Ian Andersen knew the cost if his gambits, and it was built into his model. Now, I must get back to the cash cage, and work (charity casino). There is humor value doing so, where I've previously been backed off.
Three, here’s a different slant to this question, but the same basic concept. If you had a chance to make a scavenger play on a player that was doubling for less on their 10 vs 10 and the count was +2, would you do it? This is only looking at this from an EV standpoint. I get that some don’t want to do scavenger plays for other reasons.
If we know this is a positive EV play, I’d think it’d be a good move. In my local casino, a lot of ploppies double for less so I pick up quite a bit of EV this way. In return, I let them play on my sucker bet. Believe it or not, this really happens. I play with some ploppies that think they win their doubles more often when half the double down is mine. It’s like we’re teaming up on the casino. Lol.
Not big scavenger plays but I will act like that's not an issue. It makes cents to but I probably would pass. If it made dollars that is a different issue.Originally Posted by Dbs6582
I believe it but you will one day find out why many casinos don't allow this. It has nothing to do with their bottom line and everything to do with your fate being at the mercy of the guy that owns the hand. He is the one that gets payed according to the law and it is up to him to pay you... or not. You might not even get your original bet back. But yes, it has a small plus EV. But it is a loss in EV for the guy doubling. I won't screw another player when I do scavenger plays.
TvsT is an interesting hand. The index can move over a wide range of TC, as Tthree pointed out. It also alters quite a bit dependent upon decks remaining. Without going into the details of it, the betting count compared to the actual index to double can range from TC+2 to TC+7 with one deck remaining, TC+3 to TC+9 with four decks remaining in the manner I am looking at it. Middle cards removed and surplus (A) have an impact, pushing you in the direction to double. This pretty much puts the far end risk averse index using Hi-Lo at +7 for one deck remaining, +8 for two decks remaining, +9 for four decks remaining?
A good way to look at it in terms of using Hi-Lo or anything similar might be to go with the indices mentioned earlier in the thread and in addition ask yourself these two questions while you're at it for reasonable assurance you are in the zone to double:
-Have middle cards been removed? The more middle cards removed in addition to small cards, the better it is for doubling.
-Do you have surplus (A)? The more surplus (A) there are, the better it is for doubling. The (A) is approximately 2 times the value of the {T} for this hand when doubling.
Yikes! Let's take a deep breath and examine this issue.
Tarzan's adjustment is Accurate, not Approximate.
Firstly 10 vs.10 was discussed in depth by none other than
the redoubtable BJ pioneer, Don Schlesinger, who devoted
an entire chapter to this particular hand matchup in his
magnum opus, "Blackjack Attack", as it is the best way to
learn about Risk Aversion, and it applies to doubling decisions.
Secondly, the Count employed is a major issue, as Three
almost got to. IF Aces are included in the main count your
index is seriously warped, about 50% of the time resulting in a
doubling index that can be misleading. The computation that counts
Aces as -1, along with Face Cards and Tens may have you doubling
this hand and 11 vs 11 and 11 vs 10, incorrectly. There is hardly more
irritating than having a BIG bet out, and catching an Ace for your doubled
11. Even worse than simply failing to win on a doubled 11 or 10. BOTH Surplus
and Deficit Aces are "Mission Crucial" to Bet Sizing and to the PLAY of many of
your hands when you have your big bets out, presuming that (magically) your
Level One True Count is not all that far-off from being accurate for the Play of your
hands. The worst case scenario is the following: With a Hi-Lo True Count of +3 or +4
that has been created solely by a deficit of 2's and 3's and a surplus of Aces, you have
made a substantially large wager. You are dealt a 10 and the dealer shows you a Face Card.
Ten vs. Ten. Your indices are "profit-maximizing", not "risk averse", so your T.C. directs you
to double. Your "real" TC is -3 [Hi-Opt II]. You are a furlong from being able to profitably double!
With Hi-Opt II we (always) Side Count Aces. We know that the Risk-Averse index of +6 must be
accelerated to (as high as) +12, which I teach to counters whose bankroll are less than optimal.
Actually, optimal is all but unreachable, but I shant be going there.
Picking up from where Tarzan left off and re-reading his final sentence re: the "value"
of a Ten, leads me to referencing the VALUE of Aces for certain hand-matchups. I will
converting from Hi-Opt II to Hi-Lo, since this what I am focusing upon. The Values for
Side-Counted Aces. Here is a fine example of the power of Aces. With a hand of 9-9 vs 7
will be +/- 3 per Ace (Running Count), and for 9-9 vs Ace it is
+/- 2 per Ace in the Running Count, For Insurance those Aces are just a +/- 1 RC adjustment.
For Tarzan's example of 10 vs. 10 the "value" is actually +/-1.5. Note that while the M.I.T. kids,
(not playing SOLO), used TC honed to the T.C. including halves as in this example. As a team,
Excellent Bet-sizing was what they were after, hence +1.5 or +2.5 etc. was used.
Last edited by ZenMaster_Flash; 05-30-2018 at 05:11 PM.
To paraphrase Flash's nice, but bloated THC induced post - 10v10 is an ace sensitive play with hi lo halves strike point at tc 4, for EV maximizing, and tc 7 for risk averse. Flash has inferred a slight accuracy imprivement with halves.
I definitely require an ace surplus on less than plus 7, but will relax on higher true counts (anything can happen).
This is one area where an ace Side Count in an ace reckoned count us quite useful.
Though not stated, Flash will agree that no other index builds EV faster than 10v10. It is a dangerous, but highly profitable. play.
Excellent post Freightman and Flash. This weekend I definitely used this play a lot, probably more than I should have...and I was nailing it to where I thought about doubling my 9 vs 10 (not really).
After I doubled 10 vs 10 with my monster bet, I had another one come up with my min bet. Since the pit critter was still watching me (it was a slow Sunday morning), I went for it again, and lost. She looked at me like I was a pathetic gambler. Three would have probably looked at me the same way.
I get that it’s good EV but I also see this as a good cover play, since most people, including pit critters, think it’s a bad play and the sign of an out of control gambler. This play doesn’t mark you as a counter like doubling a soft 19 or splitting 10s. I’ve always known the index for this play is +4 but never used it in the past because I always had a fairly big bet out there and never felt comfortable doing it. No matter what the count was, doubling 10 vs 10 didn’t seem like a good idea.
The bottom line is it’s a fun hand, and I believe it’s one of the few cover plays from Ian’s “Ultimate Gambit” that still works. And it doesn’t give up much EV, even in neutral or slightly negative counts.’
DBS, read long enough, and even you can post an intelligent question - so, I'll answer with a question. Since you appear willing to scavenge the 10v10 double for less, would you also buy your tablemates surrender? Further, assuming you do buy the surrender, would you apply cover, or make your best play?
By the way, how do your clients react to your dealer errors?
The answer is no since I don’t play (for the most part) at casinos that offer surrender. When I do play at a casino that has surrender (which is very rare), I never do scavenger plays since I don’t know the people.
I only do scavenger plays at my local casino where I know the people. I don’t feel comfortable asking someone I don’t know to participate in their hand.
At my local casino scavenger plays are very profitable. I let the ploppies play on my side bet, while they let me go havies with them on their doubles. I used to not take the comp chip they would throw my way when they’d win my side bet, but lately I’ve been keeping it and using it for tips for the dealers. It allows me to tip for free. Another great AP move. I’m seen as a nice guy and it doesn’t cost me anything.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks