Option of playing 14 versus 5

**Gronbog** · 09-24-2016, 08:34 PM

Yes, that's what I answered. You would play it by hitting it at TC >= -5 and doubling at TC >= +4, Below -5, you would not play it.

**Dog Hand** · 09-24-2016, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by Gronbog

Yes, that's what I answered. You would play it by hitting it at TC >= -5 and doubling at TC >= +4, Below -5, you would not play it.

Gronbog,

I believe your answer presupposes that the dealer does NOT have a BJ. Would your advice change if the dealer had not checked before you were given the option?

Dog Hand

**Phoebe** · 09-24-2016, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by DSchles

Can someone translate this for me, please?

What to translate ?
Thread is about surrender with 100% money back. Nice game

**Gronbog** · 09-25-2016, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by Dog Hand

I believe your answer presupposes that the dealer does NOT have a BJ. Would your advice change if the dealer had not checked before you were given the option?

Correct. I based my response on data obtained from an index-generation sim I had run a while ago. Unfortunately, I do not have any data for the EV of playing individual hands before the dealer checks for a natural when showing a ten.

**Cardguy** · 09-25-2016, 08:33 PM

I had a similar experience to the OP today. At TC+3 I was playing two hands of $100. I received a hard 17 on one hand and 12 on the other. The dealer had a 4 showing so I stood on both hands. When he went to flip the hole card he discovered that it was the cut card, not a real card. He called over the pit boss who told him to replace the hole card with a new card from the shoe and gave us all the option to pull back our bets. I wasn't sure, but my guess was that I was in a negative EV situation on both hands (12 v 4 and 17 v 4) so I pulled them both back. Everyone else at the table thought I was nuts because the dealer had a bust card (4) showing. Anyway, the dealer of course busted and everyone else won and then gave me shit for "losing" $200. When I got home tonight I looked it up in BJA3. I was relieved to learn that I was correct, but I still wish I had that $200!

**DSchles** · 09-25-2016, 08:53 PM

You did the right thing. They were both surely losing hands.

Don

**Dog Hand** · 09-25-2016, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by Cardguy

I had a similar experience to the OP today. At TC+3 I was playing two hands of $100. I received a hard 17 on one hand and 12 on the other. The dealer had a 4 showing so I stood on both hands. When he went to flip the hole card he discovered that it was the cut card, not a real card. He called over the pit boss who told him to replace the hole card with a new card from the shoe and gave us all the option to pull back our bets. I wasn't sure, but my guess was that I was in a negative EV situation on both hands (12 v 4 and 17 v 4) so I pulled them both back. Everyone else at the table thought I was nuts because the dealer had a bust card (4) showing. Anyway, the dealer of course busted and everyone else won and then gave me shit for "losing" $200. When I got home tonight I looked it up in BJA3. I was relieved to learn that I was correct, but I still wish I had that $200!

Cardguy,

If you subscribe to BJ21.com, you can see the Post of the Month from August 2012 in which I consider this very topic of +EV hands. For a 6D H17 game, 12 vs. 4 is -EV for any HiLo TC of +6 and below. On the other hand, 17 vs. 4 becomes +EV if the TC is +4 or higher. I didn't calculate the index for 17 vs. 4 in a S17 game, so if your game was S17, 17 vs. 4 at HiLo +3 would be a very close call.

As for 12 vs. 4, if you look at the Bust Rate graph from this post, you'll see that if the dealer's upcard is a 4, her bust rate (for 6D H17) exceeds 50% (and, thus, the hand becomes +EV) at a HiLo TC of +13.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand