> Yes, but a
> big bet is a big bet. He should protect it,
> all things considered.
> The dealer is supposed to pay a little
> closer attention to the last player to act,
> before dealing to his own hand, that's all
> there is to it. (The above doesn't mean that
> the player will get away with the ruse, or
> that they will not burn the card that was
> dealt. But, in my mind, there's no way the
> player shouldn't protest.)
> --Cyrus
I think you are trying to disagree with my post, where I said:
In your case, I would have not protested this particular play. If it was a different play, I would do otherwise. If it were 16v10 and the dealer hit me and busted the hand, I would have said "I don't want that card." and forced them to take it back.
My policy was to protest if it will save real money, but not to cause trouble for the sake of causing trouble. But you disagree with this? Would you protest if the play only saved a penny? Or if it saved it a dollar? Or would protest just our of principle. Your comment about the "big bet" leads me to believe that the cost of the misplay is a factor in your decision.
Now I pointed out that this was a marginal play. I even questioned whether there was any gain in the play at all, if we were not below the index. No one seems to even addressed that point.
So I decided to look into it. Here is the data which I computed for doubling A9 v 5, at various KO counts. 0 is the Pivot point. This is pre-formatted, but the last time I did this here, it didn't quite come out right)
RC N Gain SE-Gain DeltaVar CritFrct
0.0 158.0 -0.0389 0.00439 2.82 -0.028
1.0 155.0 -0.0189 0.00415 2.82 -0.013
2.0 136.0 0.0095 0.00425 2.82 0.007
3.0 90.0 0.0384 0.00595 2.82 0.027
My data shows that the index is +2, and that the gain there is only 1%. After the Ace comes out, we are at +1, and my data show that this double is an incorrect play which costs us money. After the 10 comes out, the double costs almost 4%. This is 4% of a big bet, which is a non-trivial loss.
A disclaimer should be made here. I checked with SBA, to see what index it. It seems to have an index of +1. I am not sure why the discrepancy, although a difference like this is not unusual. But note that we do agree that pivot (after the 10 was removed) the play is negative.
Now for this marginal play, you want to him protest. Should he ask for a tape review? What is they say they want to review the tapes, to see if he gave the signal. This is not the usual procedure, but I have it seen it done. I once saw a casino withhold correcting a $50 payoff error until after the tape was backed up.
So the sky backs up the tape. They see all these low cards come out, his bets jump up, and then he tries to double A9. Just the kind of publicity we are looking for.
But maybe he will get lucky. Maybe they look at the tape, think he might be counting, and then do a more thorough review. Maybe they have really sophisticated software, and it will conclude that his A( double was premature, and therefore a "sucker" play.
I don't know if this is the strategy that you are aiming for. It seems a bit too cute for me.
Bookmarks