newtobj: Cost of this play

[newtobj]

What would doubling an 11 against an ace cost one in the long run? If they played the hand that way all the time.

It seems costly getting a picture on an 11 that's not doubled.

[Don Schlesinger]

> What would doubling an 11 against an ace
> cost one in the long run? If they played the
> hand that way all the time.

> It seems costly getting a picture on an 11
> that's not doubled.

What rules are you playing? How many decks?

Don

[newtobj]

> What rules are you playing? How many decks?

> Don

8 or 6 decks with DA2, DAS, NS, S17, NRA, SAD1

[Don Schlesinger]

> What would doubling an 11 against an ace
> cost one in the long run? If they played the
> hand that way all the time.

> It seems costly getting a picture on an 11
> that's not doubled.

In the 6-deck game that you mention, it would cost the flat-betting basic strategist about 2.1% of the wager in front of him. If you were to be betting black chips, the loss would be only 50 cents per 100 hands played, given the frequency of occurrence of the holding.

Obviously, once we spread, as a counter, the above changes, and, because it then becomes correct to be doubling in higher counts (above +1), the loss is even less, since you're actually making the right play part of the time.

Don

[Don Schlesinger]

I wrote:

> Obviously, once we spread, as a counter, the
> above changes, and, because it then becomes
> correct to be doubling in higher counts
> (above +1), the loss is even less, since
> you're actually making the right play part
> of the time.

This is one of several plays that come under the heading of CBS, or Counter's Basic Strategy. These are plays that, as a bet-spreading counter, we are better off making all the time, rather than not making all the time, because the larger bets, when the count justifies the double, more than make up for the losses for doubling incorrectly with the smaller bets out.

So, again, if you're not a counter, the hourly loss from doubling all the time is quite minimal, and if you are a counter, spreading your bets, doubling all the time results in a higher e.v. than if you were to never double the hand.

Of course, doubling according to the count yields the highest e.v. of all.

Don

[Magician]

> What would doubling an 11 against an ace
> cost one in the long run? If they played the
> hand that way all the time.

Don't forget that doubling more often increases variance, which makes it harder for a counter to get into the long run.

> It seems costly getting a picture on an 11
> that's not doubled.

As costly as getting an ace on an doubled 11?

[newtobj]

> As costly as getting an ace on an doubled
> 11?

Thats the worst.