Oliver Loving: Advice on splitting 10s

[Oliver Loving]

I have always regarded splitting 10s as a foolish move guaranteed to create a lot of heat as well as annoyance with fellow players. However, I am currently playing in a casino where the dealers have been instructed to point out this option to players and as a result it is quite a common play so I have been considering using it in high positive counts against dealer 5 and 6.

Based on a recent experience I am wondering if I should use it even more often that that. Imagine my surprise recently when a fellow player split two 10-value cards, got two aces and the dealer paid them off at 3:2. Does this change the conditions under which 10-value cards should be split. I assume that the standard advice to counters is based on the assumption that the situation I witnessed would be settled as a 21 not a blackjack. The other rules at the casino in question are 4DK ENHC S17 D9 DAS ES10 NRSA, 70-80% pen

[AutomaticMonkey]

> I have always regarded splitting 10s as a foolish move
> guaranteed to create a lot of heat as well as
> annoyance with fellow players. However, I am currently
> playing in a casino where the dealers have been
> instructed to point out this option to players and as
> a result it is quite a common play so I have been
> considering using it in high positive counts against
> dealer 5 and 6.

> Based on a recent experience I am wondering if I
> should use it even more often that that. Imagine my
> surprise recently when a fellow player split two
> 10-value cards, got two aces and the dealer paid them
> off at 3:2. Does this change the conditions under
> which 10-value cards should be split. I assume that
> the standard advice to counters is based on the
> assumption that the situation I witnessed would be
> settled as a 21 not a blackjack. The other rules at
> the casino in question are 4DK ENHC S17 D9 DAS ES10
> NRSA, 70-80% pen

Most certainly. Being paid as a natural on split 10's is quite a nice rule. For level 1 counts, I get an index of 3 for splitting them against a six, and index of 4 for splitting them against a five, but this was just a snap analysis and I could be wrong.

Splitting 10's is supposed to be a counter tell, but where I usually play a lot of unskilled players do it too, and occasionally I will slip in a split 10 vs. 6 when I have both a positive count and a minimum bet, just for cover. I'll also do it to empty out a table if the situation calls for it.

[MGP]

> I have always regarded splitting 10s as a foolish move
> guaranteed to create a lot of heat as well as
> annoyance with fellow players. However, I am currently
> playing in a casino where the dealers have been
> instructed to point out this option to players and as
> a result it is quite a common play so I have been
> considering using it in high positive counts against
> dealer 5 and 6.

> Based on a recent experience I am wondering if I
> should use it even more often that that. Imagine my
> surprise recently when a fellow player split two
> 10-value cards, got two aces and the dealer paid them
> off at 3:2. Does this change the conditions under
> which 10-value cards should be split. I assume that
> the standard advice to counters is based on the
> assumption that the situation I witnessed would be
> settled as a 21 not a blackjack. The other rules at
> the casino in question are 4DK ENHC S17 D9 DAS ES10
> NRSA, 70-80% pen

It wouldn't do anything from a BS standpoint but it may with counting. I'm curious though if I'm interpreting D9 correctly as meaning you can only double on 9's?

Or is it double on any with Double soft 19's count as hard 9?

If it's only double allowed on 9's then the BS edge is terrible at -1.55%. If it's the latter it's not that bad then and the edge is only -0.17%.

That probably doesn't answer your question though since you're counting but I figured I'd check BS as well.

Finally, if the dealer was paying 3:2 on post-split Aces, then you should split A,A vs A and the BS edge would be in your favor at +0.03%.

I suspect the dealer was in error though.

Good luck,
MGP

[Sonny]

> I'm curious though if I'm interpreting D9 correctly as
> meaning you can only double on 9's?

It usually means that you can only double on 9, 10, and 11.

-Sonny-

[Oliver Loving]

> It usually means that you can only double on 9, 10,
> and 11.

> -Sonny-

That's what I meant by it

[MGP]

> That's what I meant by it

OK - thanks and sorry for the confusion - I was trying to learn more about doubles count as hard rules recently so I got stuck in thinking about it.

With the above rules as I'm sure you know the edge should be -0.27%.

Thanks,
MGP

[Oliver Loving]

Your calculations suggest that indexes are only one lower due to the blackjack payoff then. I would have expected a bigger effect but my own attempts to analyse this have taken me nowhere.

The other way of taking advantage of this nice rule would be to keep an Ace sidecount. After all, two 10-value cards comes up pretty often so it would probably be worth the trouble. Anybody able to shed light as to what Ace-count would make the split a good play?

