Why bother doubling?

[Novice counter]

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.

Hmmm...be not offended by my ignorance, but me winning more hands by not doubling should equate to a lower house edge, right? Like this lady at the end of this clip!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxlbeqeGkQ8

My best advice is to learn when you need to deviate from basic strategy. If you follow basic strategy and you double 11 when the count is low your costing yourself money. You will most likely get a low card and watch the dealer get several low cards ending up with a 17+...( if you’re playing low counts....) it’s always best to keep the count it will aid you on every decision you make playing.

[GMass]

I have no way of keeping track of this, but my splits and doubles are responsible for a massive amount of my earnings. I'm sure someone could simulate playing BS w/out doubles and playing AP w/out doubles compared to proper play and you'll see the massive difference.

[21forme]

Oy!

[mirageman]

Yes I see that now. I thought basic strategy only had to do with the odds of winning the hands alone, I didn't think it had to do with money.

[Jabberwocky]

Yes I see that now. I thought basic strategy only had to do with the odds of winning the hands alone, I didn't think it had to do with money.

When was the last time you gambled for ego?

[RCJH]

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.

in the long run you are guaranteed to lose more money if you do not double when appropriate. Crazy plays work for one day or one session, but at the end of the month you'll be broke. Appropriate doubling is the way to earn more money, and lose less money.

[Optimus Prime]

Without doubling, you'll be lowering risk and variance but also adding to the house edge. In the short run, your money may last longer, but in the long run, it will run out sooner. Perhaps a compromise where you at least do the real good doubles like 11 vs. 6 and skip the marginal ones like A7 vs. 2?

Maybe someone here will volunteer to rank each doubling situation by its risk/reward ratio.

[Logophil]

Peter Griffin, who wrote "Theory of Blackjack", has a section titled 'World's Worst Blackjack Player' where he quantifies the penalty a player will face for certain ill-begotten plays. The penalty for never doubling down is 1.6%. So if you are begin as a perfect basic strategy player where the casino typically has a .5% edge over you, then by never doubling down, you have just quadrupled the casino's edge against you!

If you are counting cards, there are counts where it is correct to do as you say, to hit rather than double. But without this knowledge, your best chances are to follow Basic to the letter.

[newmarket]

Sometimes doubling down and only taking 1 small card will give the dealer the next card to bust.. when if instead of doubling you take the 2nd card that made you bust instead of the dealer..

I personally will not double if my wager is already on the higher end

[21forme]

I nominate this thread for the disadvantage forum.

[DSchles]

I nominate this thread for the disadvantage forum.

Second the motion. Either turn it yellow, or end it. The lunatics are beginning to run the asylum.

Don

[BughouseMASTER]

You people are retarded. The simple answer to the OP's question is:

WHEN YOU DOUBLE YOU HAVE THE ADVANTAGE AND THEREFORE WILL WIN MORE THEN 50% OF THE TIME!

You people are too damn wordy. get to the damn point for Pete's Sake!!!!!!

[PinkChip]

You people are retarded. The simple answer to the OP's question is:

WHEN YOU DOUBLE YOU HAVE THE ADVANTAGE AND THEREFORE WILL WIN MORE THEN 50% OF THE TIME!

You people are too damn wordy. get to the damn point for Pete's Sake!!!!!!

No, for doubling down it is not sufficient that the chance of winning the hand is more than 50 percent.
You also have to compare the winning chance when doubling to the winning chance without doubling.
In the end, the expectation value (EV) decides whether to double or not.

An example: Suppose the chances for doubling in certain situation (such as 11 vs. dealer 6) are

win: 70 percent, push: 10 percent, loss: 20 percent

If you bet 100 dollars per hand and this situation occurs 10 times, and you double down every time,
then

you win 7 times 200 dollars = 1400 dollars
you lose 2 times 200 dollars = 400 dollars
you push 1 time (= 0 dollars, nothing changes)

so in the end you gain 1400 minus 400 = 1000 dollars.


Suppose the chances for NOT doubling (just hitting) in the same situation are

win: 80 percent, push: 10 percent, loss: 10 percent

If you again bet 100 dollars per hand and the situation occurs 10 times,
and you hit every time, then

you win 8 times 100 dollars = 800 dollars
you lose 1 time 100 dollars = 100 dollars
you push 1 time (nothing changes)

so in the end you gain 800 minus 100 = 700 dollars.


For both decisions, the chance of winning is greater than 50 percent.
But despite winning fewer hands when doubling (70 compared to 80 percent),
doubling down earns more money because every win is worth twice as much.


Now suppose the chance of winning when doubling is only 60 percent (not 70),
the push is again 10 percent, and the chance of losing is 30 percent (not 10).
Then

you win 6 times 200 dollars = 1200 dollars
you lose 3 times 200 dollars = 600 dollars
you push 1 time (nothing changes)

so in the end you gain 1200 minus 600 dollars = 600 dollars,
which is less than the 700 dollars you would have gained when hitting.

Again, for both decisions, the chance of winning is greater than 50 percent.
But in this case, hitting would be better than doubling down,
because it generates more net profit.