David Spence: Fashionably late surrender

[David Spence]

At casinos where the dealer does not get a hole card until after all player hands are completed, some dealers mistakenly allow early surrender, even though the rules only permit late surrender. Such dealers are often inconsistent about this. That is, if you surrender against 10 or ace and the dealer later goes on to get a natural, a particular dealer may have a 50% chance of taking your entire bet and a 50% chance of returning half of your bet.

Does anyone know the correct surrender strategy if there's a 50% chance of early surrender and a 50% chance of late surrender? Assume 6D, S17, DAS, only original bet loses to a natural.

For what it's worth, this happens most often at Multi Action tables, where, despite their not being ENHC, the dealer still doesn't take a hole card until all player hands are completed. Any additional bets resulting from splits or doubles are returned if the dealer gets a natural.

[MGP]

> Does anyone know the correct surrender strategy if
> there's a 50% chance of early surrender and a 50%
> chance of late surrender? Assume 6D, S17, DAS, only
> original bet loses to a natural.

The only real way to figure this out without major reprogramming is to just do it manually. Just use Eric Farmer's program to get the early surrender EV's (I think it gives those...) for each 2 card hand you're interested in and average it with -0.5 to get the average EV. Then manually compare to hit/stand/double/split.

Good luck,
MGP

[David Spence]

Thanks MGP--I really appreciate it.

> Just use Eric
> Farmer's program to get the early surrender EV's
> think it gives those...) for each 2 card hand you're
> interested in and average it with -0.5 to get the
> average EV.

I'm a bit confused by this part. Why average the ES EV with -0.5 for each hand? Even if there's a 50% chance ES will be "turned into" LS, this only results in a loss of 1 bet if the dealer has a natural. Changing ES to LS after the player's decision is made is immaterial in other cases. Averaging the ES EVs with -0.5 may be correct, I just don't understand it :-)

David

[MGP]

> Thanks MGP--I really appreciate it.

> I'm a bit confused by this part. Why average the ES EV
> with -0.5 for each hand? Even if there's a 50% chance
> ES will be "turned into" LS, this only
> results in a loss of 1 bet if the dealer has a
> natural. Changing ES to LS after the player's decision
> is made is immaterial in other cases. Averaging the ES
> EVs with -0.5 may be correct, I just don't understand
> it :-)

First I assumed it was not ENHC, if it was then you'd average the LS value with -0.5.

It's simple, the net value of surrender in this scenario is:

EV(Surr) = 0.5*LS Value + 0.5*ES Value.

Since the EV of LS is -0.5 you just average the value with the ES value. What might be confusing is that when I mention an ES value, it's the adjusted value that makes up for a dealer checking for BJ so the value for ES is greater than -0.5.

[anon]

this is a real opportunity

find these dealars and use ian anderson strategies to encourage them to use early surrender

is worth big $$ to u