With my max bet out I receieve two A,7's against an ace.I lose the insurance.Does anyone hit on one and stay on the other?Willi.
With my max bet out I receieve two A,7's against an ace.I lose the insurance.Does anyone hit on one and stay on the other?Willi.
> With my max bet out I receieve two A,7's
> against an ace.I lose the insurance.Does
> anyone hit on one and stay on the
> other?Willi.
Why would you do that at +5? I would insure both hands and hope for the best. Besides, the correct play is to stand on both hands.
Sincerely,
Cacarulo
> With my max bet out I receieve two A,7's
> against an ace.I lose the insurance.Does
> anyone hit on one and stay on the
> other?Willi.
What is your motivation in asking if you should play one hand correctly and one hand incorrectly? Just curious.
Don
I did of course stay.I thought this play might reduce fluctuations.Willi.
Actually, I think it's an interesting question. Almost undoubtedly (sorry, I?m modifying an absolute again) the answer is to take the correct play. But this is a unusual case. On a very close call at max bet, there could conceivably be situations where the RA play is to reduce multi-hand correlation by, in essence, betting against yourself.
This is an interesting issue, and one which I have been meaning to study. I just haven't gotten around to it.
A better example would be holding 12 and Stiff against a 4. If you stand on both, you either win or lose both bets together. If you hit the 12, there is some diversification and risk-aversion. It is clear that there is some critical fraction for this play; that if your bet is big enough, you would hit.
It may affect marginal doubles on split and re-split situations.
My guess is that RA considerations would not be strong enough in this situation, because the play isn't that close.
BTW, doesn't this issue depend on H17 or S17. I think everyone is answering as though it were S17, and maybe it is, but I didn't see that mentioned in the post.
> Actually, I think it's an interesting
> question. Almost undoubtedly (sorry, I?m
> modifying an absolute again) the answer is
> to take the correct play. But this is a
> unusual case. On a very close call at max
> bet, there could conceivably be situations
> where the RA play is to reduce multi-hand
> correlation by, in essence, betting against
> yourself.
> Actually, I think it's an interesting
> question. Almost undoubtedly (sorry, I?m
> modifying an absolute again) the answer is
> to take the correct play. But this is a
> unusual case. On a very close call at max
> bet, there could conceivably be situations
> where the RA play is to reduce multi-hand
> correlation by, in essence, betting against
> yourself.
No, it's not going to happen. With such a high count, hitting and standing are probably going to produce the same results anyway. You draw a ten to the hand you hit, and you're right back where you started from.
The dealer then draws 4 or 5 small cards for 21 and beats both hands, regardless! ;-)
Don
Eight decks,S17.Willi.
Especially, when playing heads up, it is important also to consider card-eating effect. I am always tempted to stand rather than hit in close calls, for example, I may stand hard 15 vs. 10 at TC+3.5 if I see that one extra card could possibly provoke the shuffle. For that reason I'd better always stand at A,7 vs. Ace at positive counts. This is definetely a correct play. However, I wonder if anyone has run some simulations regarding card-eating effect for heads-up play. Can it be justified that hit/stand indices in these situations will be a little bit lower?
Regards,
Orson
Good point but in this case the cut card had come out on the round.Willi.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks