This is what's so funny about both your note to me and Cac's chart above it: You both act as if, in the second column, the person who hits or stands actually DID that, even if the dealer later has a natural. In the latter case, the person did NOT hit and he did NOT stand; it just looks as if he did, because he goes through the motions. To calculate the EVs, you do nothing different from the standard American game. If the dealer has a natural, you IGNORE what the player did with his hand.

Note to k_c: Your words are clear, but the notion simply doesn't describe anything relating to blackjack! The TIMING as to when the dealer reveals his hole card cannot possibly change ANY expectations, and certainly not that of LS. Yet again, SPEAKING the word "Surrender" is NOT surrendering. You don't get to surrender until the dealer has seen his hole card. And thinking that it changes the surrender EV depending on whether the dealer sees his hole card at 7:30:25 or 7:30:26 is just plain silly.

Game 1: Don heads-up against the dealer in Las Vegas. I get 16 vs. T and, while the dealer is sliding his ten into the little camera to read the hole card, I yell out "Surrender." The dealer ignores me, sees an Ace underneath, and says, "No can do," and he takes my full bet.

Game 2: K_c heads up against the dealer in the good ol' A.C. days: You get 16 vs. T and yell out "Surrender." The dealer ignores you, slides a card out of the shoe, flips the Ace, and says: "No can do," and he takes your full bet.

If you somehow see ANY MATHEMATICAL DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER in these two scenarios, then you simply have spent too much time analyzing blackjack and not enough time playing it.

Don