Anyone else double down on 12?

[Renzey]

You are putting more money at risk without the corresponding possibility of reward.

All very true. With 12 vs 2 for example, you on average, will lose 25% of however much total money is riding on the hand when you take a hit. To double down in that spot is to lose 25% of two bets rather than one. Looks stupid to everyone -- and is stupid.
So the play, when you need to look stupid is to double for a very small amount -- say one tenth of a bet. The dealer will usually still call out, "Doubling on hard 12", and you'll pay 25% of one tenth of a bet from your advertising budget to shape a desirable image.

[RS]

So what ended up being the result of this test?

[PhillyNewbie]

So what ended up being the result of this test?

Only 3 pages in a test thread...inconclusive at best

[Reign Man]

Yes... I use this as one of a few cover plays. A friend who plays high limit introduced me to the concept of doubling down for less with 12 vs. 2-6 on negative counts. The EV chart shows it's twice as bad as both hitting or standing. 12 v. 2 ==> -0.25 hit, -0.28 stand & -0.5 double [D.S.]. I have table minimum bets out at negative counts and adding half a unit doesn't seem too risky. As gambler's fallacy would say 'no matter what card I get I'm not taking another.' Doubling down for less just looks ridiculous in the first place. I feel silly trying to apply logic to a random test thread question, but hey it's cheap cover.

For strategy deviations I'm mostly focused on playing Insurance, 16 vs. 10 and 15 vs. 10 correctly since they're worth the most -- top 3 in Illustrious-18 -- & occur most often. Even money is also something I ask for since virtually every ploppy demands it. I'm resigned to just stand on Ace, 7 vs. 9, 10, A since it's too advanced a maneuver. To be fair more folks seem to realize hitting the soft 18 is correct, OTOH I've never gotten the are you crazy look trying to stand.

[WRX]

I've done it a few times, sometimes knowing that it was giving me an immediate advantage, sometimes knowing that it wasn't. There's room in your bag of tricks for both.

[paymypush]

Yes... I use this as one of a few cover plays. A friend who plays high limit introduced me to the concept of doubling down for less with 12 vs. 2-6 on negative counts. The EV chart shows it's twice as bad as both hitting or standing. 12 v. 2 ==> -0.25 hit, -0.28 stand & -0.5 double [D.S.]. I have table minimum bets out at negative counts and adding half a unit doesn't seem too risky. As gambler's fallacy would say 'no matter what card I get I'm not taking another.' Doubling down for less just looks ridiculous in the first place. I feel silly trying to apply logic to a random test thread question, but hey it's cheap cover.

For strategy deviations I'm mostly focused on playing Insurance, 16 vs. 10 and 15 vs. 10 correctly since they're worth the most -- top 3 in Illustrious-18 -- & occur most often. Even money is also something I ask for since virtually every ploppy demands it. I'm resigned to just stand on Ace, 7 vs. 9, 10, A since it's too advanced a maneuver. To be fair more folks seem to realize hitting the soft 18 is correct, OTOH I've never gotten the are you crazy look trying to stand.

I'm not big on cover. I'd rather wong out of negative counts when possible.

I don't consider anything that's on a basic strategy chart to be an advanced maneuver. Do you double A,7 when called for?

[Reign Man]

I'm not big on cover. I'd rather wong out...Do you double A,7 when called for?

Yes, many ploppies aren't aware of soft doubling as a whole, and stand on A7 vs. ANY. Soft doubling doesn't look odd when you do and soft doubling is important. I play splits, surrender, soft doubling and doubling down normally. I wong out on 8 decks more often than 6. Wonging out is a smart way to avoid cover plays.

I think KJ posted at least a partial list of plays they frequently used index plays that are near neutral index that are on their quick assessment list. Using these can be very costly to longevity in a sweat shop.

I remember KJ posted about the confusion of doubling A8 vs. 6. Does he realize it's 19?! I'm aware of a list Bill Zender put out on index plays as well. I'm sure what each casino looks for is different, but I figure play the most important ones correctly. A7 vs. 10 & (H17) A7 vs. A is more important to hit. I suppose better cover would be stand on A7 vs. 9 & (S17) A7 vs. A.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Standing on A-7 vs. Ace is a good cheap cover play,

but standing with A-7 vs. 9 or 10 is not so cheap !

[Renzey]

You want a cover play that shows itself often.

The most readily available cover play you can make is to take insurance for a little bit as soon as the dealer shows an Ace.

[RS]

Doubling for significantly less (ie: $1) in situations where you would only draw one card and no more (12v2, 12v3, 16v*) can give the impression you have down syndrome.

[Frostbyte]

Doubling for significantly less (ie: $1) in situations where you would only draw one card and no more (12v2, 12v3, 16v*) can give the impression you have down syndrome.

At a casino I played in Minnesota, one dealer (who implicitly asked me later if I was counting, but had the decency to do it smilingly when no floormen were within earshot) told me about a regular they had who had become his own running gag among the dealing staff because he doubled for an extra $5 on every hard 16. Apparently he also never left the casino with money, but always, always, always won his hands when he had tokes out.

[Slacker13]

Doubling for significantly less (ie: $1) in situations where you would only draw one card and no more (12v2, 12v3, 16v*) can give the impression you have down syndrome.

This seems like excellent cover.

[Renzey]

Standing on 16 vT is a very cheap cover play. For play all it costs 2.65 cents per $100 bet flat betting in the long run. Your A7v(9,T or A) cover play costs 0.94 cent/$100, 1.06 cents/$100 and 2.20 cents/$100 bet. A total of 3.2 cents/$100 in bets when flat betting. .

For the shoe game, 16 vs 10 is a much closer play than that. Always standing, playing all and flat betting, it costs 60 cents per $100 bet. A/7 vs 9 and 10 on the other hand are much more decisive. Standing against the 9 costs $8.50 per $100 and against a 10 the cost is $3.70.

Thing of it is, 16 vs 10 appears about once every 30 hands, and a soft 18 vs 9 comes up once about once every 700 hands.