# 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.

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 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 split 6 and therefore, the chances to get a 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. To me it appears that standing on those 6s is a good choice in this situation 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 here?

What da ya think?

2. 0 out of 2 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
I think a four is going to come out if you split.

3. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
I am more interested in the hand 3,3 vs 2 and another one 6,6 vs 2. If they are against a 3, I alway split when DAS is allowed.

4. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Midwest Player
I think a four is going to come out if you split.
Would be nice. The 12 best DD cards left in about 90 cards are 8 x 4s and 4 x 5s, so odds are only 12/90 to get one of them on top of a 6.

5. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by aceside
I am more interested in the hand 3,3 vs 2 and another one 6,6 vs 2. If they are against a 3, I alway split when DAS is allowed.
Im virtually positive that I posted a reply about your continued disinformation. Can’t imagine for a second what happened to it.

Pretty sure I attached a link to Kelly’s Heroes - something about negative waves.

6. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by aceside
I am more interested in the hand 3,3 vs 2 and another one 6,6 vs 2. If they are against a 3, I alway split when DAS is allowed.
Splitting 66s v 3 is technically the right play most of the time but you should be aware that even at RC0, there are deck compositions where hitting, or even doubling down, is the better mathematical play.

The question here however could be stated like this. Is it worth not splitting 66s v 3 early in a rich deck with the objective to maintain a high count?

7. 0 out of 3 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Secretariat
Splitting 66s v 3 is technically the right play most of the time but you should be aware that even at RC0, there are deck compositions where hitting, or even doubling down, is the better mathematical play.

The question here however could be stated like this. Is it worth not splitting 66s v 3 early in a rich deck with the objective to maintain a high count?
After Covid-19, many blackjack games have become uncountable anymore because casinos raised their table minimums. This has put the AP business in jeopardy. As a result, I am pondering of converting myself into a poker player. Who cares about 6,6 vs 3?

8. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Freightman
Im virtually positive that I posted a reply about your continued disinformation. Can’t imagine for a second what happened to it.

9. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Nearly identical start.

10. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Norm
Nearly identical start.
Juts curious. Did it start with 66v3 @ RC7 and the validity, or not, of the concept of maintaining a high count by not splitting a poor hand? Or maybe it was RC6.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... Last

#### Posting Permissions

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