# Thread: HOLLYWOOD: What's the rooms opinion on

1. ## HOLLYWOOD: What's the rooms opinion on

this one??????????????

I was having a conversation with a fellow counter the other day. This was our dispute.

Using KO at high counts, when I have my large bet out there I don't split my 8's against a dealer 9 or 10. This is at +3 or better.
Ko does not say this in the book, but if I would be taking insurance at that high count because of the high probability of a monkey in the hole, then why would I split my 8's. It dosen't make sense.
My friend disagrees. What is the room take on this???

Actually I don't hit it at all, I treat it as a 16 with a high count.

Thanks,

Hollywood

2. ## Kasey: Re: What's the rooms opinion on

> Ko does not say this in the book, but if I
> would be taking insurance at that high count
> because of the high probability of a monkey
> in the hole, then why would I split my 8's.
> It dosen't make sense.

Actually, being at +3 only means there is a better than 1 in 3 chance of a 10 in the hole.

I think they need to be split.

3. ## Don Schlesinger: Re: What's the rooms opinion on

> Actually, being at +3 only means there is a
> better than 1 in 3 chance of a 10 in the
> hole.

> I think they need to be split.

Against the 9, there is no question: you split. Against the 10, splitting 8-8 is a reverse index. You split as long as the count is lower than you index. That index varies by system and by rules (das or ndas).

For your K-O, the count you indicate isn't high enough to NOT split, so you should split v. the 10, as well.

Don

4. ## HOLLYWOOD: Re: What's the rooms opinion on

> Against the 9, there is no question: you
> split. Against the 10, splitting 8-8 is a
> reverse index. You split as long as the
> count is lower than you index. That index
> varies by system and by rules (das or ndas).

> For your K-O, the count you indicate isn't
> high enough to NOT split, so you should
> split v. the 10, as well.

> Don

Thank you Don. Which now leads me to my next question.
Using KO, at what count would I not split them against the dealer 10????????????
Maybe one of the Math guys can help out hear, considering DS is up at college.
As you know Don, the math side of this is not one of my strong points.
Also, are you saying that we should split them againt 9's regardless of the count?????

Thanks,

Hollywood

5. ## Kyle Sever: Re: What's the rooms opinion on

Hollywood, you can stop splitting 8's vs. a dealer ten with K-O at the pivot point. Always split 8's against a 9 unless you are playing a handheld game with a very high count (but since you play in AC, ignore it)

6. ## Don Schlesinger: Re: What's the rooms opinion on

> Hollywood, you can stop splitting 8's vs. a
> dealer ten with K-O at the pivot point.
> Always split 8's against a 9 unless you are
> playing a handheld game with a very high
> count (but since you play in AC, ignore it)

I'm not at home, but I'm guessing that the pivot might be right for ndas, but the index may be higher for das.

Don

7. ## M: Re: What's the rooms opinion on

Surrender 8,8 vs. 10 at the pivot point. Split always otherwise.

8. ## M: i meant the key count...

yes, not the pivot point. -4 in six deck games.

9. ## Kyle Sever: Re: What's the rooms opinion on

> I'm not at home, but I'm guessing that the
> pivot might be right for ndas, but the index
> may be higher for das.

For 6 deck DAS, the RA index is 5, which for all practical purposes can be considered the pivot point (4). For no DAS, it is 2.

10. ## Don Schlesinger: Re: What's the rooms opinion on

> For 6 deck DAS, the RA index is 5, which for
> all practical purposes can be considered the
> pivot point (4). For no DAS, it is 2.

You may be giving a RA index, but I was referring to the EV-maximizing indices, which, surely, are higher.

Don

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•