> Most certainly. Being paid as a natural on split 10's
> is quite a nice rule. For level 1 counts, I get an
> index of 3 for splitting them against a six, and index
> of 4 for splitting them against a five, but this was
> just a snap analysis and I could be wrong.

> Splitting 10's is supposed to be a counter tell, but
> where I usually play a lot of unskilled players do it
> too, and occasionally I will slip in a split 10 vs. 6
> when I have both a positive count and a minimum bet,
> just for cover. I'll also do it to empty out a table
> if the situation calls for it.

[Oliver Loving]

-0.27% is a bit better than I thought. From my references I'm a bit confused about the value of ES10 given that it is combined with ENHC. What actually occurs at the table is that I can surrender immediately against any card accept an Ace. Some definition of ES10 seem to include late surrender against an Ace which you can't do in this casino. I had guessed the house edge at about -0.35% which is still pretty good given the penetration and absence of heat.

[MGP]

> -0.27% is a bit better than I thought. From my
> references I'm a bit confused about the value of ES10
> given that it is combined with ENHC. What actually
> occurs at the table is that I can surrender
> immediately against any card accept an Ace. Some
> definition of ES10 seem to include late surrender
> against an Ace which you can't do in this casino. I
> had guessed the house edge at about -0.35% which is
> still pretty good given the penetration and absence of
> heat.

Ok - so now I'm confused again but it doesn't really matter - see below:

My understanding of ES10 is that you can Surrender against upcards 2-9 and Early surrender against 10 and Late Surrender against A. My understanding of how this plays out in the casino is that the casino would give you back your money immediately against 2-10, but put a marker for upcard A until it was known if the dealer had BJ or not.

Based on what you're saying above, it sounds like you mean you can (Early) Surrender against any upcard except Ace, and No Surrender is allowed against Aces. Is that correct? Early is in parentheses since Early and Late is only relevant to A/10 upcards so the EV is uneffected for 2-9.

If either case then the EV is still -0.27% but the previous -0.27% was rounded from -0.269% and this is rounded to -0.27% from -0.274%. The difference is small because the only TD strategy change would be to Late surrender 16 vs A.

Anyways, I'm not using tables but a CA that should be accurate.

Good luck
MGP

[Oliver Loving]

Yes, you've understood the situation correctly. No surrender allowed against Ace. Thanks for the explanation of EV. Very helpful

Ok - so now I'm confused again but it doesn't really
> matter - see below:

> My understanding of ES10 is that you can Surrender
> against upcards 2-9 and Early surrender against 10 and
> Late Surrender against A. My understanding of how this
> plays out in the casino is that the casino would give
> you back your money immediately against 2-10, but put
> a marker for upcard A until it was known if the dealer
> had BJ or not.

> Based on what you're saying above, it sounds like you
> mean you can (Early) Surrender against any upcard
> except Ace, and No Surrender is allowed against Aces.
> Is that correct? Early is in parentheses since Early
> and Late is only relevant to A/10 upcards so the EV is
> uneffected for 2-9.

> If either case then the EV is still -0.27% but the
> previous -0.27% was rounded from -0.269% and this is
> rounded to -0.27% from -0.274%. The difference is
> small because the only TD strategy change would be to
> Late surrender 16 vs A.

> Anyways, I'm not using tables but a CA that should be
> accurate.

> Good luck
> MGP

[Oliver Loving]

Like you, I suspected the dealer made an error when he paid off as a blackjack when another player split 10's and got Ace's on both of them. However, I was back in the same casino today and the dealer told me that if I split 10's and got aces that it pays as a blackjack. However, if I split aces and get 10's it doesn't.

Is anyone able to determine whether this rule calls for a change in strategy for the counter. I only got one response before which suggested that index numbers go down by one against 5 or 6 but it was stated as a quick analysis.

Other rules are 4 deck, enhc, es10, D9, DAS, S17, penetration about 70%

> It wouldn't do anything from a BS standpoint but it
> may with counting. I'm curious though if I'm
> interpreting D9 correctly as meaning you can only
> double on 9's?

> Or is it double on any with Double soft 19's count as
> hard 9?

> If it's only double allowed on 9's then the BS edge is
> terrible at -1.55%. If it's the latter it's not that
> bad then and the edge is only -0.17%.

> That probably doesn't answer your question though
> since you're counting but I figured I'd check BS as
> well.

> Finally, if the dealer was paying 3:2 on post-split
> Aces, then you should split A,A vs A and the BS edge
> would be in your favor at +0.03%.

> I suspect the dealer was in error though.

> Good luck,
> MGP