Surrendering 8,8 vs 10

[seriousplayer]

For the hands 8,8 vs 10 splitting has a lose expectation of 47.48% of the initial bet but it is easy to see that surrendering cost 50%. In Casino Verite Blackjack Stanford Wong's Hi-lo playing strategy had surrendering 8,8 vs 10 as a index deviation of 0. Is that a mistake? Surrendering 8,8 vs 10 should be TC 2 or greater.

[Cardguy]

In the 1994 edition of Wong's Professional Blackjack, the index to surrender 8,8 vs 10 is +1 for HiLo in 4D (or higher) games (both S17 and H17).

[seriousplayer]

In the 1994 edition of Wong's Professional Blackjack, the index to surrender 8,8 vs 10 is +1 for HiLo in 4D (or higher) games (both S17 and H17).

Surrender 8,8 vs 10 is +1 for HiLo in 4D (or higher) is that risk-averse index?

[Cardguy]

Surrender 8,8 vs 10 is +1 for HiLo in 4D (or higher) is that risk-averse index?

No.

[Three]

The sum of the low card's EoR's for 8,8vT is +0.4083 (2-6 EoR's: -1.4436, -1.3290. +1.9926, +2.7534, -1.5951).
The sum of the high cards EoR's for 88vT is +1.3463 (T: +0.6893, A: -1.4109).
The sum of the 3 neutral ranks, 7, 8, and 9, is -1.7248 (7-9: -2.4457, -0.4875, +1.2084).

Counts are poorly correlated to this play. Risk aversion is a good call on this split. I never split it. I usually surrender. It appears Wong index is more RA which is puzzling. I thought his indices were EV maximizing indices but this index looks more RA than the other you mention. My playing count is the Hiopt2 main count. The strategy table I have for it says "no" where the split index should be for 8,8vT.

[Cardguy]

The other compelling reason to always surrender this is for cover. Since you'll definitely be surrendering when the count is high, and the cost of surrender at a low count is minimal, it makes sense to consider always surrendering this (similar to always standing on 16 v 10 even when the count is negative).

[DSchles]

I have probably written about this 20 times or more over the years.

Wong's indices for this play are incorrect. For multi-deck Hi-Lo, surrender with NDAS is +1 and with DAS is +2.

21 and counting!

Don

[seriousplayer]

In the 1994 edition of Wong's Professional Blackjack, the index to surrender 8,8 vs 10 is +1 for HiLo in 4D (or higher) games (both S17 and H17).

I don't see where Professional Blackjack show the index to surrender 8,8 vs 10 as +1 for HiLo in the 1994 edition. On page 93 I still see the index to surrender 8,8 vs 10 as 0. Then again in the appendix C on page 269.

[Cardguy]

I don't see where Professional Blackjack show the index to surrender 8,8 vs 10 as +1 for HiLo in the 1994 edition. On page 93 I still see the index to surrender 8,8 vs 10 as 0. Then again in the appendix C on page 269.

In my copy it says "1" at both the locations you mention. We must have different editions.

[LoneWoLF]

I have probably written about this 20 times or more over the years.

Wong's indices for this play are incorrect. For multi-deck Hi-Lo, surrender with NDAS is +1 and with DAS is +2.

21 and counting!

Don

Damn, how much have I been giving up by always surrendering 88vs 10 at 0 and above? I usually only play +1 and up so most of the time it was around +1 and higher anyway the times i did make this decision, but damn i guess ill start remembering it's +2 and higher for surrender.

Im guessing it's the same for halves, correct? Most of the indices are the same as hi lo.

Why did Wong get this wrong?

[Three]

Damn, how much have I been giving up by always surrendering 88vs 10 at 0 and above?

Have you never heard of RA surrender? The variance change is about the same as with RA doubles but the variance is reduced to 0. That makes it a whole lot better. Zero variance is a wonderful thing. The long run isn't 500 or 5K hands later. The long run is that hand.

[DSchles]

IT'S WRONG!!

Don

[Norm]

Zero variance is a wonderful thing.

Huh?