your TC = +1.5 at RC = -12. Suppose 2 more low cards come out, so your RC is now -10. Your TC is now about +2, a TC difference of only 0.5 for a RC difference of 2.
At 5 decks played, you don't get to a TC of +1.5 until the RC is +2. With just 2 more low cards played, TC = +4, a difference 4x as great.