When ploppys double for less

**FalseCount** · 06-10-2013, 07:24 PM

Is it always profitable to cover them for the rest of the basic strategy double?
I had my first chance to do this recently. Neutral count, 9v4.

Ploppy had a 15 dollar bet out and knew he needed to double. He only had two reds so he put them out and dealer asked if he was doubling for less, as they always seem to check. I asked if I could throw a red in on the hand to make it a normal double and he was happy to allow it. Dealer wound up winning the hand and ploppy walked; a good natured loser.

If the count is negative, would 9v3 and other close doubles possibly stop being profitable to cover the bet?

I also wondered if there is ever a point where somebody asks for even money on their blackjack but it would be beneficial to offer them the even money yourself if they instead wait for the 3:2 payout. If the dealer has blackjack you pay them their hand and you are out whatever the ploppy's initial bet was. If the dealer doesn't have the BJ the ploppy keeps the even pay and you glean the remaining 1/2 payout for yourself.

**Renzey** · 06-10-2013, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by FalseCount

Is it always profitable to cover them for the rest of the basic strategy double?.

As discussed elsewhere on this forum, not only is it profitable to cover the rest of a proper basic strategy double for less -- there are many improper doubles that it is profitable to cover, such as 8 vs 6, or 9 vs 7, etc. That's because even though just hitting is the most profitable play, doubling still wins more often than it loses.
As for counts at which you actually become a dog on a proper double, most of those TC's have to get pretty negative. For example, on that 9 vs 3 you mentioned, you're still a favorite to win the double all the way down to -3.5 TC. You'd be a bigger favorite if you just hit it, but still a favorite when doubling nonetheless.

**21forme** · 06-11-2013, 05:47 AM

Some casinos do not permit betting on another person's hand like this, as they don't want to get involved in disputes if the player doesn't hand over the money.

**Shoofly** · 06-11-2013, 06:15 AM

This appears to be an academic discussion with very little practical application. How long are you going to have to wait to see someone doubling for less with 9 v. 7?

**Gronbog** · 06-11-2013, 06:17 AM

I make a lot of money doing this. Most folks will allow you to top up their double. Others will allow you to contribute the full amount for a double. This is a bit of a grey area ethically, since by doubling instead of hitting/standing, if they haven't met the critical fraction for the double, they actually reduce their own EV for the hand and could even turn a +EV hit/stand into a -EV double for themselves. This is especially true when contributing the full amount, in which case they have contributed 0, which is guaranteed to be less than the critical fraction. Paradoxically, as Renzy has pointed out, the move is always +EV for the person adding the extra chips for proper doubles, and many others which are +EV even though they are not the optimal play.

Splits can work in a similar way, with some being +EV for the additional hand. Be careful here, however, as many split hands are -EV.

**Renzey** · 06-11-2013, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Shoofly

This appears to be an academic discussion with very little practical application. How long are you going to have to wait to see someone doubling for less with 9 v. 7?

There are actually quite a few hands in this category that are doubled often by ploppies. Some others are 11 vs A in S17 games, 4/4 vs 5 or 6, 9/9 vs 7, and a host of soft hands vs small up-cards

**Purple Rain** · 06-11-2013, 10:00 AM

I've found this isn't worth the heat/time with such small amounts. Especially if you lose and the ploppy blames you. Your $5 bet to double 9 v 4 has an expected value of less than $1. With larger bets (e.g. ploppy puts out $10 double for $50 bet), it's usually worth it, even with marginally profitable doubles such as 8 v 6 and 9 v 7.

But ploppy interaction isn't my strength, so take that for what it's worth.

**bjarg** · 06-11-2013, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Shoofly

This appears to be an academic discussion with very little practical application. How long are you going to have to wait to see someone doubling for less with 9 v. 7?

Little practical application? How long do you think youll have to wait to see somebody not taking insurance when thats a +ev bet? Or somebody not doubling a 10 vs 5? Taking advantage of opportunities that other players present is one of the best way of adding value to a game.

**Shoofly** · 06-11-2013, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by bjarg

Little practical application? How long do you think youll have to wait to see somebody not taking insurance when thats a +ev bet? Or somebody not doubling a 10 vs 5? Taking advantage of opportunities that other players present is one of the best way of adding value to a game.

I wasn't talking about insurance or doubling 10 v. 5. We're talking about doubling for less with 9 v. 7. How many times have you seen that in the past year?

**shadroch** · 06-11-2013, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Shoofly

I wasn't talking about insurance or doubling 10 v. 5. We're talking about doubling for less with 9 v. 7. How many times have you seen that in the past year?

"6"

**shadroch** · 06-11-2013, 12:31 PM

I'd have passed on that. The guy gave up the chance for a second hit and gained nothing in return. Tha'ts taking advantage of him. It's one thing to fill up a double for less but why hurt another player, even if he didn't know any better.

RS · 06-11-2013, 05:56 PM

It is absolutely not taking advantage of someone by:

1) Topping off their double -- it's not like you're pushing their money off and putting yours on top. If they were playing properly, they would double down for max, but as we know, not everyone does that.

2) If someone is going to make a stupid play, ie: double 9v7, double S20v6, etc., for less and you offer to cover the remainder of the double, that's not "cheating" them either. For one, it is their decision to make the back-asswards play, and even worse, to double for less!

3) Other situations where someone is only going to hit once (11v4) and you offer to put money out there on a double down, that is not "cheating" them either. Most players aren't going to hit a 12v4 or higher (and if they plan to, then they're obviously not going to let you double-down). Now, if they wanted to double-down and you somehow convinced the player to use your money instead of theirs on the double....well.......yeah that's obviously unethical/immoral.

Speaking of such unethical splits/doubles, I was given an 8,8 in a ginormous count not long ago, and dealer had a face up. I throw my cards out to surrender (my $100 bet), and some lady said she would buy it from me for $75 so she could split them. Being the gentleman I am, I agreed and let her play out the hand. I think she ended up getting two 18s verse a dealer 20 (face under), but she was happy.