Adhoc and I were playing one time when I received a pair of 3's against a 10. I mentioned to him that I saw a fellow split those once and it confirmed to me that he was not a counter.
Adhoc, I seem to recall, mentioned to me that such a split could be a "pro" play under certain circumstances.
Question, is there a count or a situation that calls for this split? Particularly interested in SD and DD games.
Regards, Jimmy B
> Adhoc, I seem to recall, mentioned to me
> that such a split could be a "pro"
> play under certain circumstances.
> Question, is there a count or a situation
> that calls for this split? Particularly
> interested in SD and DD games.
-------------
YES, for example if you knew the dealer's hole card was stiff, or that the nextcard to be dealt was an 8. zg
> Adhoc and I were playing one time when I
> received a pair of 3's against a 10. I
> mentioned to him that I saw a fellow split
> those once and it confirmed to me that he
> was not a counter.
> Adhoc, I seem to recall, mentioned to me
> that such a split could be a "pro"
> play under certain circumstances.
> Question, is there a count or a situation
> that calls for this split? Particularly
> interested in SD and DD games.
There could never possibly be a count that would warrant such a split; there would be no logic to the play. But, there could certainly be a situation. On p. 169 of Wong's "Pro BJ," we see the basic strategy for double exposure. We're told to split threes against the dealer's 13 through 17. So, if we knew that the hole card was a 3-7, splitting would be the right play.
Don
> YES, for example if you knew the dealer's
> hole card was stiff, or that the nextcard to
> be dealt was an 8. zg
See above. Note that "stiff" is a bit too general, as a deuce in the hole does not call for a split, but a 7 does. As for next-card information, James Grosjean tells us that if you know the next card is an 8 OR a 7, we should split.
Don
> There could never possibly be a count that
> would warrant such a split; there would be
> no logic to the play. But, there could
> certainly be a situation. On p. 169 of
> Wong's "Pro BJ," we see the basic
> strategy for double exposure. We're told to
> split threes against the dealer's 13 through
> 17. So, if we knew that the hole card was a
> 3-7, splitting would be the right play.
> Don
Don,
First, sorry about the above message. I did not enter a password so I could not delete it.
Any way, Wong also talks about splitting 3's against 10 in Pro BJ in relation to how count systems are devised. I don't have the book with me right now so I don't remember the page but he wrote that all that is needed is an excess of 7s and 8s (I think) for it to be the correct play. I also remember that he said that a side count of 7s and 8s is not good for much else and not worth the effort. I'm posting this from what I recall. Perhaps you can clarify.
Chucke
> Any way, Wong also talks about splitting
> 3's against 10 in Pro BJ in relation to how
> count systems are devised. I don't have the
> book with me right now so I don't remember
> the page but he wrote that all that is
> needed is an excess of 7s and 8s (I think)
> for it to be the correct play. I also
> remember that he said that a side count of
> 7s and 8s is not good for much else and not
> worth the effort. I'm posting this from what
> I recall. Perhaps you can clarify.
That comment is found at the bottom of p. 218, and you are correct in your recollection of what Wong wrote. Thanks for pointing it out.
Don
> See above. Note that "stiff" is a
> bit too general, as a deuce in the hole does
> not call for a split, but a 7 does. As for
> next-card information, James Grosjean tells
> us that if you know the next card is an 8 OR
> a 7, we should split.
-------------
However, if rules are DAS, maybe split 3s aven against 12? zg
> -------------
> However, if rules are DAS, maybe split 3s
> aven against 12? zg
I seem to have read Wong's table incorrectly. We do split 3s vs. dealer's 12 through 17, even with no das.
Don
> There could never possibly be a count that
> would warrant such a split; there would be
> no logic to the play. But, there could
> certainly be a situation. On p. 169 of
> Wong's "Pro BJ," we see the basic
> strategy for double exposure.
The correct page reference is p. 160, and, as noted below, we split 12-17.
Don
> Adhoc and I were playing one time when I
> received a pair of 3's against a 10. I
> mentioned to him that I saw a fellow split
> those once and it confirmed to me that he
> was not a counter.
> Adhoc, I seem to recall, mentioned to me
> that such a split could be a "pro"
> play under certain circumstances.
> Question, is there a count or a situation
> that calls for this split? Particularly
> interested in SD and DD games.
> Regards, Jimmy B
The play can be correct using ONLY count information. If you are using the ten count system, it is correct to split 3-3 vs. 10 if the non-ten to ten ratio is greater than 5.3. It can be found in Thorp's book second edition only.
I do not recommend splitting 3's vs a 10 up stiff in a hole card game.
In hole card games, some camoflague is necessary. Splitting 3's vs a 10 up stiff in double exposure is correct because you can then stay on your stiffs. But in a hole card game, you risk problems because-
1. You will get a lot of stiffs
2. They will often be 13's
3. Since you are splitting pairs,your hands are now face up for the whole world to see, and splitting 3's vs a 10 and then staying on 13, raises eyebrows unnecessarily.
4. Splitting 3's vs 10 up stiff is only a modestly strong play. If you hit stiffs to avoid the heat, you have blown most or all of your EV from this play.
I recommend just hitting 33 vs 10 up stiff, but then staying on stiffs after you hit, which gives you good EV anyway.
Same applies to 22 vs 10 up stiff. 44 or 55 are obviously not splittable.
But I DO split 66 vs 10 up stiff, because even if I get a stiff, it is likely to be a 16, staying 16 vs a 10 is not unusual. If I get a 8 or 9, I'll stay on the 14 and 15 too, no problem. If I get a 6, I have a 12... but I can just resplit! The only problem hand is if I catch a 7, then I have the dreaded 13 vs 10 face up for all the world to see. I'll sacrifice some EV in that case and hit it once. But that doesn't come up very often. Staying on a 12 (66) vs a 10 up stiff raises eyebrows and is not very strong anyway, splitting 66 vs a 10 up stiff is about 3 times stronger.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks