# Thread: Case study: Splitting 66v3 or not @ RC7 Double deck

1. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

## Case study: Splitting 66v3 or not @ RC7 Double deck

Here’s an interesting situation that came up recently in a heads up double deck game H17, DAS, 75% pen, which leads to 13/14 rounds per shoe. I’d like the take of the best players of the forum on this.

It involves the infamous twins, 66s, against dealer 3 and at round 3.
Using HiLo, RC before the deal is +4 with a \$ 50 bet at a \$25 minimum table.
At decision time the RC is up to +7 which is very promising early in a DD shoe.

The book says to split 66v3 unless TC is at least +5 but we’re not there yet.
Splitting those 66s at that count is a -1% EV and standing is -20% EV.

Please correct my math if I am wrong but if I don’t split, and stand, I give up 19% on that \$50 hand (roughly \$10 average on the long term) and I expect to make that up in the next 10 rounds. If the average TC for the next ten rounds is for example, TC2 (could go up to TC4 and down to TC1 or TC0) with an average \$100 bet, I would have ten hands at an average 0.85% advantage (or 85 cents) for an expected win of \$8.50. That is a little short of the \$10 loss while standing. Thus, mathematically speaking, splitting the 66s at hand #3 would remain the right play, it seems, but but but…

However, there’s some valuable information I did not mention.

In the first two rounds, four 5s came out and a player using Wong Halves would have an extra 2 to his count compared to a HiLo player. I play HiLo but when I see so many 5s, I intuitively know that my advantage is stronger than my HiLo count suggests.

On the down side, it is also obvious that those four 5s removed seriously hamper the probabilities to get a 5 on top of a splitted 6 and therefore, the chances to get a 65v3 double down opportunity are reduced significantly.

It’s also worth nothing that all 8 aces are unplayed and that the possibilities to get blackjacks at high counts in the following rounds are thus increased.

WOULD YOU STAND ON 66v3 IN THIS SITUATION?
I wonder how some of the best players here see that play in this situation. To me it appears that standing on those 6s is a good choice here as it allows somehow to maintain a great count while the dealer break probability on a 3 at that count is nearly 40%.

The worst scenario would be to split and end up with 6T and 6T while the dealer makes his hand with a 3-8-T for example, wasting another T and thus deflating a great count.

If one’s been waiting for a great count for an hour or so, this may be the best chance to eventually place a big bet. I’d hate to waste that opportunity because I splitted those shitty 66s.

Is there a way to mathematically justify the STAND 66v3 in that situation.

What da ya think?

2. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Why on earth are you suggesting that a TC of +5 is needed to split 6,6 vs. 3 in a DD DAS game???

What are you talking about?? Splitting is BS. Then you suggest that there is some sort of reverse index at +5???

Don

3. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by DSchles
Why on earth are you suggesting that a TC of +5 is needed to split 6,6 vs. 3 in a DD DAS game???

What are you talking about?? Splitting is BS. Then you suggest that there is some sort of reverse index at +5???

Don
Off the top of my head, index to not split is -4.
Hopefully, Norm won’t delete this one.

4. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Yes, not even DD or DAS is needed. I also didn't understand at all why to bother not splitting.

#### Posting Permissions

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