Hollywood: I have a question?

[Hollywood]

This one is gonna seem stupid, but you must understand I have zero experience with surrender.

In a 6 deck game using KO with DAS, DOA SPLIT 3 TIMES and the count at plus 8. Of course, max bet is on the table.

I have a pair of 8's. Do I split them or surrender?

Thank you,

Hollywood

[[email protected]]

You should surrender against dealer 9,10,Ace (S17)

> This one is gonna seem stupid, but you must understand
> I have zero experience with surrender.

> In a 6 deck game using KO with DAS, DOA SPLIT 3 TIMES
> and the count at plus 8. Of course, max bet is on the
> table.

> I have a pair of 8's. Do I split them or surrender?

> Thank you,

> Hollywood

[bfbagain]

And this is regardless of count system.

If you have a max bet out, which is assuming that it is justified, i.e., the count calls for that bet, then your first, last, and only play is surrender.

The only exception is insurance, which should be bought first, again, assuming the bet is correctly correlated, and then you surrender. :-) Of course, the above surrender plays assume basic strategy.

This is designed to assist you in the event you're not prepared with surrender indices, or happen to forget them.

Also, don't forget the 7,7 vs 10 surrender too.

Just remember to say, surrender is my friend. Surrender is my friend.

I once had a whole table (black no less) chanting to me "mr surrender ya going surrender again?" They thought they were annoying and having fun. The pit wasn't amused. Internally, neither was I. I just kept my mouth shut, and walked with a win. No way would I have won if I hadn't been "mr. Surrender!"

cheers
bfb

[Don Schlesinger]

I know everyone means well, but your answers are not really correct.

First, understand that Hollywood didn't tell us what the dealer's upcard was, and he didn't tell us how deep into the six decks we were. This is critical with K-O, because the same running count at different levels translates to different equivalent true counts for other systems, such as Hi-Lo.

So, let's get down to cases. For the 6-deck game, the K-O IRC is -20. If we have a RC of +8, we have to say where we are in the pack. Suppose I assume the 3-deck level. Then, the neutral RC would be -20 + 3(+4) = -8. Since we're at +8, we're really +16 above neutral, and with three decks remaining, the equivalent to Hi-Lo would be a TC of +5.3.

So, what do we do with a pair of 8s? We do NOT surrender vs. 9 (Hi-Lo index is +7). We split. We DO surrender vs. 10. (Hi-Lo index is +2, with DAS. Forget Wong's 0; it's wrong.) And we do NOT ever surrender vs. Ace. We split. There is no index for surrendering 8,8 vs. Ace.

Finally, for 7,7, the Hi-Lo indices vs. 9, 10, and Ace, respectively, are +5, +2, and +5, so surrender is marginally correct vs. 9 and Ace here (but would be a toss-up if, say, four decks remained), and surrender vs. 10 would be correct.

Don

[bfbagain]

Practically speaking, if I'm making max bets -- and yes, I understand there is a difference between KO and level 2 counts -- but if I'm making max bets, against what would be a relatively standard set of surrender options, e.g., 15,16 vs 9, 10, A (add 8,8 vs 10/A as well), if I'm not surrendering, then I'm not playing correctly.

I understand both your concerns (as to perfect play, as I do), and having good and accurate information, as well as correct play, but I was under the impression that Hollywood hasn't played surrender games, and I merely was providing a fallback position.

If he knows those indices cold, then disregard all my comments.

If the change in play variations are that dramatic between balanced counts and KO, for those general assumptions to be incorrect, well....then I'm thankful I never chose to use KO.

cheers
bfb

[Don Schlesinger]

> Practically speaking, if I'm making max bets -- and
> yes, I understand there is a difference between KO and
> level 2 counts -- but if I'm making max bets, against
> what would be a relatively standard set of surrender
> options, e.g., 15,16 vs 9, 10, A (add 8,8 vs 10/A as
> well), if I'm not surrendering, then I'm not playing
> correctly.

