See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: "Doubling for Less"

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    "Doubling for Less"

    There is one casino (that I know) that allows a "double for less" after you have already doubled once in place of a full double-double or even a double-double-double. Your "double for less" can be for $1, whether your initial wager is $3 or $300. However, if you chose this option, you may not take other cards, including doubling again.
    The game: Spanish 21, H17, 5 decks, Redoubling (three times for up to eight times your original bet), splitting any card - and re-splitting to up to four hands, doubling after splitting

    Typical scenario: You have placed a wager of *whatever* and are dealt 7-4 against 8. You double and draw "A." In basic strategy for this game the correct play is to re-double (assuming TC -4). However here it seems (to me anyhow) that tossing $1 out as a "double for less" seems to make a lot of sense, instead of the full double-double. It's less clear, however, if you have doubled to a stiff hand against a bust card (where you typically stay) or 9, X, A (where you typically forfeit).

    I am wondering if there has been a good analysis of the best way to utilize this option? Clearly the usefulness of this tool would depend on the count. Moreover, an extra $1 on top of a $6 (after doubling) bet is very different statistically than $1 after a $600 (after doubling) bet. I have some ideas how to approach this, but don't have the ability to run the simulations to test them. I've done some searching online and have not found much. It seems to be a bit of an odd rule, but has got to have some utility that I can exploit effectively. I'd love to hear what those of you with more experience than me (which is almost all of you) think on this.

    Thanks in advance.

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    z
    z

    Forget about it.
    Doubling for less is not permitted on this game variant.
    Last edited by SkinnyBJplayer; 06-22-2019 at 04:50 AM.

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    z
    z
    z

    West Coast casinos that offer Spanish21 with the
    "re-double rule" do not permit doubling for less.
    That being said, in the pit, the dealer / floor person
    may just be paying too little attention and allow it.

    Here is the best example of how to gain from this.
    You double on your 9 and get a deuce for an 11,
    and naturally enough you swiftly re-double.
    Unfortunately you get a deuce for a hand of 12.
    Standing on the 12 is looking like a loss of a doubled bet.
    IF you could "buy" another card for a minimal amount your
    e.v. rises considerably. Imagine having $100 at risk and for
    just $1 or $5 regaining some equity.

    The important thing to fathom is that H17 Spanish21 offered
    without this rule is unplayable as the House Edge is 0.86%
    and that is double the House Edge of this game referenced.

    Spanish21 has much worse variance than BJ and the redouble
    rule, I believe, increases the volatility of the game even more.

    Also note that this is a low stakes game on the West Coast.
    With the good rules, table maximum bets are generally $300.
    Stores without the beneficial rule may offer a $500 Max Bet.
    z
    z


    z
    z

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Thank you for the response.... A couple of things..
    * According to the Wizards of Odds and Katarina Walker's book, the house edge of this variant is closer to .4% (I calculated .38%; Shackelford's site gives a .42% house edge for the same variant with six decks instead of five). It is very slightly better than the blackjack tables nearby. No, I do not play H17 without the redouble rule.
    * Yes, the volatility is huge with the redouble rule and the variation is extreme. It is possible to have a hand where, after splits and doubles you have put out 32x your initial wager. (I've never split and doubled to more than 14x my initial wager.) For this reason, I am certain that most professional players will shy away from it.
    * I agree that the "double for less" option is not typically permitted as I described. However, there is ONE casino that I visit regularly that does allow it. I placed the bet yesterday and have done so many times over the last year. I'd like to take advantage of the error(?).

    Yes, if permitted, "doubling for less" after drawing to 12 on a double makes sense. However, what about a 13 or a 14? How does that change with a dealer's up card and the count? A $1 redouble is mathematically different when your initial bet is $300 than when it is $3. How does this affect optimal decision-making? Etc.

    My thinking:
    If the initial bet were $300, the $1 is almost the equivalent of a "free card" as it is only .33% of the initial wager. So, I would refer to my non-double charts and indexes "doubling for less" when they say to "hit." (If I'm dealt 7-4 v X and draw a "4" on my double, getting another card for $1 seems to make sense.)

    At $3, however, the $1 bet is 33% of the initial wager and therefore the extra card is comparatively far more expensive. Now does it still make sense to take the extra card for $1 instead of forfeiting?

  5. #5


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Splitting Tens View Post

    At $3, however, the $1 bet is 33% of the initial wager and therefore the extra card is comparatively far more expensive. Now does it still make sense to take the extra card for $1 instead of forfeiting?
    Interesting. Since only apparently permitted at one venue, not a lot of time on this.

    I like it. Obviously, if you double your 7v6, getting 2, you will xx, snatching another 2, xxx for full value. So, if x, xx, ending with 12 or 13 or 14 against dealer 7 or 8, you are in the soup, and your standard full value double is called for, or forfeit, all depending on what’s in the 2 hands.

    But, with your option, Going further, your bet is 10, doubled for 10, redoubled wth an additional 20, putting 40 at risk, before making your decision of xxx for 1 more, or forfeit. The math all changes, and significantly at that. I won’t try to calculate that that line is, but it sure looks good.

    The other point, like anything else, is that decisions like this are based on count, I.e., just another index. Food for thought.

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Thanks for your thoughts, Freightman. I know that in some situations it does give a boon to the player. At higher wagers, it seems that it will be advantageous in quite a few situations, but at lower wagers, not so much... It's likely also better at lower counts - though those will have lower wagers attached. I may just have to sit down and analyze it for a few days. It's far from a simple math problem.

    I guess it's rare enough of a rule that it's not been properly studied before?

Similar Threads

  1. Basic Strategy question regarding "soft" and "hard" hands
    By Letangs in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 08-22-2018, 07:02 AM
  2. The "Sting" vs "Prevailing Wisdom": Limit on Number of Double Downs?
    By SteinMeister in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-14-2018, 03:29 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-12-2018, 02:41 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-15-2015, 11:37 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-29-2015, 08:44 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.