Buying "surrender hands" from other players

**Freightman** · 09-08-2013, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by metronome

Think I'll go change the bulb in the fridge.....

One of the more astute posts in this thread

**Freightman** · 09-08-2013, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by 21gunsalute

Look in the mirror. Just re-read all the crap you've written just on this page alone (referring to page 19). Theoretical discussions are fine, as are disagreements, but these verbal barbs and attacks are completely uncalled for and do nothing but diminish your position.

Be kind enough to specify

**Freightman** · 09-08-2013, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by stopgambling

I do not understand how one can argue for so long . i do not agreed with 21 ,maybe he is also a defense lawyer that's why he's so good at arguing. most don't seem to agree with 21 as with i. LET'S DO A POLL and see what everyone votes ,no names involve. i hope this "thing" ends . i apologize for my poor english and grammars. Put this thing to rest .

Actually, he is pretty lousy at arguing. In my biz life, I do a lot of arguing, and your addressee is pretty lousy at it - no disrespect intended to the subject individual.

RS · 09-08-2013, 05:41 PM

Put as simply as I can --

This thread was asking if it is advantageous (+EV) to buy another person's surrender when it is not proper BS.

Originally Posted by Scavenger Squirrel

Anyhow my question is, would it be advantageous and beneficial for me to BUY these hands that the players are surrending on???

[....]

ARENT I JUST BETTER OFF BUYING THEIR HAND OFF THE PLAYER AND PLAYING THEIR HAND OUT? And getting an incredible 3 to 1 payoff on my money, if my bet wins. I think I would make money in the long run, doing this.

However I'm not at the table playing, so when the next "surrender flag" is waved, I almost would have to literally tap them on their shoulder, give them half the amount of their bet and tell them, I now own your bet and now hit for me.

There is no need for a poll, as the question you guys are talking about is the 50/50 thing instead of surrender [I think?]. In that case, it is not poll-worthy, since polls are used to figure out the general OPINION. The answer is not based on opinion, it's based on math. Making a poll for this would be like making a poll, "What does 2+2 equal?" -- it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact & math, and the only reason (I can think of) to ask it in a poll is to figure out how smart or dumb the responders are.

**Freightman** · 09-08-2013, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by RollingStoned

Put as simply as I can --

This thread was asking if it is advantageous (+EV) to buy another person's surrender when it is not proper BS.

"What does 2+2 equal?" -- it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact & math,.

Well actually, there is a Talmudic discussion on the value of 2+2, however, that is beyond the scope of your factual response.
Now that I think of it, there is a Talmudic discussion for just about anything.

**redbuck** · 09-08-2013, 06:41 PM

Great - glad to see this is still going on. It helps take my mind off of those trivial matters like Syria, the economy, obesity, the "dumbing down of our kid", Hillary in '16, John McCain, and the Braves' lack of offense...

**stopgambling** · 09-08-2013, 07:21 PM

Stopgambling now stop reading post that's too long and getting nowhere.I must admit it does distract me from my normal routine.

RS · 09-08-2013, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by Freightman

Well actually, there is a Talmudic discussion on the value of 2+2, however, that is beyond the scope of your factual response.
Now that I think of it, there is a Talmudic discussion for just about anything.

What is this talmudic thing you speak of?

**Freightman** · 09-08-2013, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by RollingStoned

What is this talmudic thing you speak of?

Intro to Talmudic discussion

http://www.torah.org/features/spirfocus/talmud.html

**blackjack avenger** · 09-09-2013, 01:07 PM

It's how you word it.

Civilian player has a $100 bet, he appears to want to surrender
You say
"Let me buy your hand from you for $50"
"It's now completely my hand"
Doesn't buy imply ownership?
It should then be your hand to win or lose

Whether you or the player plays the hand is probably up to the dealer or casino

KJ · 09-09-2013, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by blackjack avenger

Doesn't buy imply ownership?

Yes, of course it should.. Problem is when you start getting into words like 'imply' or 'assume' you open the door to all sorts of possibilities. And if any kind of dispute or misunderstanding occurs, you have drawn extra unwanted attention to yourself. For me, this is a negative that far outweighs the benefits of all but the best scavenger plays.

Now let's go a step further and say absolutely no dispute or misunderstanding occurs. You still are doing things at the table, like exchanging chips (buying the hand), playing a spot not initially yours, and possibly collecting the winning chips from a spot not initially yours. These are all situations that will and are supposed to attract they attention of surveillance. Drawing extra attention for a dollar or two of EV, is not a plus EV situation for me, or anyone attempting to stay out of the limelight and fly under the radar.

**The Dude** · 09-09-2013, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by 21gunsalute

Look in the mirror. Just re-read all the crap you've written just on this page alone (referring to page 19). Theoretical discussions are fine, as are disagreements, but these verbal barbs and attacks are completely uncalled for and do nothing but diminish your position.

After reading these posts, I've come to some conclusions. T3 is smart. U are dim. You're crying about people bashing u, even tho they they aren't really...but ur calling people idiots. Why would I want to go partners with you on a losing a hand? I agree that it's pointless to sell the hand to another player w/out added value, but ploppies surrender lots of hands that you could buy for 51% i.e. added value. T3 is right...ur scenario only exists if you try and cheat the buyer. So u are either repeatedly misrepresenting yourself, or you are way off topic. Maybe you could start a thread called 'how a casino may misterpret scavenger plays to the detriment of advantage players.'

**Jabberwocky** · 09-09-2013, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by KJ

Yes, of course it should.. Problem is when you start getting into words like 'imply' or 'assume' you open the door to all sorts of possibilities. And if any kind of dispute or misunderstanding occurs, you have drawn extra unwanted attention to yourself. For me, this is a negative that far outweighs the benefits of all but the best scavenger plays.

Now let's go a step further and say absolutely no dispute or misunderstanding occurs. You still are doing things at the table, like exchanging chips (buying the hand), playing a spot not initially yours, and possibly collecting the winning chips from a spot not initially yours. These are all situations that will and are supposed to attract they attention of surveillance. Drawing extra attention for a dollar or two of EV, is not a plus EV situation for me, or anyone attempting to stay out of the limelight and fly under the radar.

It's all about how you define discretion.