I was wondering if there is a comprehensive list somewhere of matchups that are more profitable to double but where doing so decreases the chances of actually winning the hand.
Doubling 11 vs. 10 is the right BS play, but you will win more hands if you just hit. That's because, if you hit with any card 5 or lower, you can hit again, whereas, when you double, you're stuck with just the one card. But when you double that value, it's superior to hitting.
Don
Sounds good. Is this also the case with many splits? For example an offensive split like 99v6, would you be sacrificing win percentage for superior profits long term?
Is there a chart that lists “chance of win percentage”? Don, I would check your book but I am not near it at the moment and won’t be for several more days. Is this one of the statistics included in the charts that list the EV for each playing decision on each matchup?
This comes up often in tournament play, where frequently your goal for the current hand is to simply win at least the amount of your original bet. A push will not do, nor will a loss. Only a net win. Check out this thread where I did some work on optimizing this at blackjacktournaments.com
https://www.blackjacktournaments.com...-one-bet.8201/
Included are several generated strategies for maximizing this outcome under various constraints. If you hover your mouse over the data in the charts you will see the "Percent Success Rate" for each action, which is the probability that taking that action will lead to a net win.
As you can see from the chart for the optimal (complete) strategy, splitting just about anything vs anything for the original hand can increase your chance of a net win. The exceptions are
- splitting aces against anything (one card only leads to many pushes)
- 5,5 and T,T (hit and stand are superior respectively)
- 9,9 vs 7 and 6 (higher chance of a win by standing)
As is the case with most blackjack research, splitting is the monkey wrench. The success rates for splitting depend on what strategy you play after you split. The thread examines several possibilities, including complete computer optimal play and several other simplified compromise strategies. You will see that the recommendations for splitting the original hand vary depending on the follow up strategy. This is why I highlighted the word can above.
Last edited by Gronbog; 04-25-2018 at 01:35 PM.
I just went through this thread and I liked the information. I didn’t see if you figured out what the overall added cost of this strategy is to basic strategy. Playing this way definitely adds some extra “overhead” to your bet. Did you show this information and I just missed it?
No, the cost to basic strategy was not addressed because it is not relevant. These strategies are for use specifically in tournament situations where you need to achieve a net win on the current hand -- as in right now. These situations are typically of the nature that if you don't win now, you have no chance later. The final hand of a round is the most common example of this, but you can find also yourself in this situation with several hands left to play. The cost to basic strategy has no bearing in this situation, nor does it to a large extent in most tournament situations requiring playing deviations.
You aren't playing against the dealer in a tournament, so the EV of the hand is irrelevant in terms of strategy. Strategy is based on how your outcome, coupled with the other players' outcomes that are relevant to your finishing position against the same dealers final total, affects you standing in the chip count. The closer you are to the end of the tournament, the further from normal BJ play correct tournament strategy becomes. The last few hands will be all about playing your hand to either get the same outcome as your key opponent(s) or a different outcome than your key opponent(s). Bet sizing is a huge part of strategy and so is using position make your move. Being able to bet and play after your opponent is a huge strategic advantage. Usually in tournaments the first to play rotates each round giving everyone position on their opponents at some point.
Bookmarks