Double21: Question for John Auston

[Double21]

Do you consider the impact (in BJRM) from not using large cards when the late surrender option is accepted? Particularily late in the deck or shoe with a positive count, any exercise of a late surrender option saves high cards. This often means more rounds prior to a shuffle and, since accepting surrender occurs more frequently in high count situations, it's a nice additional bonus. The other night I got two more rounds in a max bet situation by using the surrender option! Thanks in advance for your usual great help.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Do you consider the impact (in BJRM) from
> not using [up] large cards when the late
> surrender option is accepted? Particularily
> late in the deck or shoe with a positive
> count, any exercise of a late surrender
> option saves high cards.

Maybe, maybe not. With the most common surrender, 16 v. 10, with any non-negative count, you wouldn't be hitting anyway. Other situations, with very high counts, might also produce stands on other totals, vs. other dealer up cards. Of course, surrendering, on average, saves cards.

> This often means
> more rounds prior to a shuffle and, since
> accepting surrender occurs more frequently
> in high count situations, it's a nice
> additional bonus.

"More rounds," in the plural, seems to be stretching things a little. I doubt very, very much, in a shoe game, if surrendering buys, on average, more than one extra round per shoe.

> The other night I got two
> more rounds in a max bet situation by using
> the surrender option!

In a shoe? Please explain how.

Don

[Double21]

Don;

With about 1 1/4 decks of a 5/6 shoe remaining, I surrendered once with two spots out then got 20 and BJ; surrendered next hand on two spots and got big hands again after the cut card came out.Very high counts and I got two 15's and two 16's which I surrendered. In fact, I had max bets out the whole time. Good huh?

[Don Schlesinger]

> With about 1 1/4 decks of a 5/6 shoe
> remaining, I surrendered once with two spots
> out then got 20 and BJ; surrendered next
> hand on two spots and got big hands again
> after the cut card came out.Very high counts
> and I got two 15's and two 16's which I
> surrendered. In fact, I had max bets out the
> whole time. Good huh?

Would you not have stood on those hands anyway, had no surrender been offered? The point is, I don't see, from your story, how surrendering even got you ONE extra round, let alone two. Perhaps I'm missing something. Were you playing alone?

Don

[Double21]

> Playing alone.Would have stood on the sixteens and fifteens---guess you are right!

[Mr. Lucky]

from a single surrender, but it wouldn't happen that often. By surrendering a pair of eights vs. a ten in a heads up game you could even get three extra rounds if you split to four hands or hit several times on each eight. It doesn't happen often but it does happen. Trust me there have been several such instances this year where I've had a pair of eights up against a ten and surrender would have saved a whole trip's worth of EV.

I think we need to think in terms of extra rounds per shoe that come from saving cards in high counts using surrender. It might only be about half a round per shoe, but that adds up and is extremely crucial.

I'm not a math whiz, so I can only give you a WAG, but I'm fairly good at that. As Don mentioned we stand on 16 vs. 10 in any positive count, and also stand on 15 vs. 10 at around +4/5. That primarily leaves us saving cards with surrender when we have 15 vs. 10 at +0 to +4, 14 vs. 10 at +3 or higher, and a pair of eights vs. 10 in any positive count, and at +5 vs. a 9.

This may not sound like it will make a lot of difference, and it won't for most shoes. But if we can get, say, 3 extra rounds per hour with a positive count from surrender, it is a huge difference. Why? Let's assume pen. is to 1.5. These 3 extra rounds would be right when the cut card is coming out with 1.5 decks left. Now let's say for the first extra round, the RC is +3, the second extra round, the RC is +6, and the third time the RC is +12. This means that every hour we get one more bet with a +2 TC, a +4 TC and a +8 TC.

For me, one extra round per hour with a +8 bet out will increase my EV 30%! That's huge!!!! Another way of thinking of this is I save myself 18 minutes worth of work and exposure every time I get an extra round at +8 because I surrendered one hand somewhere in the shoe. And it doesn't matter if the round-saving surrender was executed the second to last round of the shoe when the TC was +6 or the second round of the shoe when the TC was only +1.

An extra 3 positive rounds per hour may be extremely unrealistic, but even if it is only once per hour or two hours, the card-saving effect surrender has is extremely important.

[Don Schlesinger]

What are we discussing here? The value of surrender? It's not up for discussion! We all know how much it's worth; just look at the Chapter 10 charts.

So, if anything, we must be exploring whether we ought to surrender hands beyond those that are correct to surrender, simply to save a card or two (or more!), in the hopes of possibly getting an extra round.

I'm suggesting that this is probably NOT the correct thing to do, but it would take many more studies than anything we've proposed here, to get an accurate answer.

Which "wrong" plays should we make? At what cost? Will they amount to an extra round (or, extra rounds) being dealt? Will that add sufficient EV to offset the loss from the "wrong" plays?

Interesting question. But, I think I already know the answer: Don't do it! :-)

Don

P.S. I hope you're not using zero as your index for surrendering a pair of 8s v. dealer's 10. It's higher than that, you know.

[Double21]

> Thank you for taking the time to respond. I'm just wondering whether John's software (BJRM) gives any condideration to this possible benefit. In an identical game, I already get over a 20% improvement in EV and 2.5% decrease in variance (using BJRM) by adding the late surrender rule. Greater return for less risk---what could be better? Don, of course, points this out in his BJA. I'm just curious whether we've overlooked the possible benefit of using fewer cards in a positive betting situation and that impact on rounds played.

[Don Schlesinger]

"I'm just curious whether we've overlooked the possible benefit of using fewer cards in a positive betting situation and that impact on rounds played."

Again, I'm trying to understand what you think it is that we've overlooked. We are playing surrender properly. It increases EV and lowers SD, as you mention.

What else should we be doing?

Don