I'm sorry, that just isn't correct. I'm not sure where you're getting an index number for surrendering 8,8 vs. Ace. I've never seen one. Have you? Where? Also, and I'm repeating mself here, we usually make a max bet at TC = +4 or +5, depending on style of play. The count Hollywood referred to was equivalent to a shade over +5, as well. The 8,8 vs. 9 surrender index is +7. So, just because oyu have a max bet out doesn't make surredner correct for that play either.

> If he knows those indices cold, then disregard all my
> comments.

Again, understand that for 8,8 vs. Ace, there IS NO INDEX!

> If the change in play variations are that dramatic
> between balanced counts and KO, for those general
> assumptions to be incorrect, well....then I'm thankful
> I never chose to use KO.

See above. Wrong conclusion.

Don

[bfbagain]

I had to leave, so yes, the "/A" in the add 8,8 vs 10/A as well as my thoughts were running on as I was typing and running out the door. So I stand, in that instance :-) corrected.

My index for 8,8 vs 9 is +13 My index for 8,8 vs 10 is +1 (AOII)

15 vs 9
15 vs 10
15 vs A

16 vs 9
16 vs 10
16 vs A

Now if my statement relatively standard set of surrender options wasn't clear, I can accept that. With the exceptions of 15 vs 9, and 15 vs A, all other values of the above listed set is negative (for my system).

Do you really disagree with advising someone who may forget a specific indice, who has a max bet out, again, for any count system, to just surrender with the above set, with the exception of 15 vs the 9 or A?

Really?

This is not an argument. This is about knowing basic strategy, and playing in a live environment, where there appears to be a long time habit in use.

I understand a little about human nature and habits. And in almost all cases, simple is better, when altering a behavior pattern. Most of us can do this (count and play correctly) in our sleep. In fact, most of us DO do this in our sleep. :-) I think many counters need to refresh their basic strategy skills, along with knowing their indice tables.

Hopefully, this is clear.

Finally, my indice for 15 vs 9 is +4 and vs A is +3. From a level 2 count perspective, my assumption would be that the level 1 counts would need a lower index than mine to be equivalent. So I'll stand by comments with the exception of my inadvertent use of the "/A" (for the above set), for a fallback, i.e., a failsafe approach to basic surrender. After all, speaking only for myself, the majority of shoe play decisions are nothing but basic strategy plays.

cheers
bfb

[Don Schlesinger]

... why you're being SOOOOOO defensive over this and going on so. I don't understand it at all. Hollywood asked ONE, very specific question, regarding a pair of eights, and whether they should be surrendered. He did not ask about anything else. You and another poster provided answers that simply were not accurate, and I pointed that out. No big deal.

You really need to let this go. Here is the original post:

"This one is gonna seem stupid, but you must understand I have zero experience with surrender.

"In a 6 deck game using KO with DAS, DOA SPLIT 3 TIMES and the count at plus 8. Of course, max bet is on the table.

"I have a pair of 8's. Do I split them or surrender?"

Don

[bfbagain]

You are right. I should have reread the original post. It was only about splitting eights. I know that there were other questions regarding surrender. My thoughts were on "run-on.'

So yes. It's not an issue. OK. That's what happens when you get senile ;-)

cheers
bfb

[Hollywood]

> This one is gonna seem stupid, but you must understand
> I have zero experience with surrender.

> In a 6 deck game using KO with DAS, DOA SPLIT 3 TIMES
> and the count at plus 8. Of course, max bet is on the
> table.

> I have a pair of 8's. Do I split them or surrender?

> Thank you,

> Hollywood

Sorry guys, I left out an important piece of info.

Under the above conditions, the dealers up card was a 9 or 10.

Thank you,

Hollywood

[Don Schlesinger]

> Sorry guys, I left out an important piece of info.

> Under the above conditions, the dealers up card was a
> 9 or 10.

We, of course, assumed that, and our answers (surely mine) reflect that piece of information.

Don