Stand on HARD 10?

[Freightman]

Was surrender available?
I’ll look at this later, but it would be fun to think about surrendering the 10. I think standing on 10 would be superior to surrendering, but surrender would be great for certainty. Again, true count would be a factor.

I’m on the road right now, just having a late dinner. After thinking about it for 2 minutes, standing is indeed superior to surrendering, as that magic 25% threshold for winning is exceeded as it pertains to surrender. However, since this hand is not going to be repeated in the OP’s lifetime, and since I calculate off the top odds of winning the 10 as about 35%, surrendering will usually win the equivalent of 1.5 bets, whereas losing the 10 will usually equate to winning 1 bet. The downside of course, is that if the 10 wins, you would have won 3 bets.

Fun hand.

[albee]

I would double after getting the eight on the first hand and then play the split two hand accordingly, then double on the ace/two hand.

[PinkChip]

I think you underestimate the chance of winning the standing 10. It must be clearly more than 35 percent since the dealer has a 4 up, so she will bust in 40 percent (see e.g. books of Vancura/Fuchs or Fred Renzey).

[Freightman]

I think you underestimate the chance of winning the standing 10. It must be clearly more than 35 percent since the dealer has a 4 up, so she will bust in 40 percent (see e.g. books of Vancura/Fuchs or Fred Renzey).

Yes, you’re right, however, the salient point is risk tolerance to the once in a lifetime occurrence. Clearly, if the situation was an everyday event, then stand is the best option. Since it’s an absolute rarity, and since you’re way ahead as it is by surrendering the 10 for the almost certainty of a doubled 20 winning - as you have a far lower expected EV of doubling the 10 in the first place for the 17 - which is the proper play if the 7 had not been exposed........Etc etc - take your certainty of the additional EV of the surrendered 10.

Greed kills.

[DSchles]

Excuse me, but did you guys really spend a page talking about surrendering AFTER splitting??

Sigh.

Don

[Freightman]

Excuse me, but did you guys really spend a page talking about surrendering AFTER splitting??

Sigh.

Don

Not me. I don’t normally split 64. Further, I don’t normally split 63, or 65

[Midwest Player]

..........standing is indeed superior to surrendering, as that magic 25% threshold for winning is exceeded as it pertains to surrender.
Fun hand.

What am I missing here. I thought you take surrender only on hands where you have more than 50% chance of losing.

[Freightman]

Not me. I don’t normally split 64. Further, I don’t normally split 63, or 65

Oops, let’s just assume IP was p,aging 2 hands, instead of splitting 1

Btw, anyone come across that particular rule variation? How much does it improve dealer player results
I’m tired, it’s been a long day.

[Freightman]

What am I missing here. I thought you take surrender only on hands where you have more than 50% chance of losing.

You’ve got blinders in. Strike point is 25%. Reason it out! Break even on 100 hands at $10 per bet for $1000 at total risk is:
Win 25%, you win $250, retain $250, for $500 total.
Lose 75% , you lose $750 less $250 of profit above For $500 total.

Therefore, any hand with expectation of win < than 25% should be surrendered.
Therefore any hand with expectation of win => than 25% should be played.

Calculate 40% win rate with 60% loss rate, and you’ll see that you’re way further ahead by playing versus surrendering.

[Meistro123]

Perhaps the confusion arises from the fact that any hand with a return of less than -.5 should be surrendered. A return of -.5 would be consistent with winning 25% of the time, excluding the concept of pushes (which in this case can't happen anyway).

[Midwest Player]

You’ve got blinders in. Strike point is 25%. Reason it out! Break even on 100 hands at $10 per bet for $1000 at total risk is:
Win 25%, you win $250, retain $250, for $500 total.
Lose 75% , you lose $750 less $250 of profit above For $500 total.

Therefore, any hand with expectation of win < than 25% should be surrendered.
Therefore any hand with expectation of win => than 25% should be played.

Calculate 40% win rate with 60% loss rate, and you’ll see that you’re way further ahead by playing versus surrendering.

Don't ever remember reading it being put that way. However, I just use basic strategy for my surrender decisions and that happens only once in a blue moon since the games I play don't offer surrender.

However, I did find exactly what you are saying here.
https://www.blackjackinfo.com/blackj...der-explained/

[PinkChip]

Another source is Fred Renzey, Blackjack Bluebook II, Chapter 5, p. 57 (2006 Edition). An excellent book for beginners explaining Basic Strategy issues in a very comprehensible manner.

Small correction to above posting:
You should surrender not only when the chance of winning the hand is less than, but also when it is equal to 25 percent, because the expectation value is then equal but surrender reduces variance and thus risk of ruin.

[Freightman]

Don't ever remember reading it being put that way. However, I just use basic strategy for my surrender decisions and that happens only once in a blue moon since the games I play don't offer surrender.
/[/URL]

For those with surrender option, That 16 v 10 or 9 is so frequent, you should be using indices for your surrender decision. I will, when called for, play those hands where surrender is offered. On the other side of the spectrum, I recently surrendered 13 v 8. You need an absolute monster deck for that one.