"I beg to differ" with my wise friend Tthree.
As you will rarely have a high card density high enough to
warrant splitting (with Risk Aversion taken into account),
You'll very rarely recoup the "cost" of doing this as a cover play.
I too, think splitting tens before the proper count as cover is a bad idea. The thing with splitting ten's isn't that it automatically identifies you as a counter or dismisses you as a counter if you do so early, but rather that it draws attention. And at times it isn't even the attention that the play draws on it's own but sometimes it is secondary attention by other players 'fussing' or commenting about the play. Many times I have witnessed a PC wonder over just because of this.
We all know the old saying about splitting ten....only card counters and idiots. So splitting tens draws attention and 'triggers' that 'figuring' process. Unless you are then going to lay heavy cover at a heavy cost, it is your other play and betting patterns that will do you in. The splitting tens just draws the attention that triggers the whole process, even if you do it at the wrong time, as cover, it is a big 'negative' in my book.
I save it for rare situations when my bet spread has already triggered my exit point at the next shuffle. If the count is very high (above even the risk adverse point), I will consider doing so, knowing I am out momentarily. But even then, there is the possibility, strong possibility that doing so will make you more memorable going forward. When I weigh everything involved, it really comes out not only as a negative, but a very toxic play.
Originally Posted by ZenMaster_Flash
I covered that in the above statement. I agree it is such a rare play that the cover is not worth it. Half the time it doesn't even dawn on me I am over the index because the play is so rare. Most of the time when I get a splitable TT I just think great I have a 20 and wave it of. Then when it is to late I think crap that was a split.
Great advice ... so your answer should be , only split 10's when you are about to leave / against dealer 5, 6 / super-mega high count / and when you will probably never be back there for a few years. When that is your situation - go ahead and split those bad-boys! (or "bad-girls" if said 10's are queens)
“It seemed to me ... that any civilization that had so far lost its head as to need to include a set of detailed instructions for use in a package of toothpicks, was no longer a civilization in which I could live and stay sane.”
My strategy generator shows the rate-of-change-of-advantage with regards to true count, e.g. how fast or slow your EV shifts as the true count shifts, and what is truly lamentable about (not) splitting the Tens is that with 10,10 vs. dealer 2 through 7 has by far the greatest rate of change with true count, meaning that when you have exceeded the index for splitting tens, the EV grows very rapidly.
For Wong Halves x2, the rate-of-change-of-advantage (is there any accepted card counter term for this? In my personal computations, I call it the "Fluffy Factor" where splitting tens is rock hard, compared to something like 7,7 v 8 which is the definition of "fluffy" at 0.2) for 10,10 vs 3, 4, 5, or 6 ranges from 2.7 t0 3.1 %EV per true count. So if the index is 9, and the TC is 11, the EV is +6%. For most of the common index plays, the rate of change with TC is about 0.5, give or take.
I think you are exaggerating what KJ is saying. He is saying even though at the risk averse index it is the highest EV play you can make and he is about to leave when the count gets him betting max, which such a count would, the downside of being too memorable from doing it makes him question whether or not it is truly worth it. I think how frequently you plan on visiting said store would be an important factor. If you are on a semi-annual trip and about to leave town the downside isn't so troubling. If it is at your favorite store you could be making sure they will back you off at some point.
If you're worried about splitting 10s because of heat, then you're already behind the 8 ball. Your act should be good enough already that they will overlook your 10-10 split.
That's not to say that you should play the start of next shoe with a minimum bet after splitting 10's with a max bet from previous shoe. I always leave the table after the shoe is over once I split 10s with a max bet, regardless. But if you insist on playing the next shoe after doing a max bet split of 10s, DO NOT start off at minimum bet right away, or you're asking for future trouble.
Best advice is always split 10's, it's too great of an EV move to pass up, just make sure you leave that table right away once it's over and maybe even the casino for a couple of hours.
Again, this is all assuming your act is already great, which in result should not leave you worried ever to split 10's. If you're passing up this opportunity you're leaving way too much money on the table.
Last edited by ZenKinG; 04-05-2014 at 07:09 PM.
Here is a nice visual for hilo and some of the index plays in this great interactive tool.Click on TT splitting decision and another decision. Note the change in scale on the vertical axis of the graphs.
http://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer3.htm
Last edited by Three; 04-05-2014 at 08:36 PM.
I really meant "great advice" from KJ... I never looked at that play that way before, or thought of those issues KJ brings up in his post...
“It seemed to me ... that any civilization that had so far lost its head as to need to include a set of detailed instructions for use in a package of toothpicks, was no longer a civilization in which I could live and stay sane.”
Leaving the table is just what they expect an AP to do. This is called confirming their suspicion. The best cover is to think what they expect an AP to do and don't do it. They have an idea in mind of how an AP acts, how he moves his bets with the changes in the count and how his bets correlate to plays. Your task is to play with as much advantage as you can without looking like what they think an AP does. Obviously not acting and reacting the way an AP would act or react is free cover. The rest is giving up some EV which you should get back by getting away with more. The latter is the paradox with splitting TT. It is your strongest play but can cost you huge in what you can get away with. Norms suggestion of splitting once only if you must split and then telling the dealer you aren't crazy enough to split them again when you catch the T. You got lucky and don't want to push your luck by splitting again. This makes you look like a shot taker not an AP. If the call was close enough 1 card makes it not a split anymore no AP would split them.
In my strategy generator, I've actually got all the rate-change information for all conceivable plays captured in table format. So one set of tables shows the indexes for each play, and then a parallel set of tables shows me how quickly the EV changes with the count (in the range of TCs near the index for each particular play). So for 10,10 vs 5, the index is +10.2, look over to the other set of tables and the rate of change is 3.1% EV per TC. For Hit/Stand on 16 v. 10 the index is 0.3, and rate of change is 0.4% EV per TC. I've got tables of numbers that could theoretically be graphed, but the rate of change of EV near the index is a good summary of what the graphs would show.
Many are linear but not all. Some gain EV steadily and then the two lines become more or less parallel which means little gain after exceeding that TC. There are very few things in BJ that are truly linear (insurance is linear). Many are about linear. Some are no where near linear.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks