Why bother doubling?

[DSchles]

Yes, the winning of the hand alone is what I was questioning. I do realize there is more money to be made eventually with doubling.

So, what is the problem? If there is more money to be made by doubling, do you have a different goal? Would you prefer to win more hands but less money or fewer hands and more money? Do you derive your satisfaction from winning the greatest number of hands or the most amount of money? If not the latter, consider quitting the game.

Hmmm...be not offended by my ignorance, but me winning more hands by not doubling should equate to a lower house edge, right?

Unequivocally wrong. See above. You don't understand what the house edge entails. It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with how many hands you win or lose. It has to do only with how much money you win divided by the total dollar amount of initial bets you make.

Don

[conte543]

Excuse me but doesn’t add up. Double down means winning more hands not losing more hands. Losing mor hands leads to losing more money. double is double. You might confuse with counting - lose more hands but potentially win more money.

I talk about doubling down according to basic strategy. You don’t double down every hand. The qualified DD hands win some 60% of the time. ENHC (European bj) rules make doubling down dangerous against dealer’s 10 or A. if you exclude doubling against T/A you will win 60% of the dd hands on average. You lose some like 30% with 10% push. In cases like 11 against dealer 6 wins well over 60% of the time.

[mirageman]

So, what is the problem? If there is more money to be made by doubling, do you have a different goal? Would you prefer to win more hands but less money or fewer hands and more money? Do you derive your satisfaction from winning the greatest number of hands or the most amount of money? If not the latter, consider quitting the game.


Unequivocally wrong. See above. You don't understand what the house edge entails. It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with how many hands you win or lose. It has to do only with how much money you win divided by the total dollar amount of initial bets you make.



Don

Well, my questions were as stated. I can see how odds are better for winning the HAND by hitting as opposed to doubling. Now as for the money, I think yes I do have a different goal for now. I don't want to bring a large amount of cash to a casino and find myself doubling it all away. I'd rather have a better chance of winning a non-doubled bet than a lower chance of winning a doubled bet. If I build up a decent amount of winnings, maybe I'll be less stingy and DD at that point. But that's another matter. I wouldn't quit unless I start hating it. I barely started. I'll be content if I win some here and there.

Hmmm. I thought house edge was EXACTLY what you say it has nothing whatsoever to do with...well, what you are mathematically EXPECTED to win or lose anyway.. Thanks all!

[GMass]

Well, my questions were as stated. I can see how odds are better for winning the HAND by hitting as opposed to doubling. Now as for the money, I think yes I do have a different goal for now. I don't want to bring a large amount of cash to a casino and find myself doubling it all away. I'd rather have a better chance of winning a non-doubled bet than a lower chance of winning a doubled bet. If I build up a decent amount of winnings, maybe I'll be less stingy and DD at that point. But that's another matter. I wouldn't quit unless I start hating it. I barely started. I'll be content if I win some here and there.

Hmmm. I thought house edge was EXACTLY what you say it has nothing whatsoever to do with...well, what you are mathematically EXPECTED to win or lose anyway.. Thanks all!

You need to realize that BS was created by mathematicians and is regularly validated with powerful simulation software. You're more than welcome to deviate from BS, but you can't come back and complain that you're playing a losing game. BS gives you the best chance. Not the best chance of winning any one hand, but the best chance, dollar for dollar, of losing as little as possible. Without the powerful doubles to make up for other weak hands/losses, you're giving up money.

[Freightman]

Well, my questions were as stated. I can see how odds are better for winning the HAND by hitting as opposed to doubling. Now as for the money, I think yes I do have a different goal for now. I don't want to bring a large amount of cash to a casino and find myself doubling it all away. I'd rather have a better chance of winning a non-doubled bet than a lower chance of winning a doubled bet. If I build up a decent amount of winnings, maybe I'll be less stingy and DD at that point. But that's another matter. I wouldn't quit unless I start hating it. I barely started. I'll be content if I win some here and there.

Hmmm. I thought house edge was EXACTLY what you say it has nothing whatsoever to do with...well, what you are mathematically EXPECTED to win or lose anyway.. Thanks all!

You have not learned basic strategy if you prefer not to double. Your edge is dependant on taking the best long term view, which means doubling when appropriate, which you aren’t. Don’t bother with indices until you get the blinders off.

Pay attention to post 3 and Schlesinger’s comments.

[DSchles]

Pay attention to post 3 and Schlesinger’s comments.

If he had paid attention all the way back then, this thread wouldn't be 26 posts long!

Don

[Freightman]

If he had paid attention all the way back then, this thread wouldn't be 26 posts long!

Don

We can push for 100. After all, didn’t bjanalyst thread get to 1000 - and THAT was dribble.

[DSchles]

We can push for 100. After all, didn’t bjanalyst thread get to 1000 - and THAT was dribble.

No, that was drivel! :-)

Don