88 vs. 10 - A "risk averse" surrender?

On another forum a counter who uses "risk averse" indices says that he(?) surrenders 88 vs. 10 at a neutral count or higher. Does that mean for a regular BS player who is being cautious with his/her bankroll, it might be better to surrender (if available) rather than split the hand?

I'd suggest that you might be better off betting less and playing a max-EV game.

If you're already at the table minimum... maybe? If you're considering this it might be a sign that you're over-betting your bankroll.

I agree with Axiom, the EV difference is too much to give up. And one BJ decision shouldn't be making you or breaking you in this spot. Surrendering vs. splitting won't be reducing your Risk of Ruin significantly, and it actually may be increasing it.

I think it's a little bit more complicated than that. IIRC there was something in BJ attack about this. I don't remember, though, I will have to check when I get home. I think that the idea was that if you lowered the variance on certain plays, you could increase your bet size and have the same ROR, and thus increase the SCORE. In other words, the increased bet size would more than make up for the slight decrease to EV. Or something like that. I'll have to check.

For the non-counter, I don't think that this applies. ROR doesn't really make much sense any more. You are going to lose all your money, since you are playing a -EV game. So, what's the goal? Probably to make the money last as long as possible. I'm pretty sure that the expected amount of time that your money lasts is inversely proportional to the house edge, so the only way to increase this is to lower the house edge -- ie, play perfect basic strategy. I think that you can get an improvement over the worst case by making risk-averse plays, but it still decreases the expected amount of time that your money will last.

For the non-counting BS player, the best bet is to surrender 88 vs 10 if S17. Split 88 vs A, however. My primary source is Joshua Hornick (Mensa Guide to Blackjack). Hornick was a member of the famous (infamous?) MIT Blackjack Team. Fred Renzy--another authoritative source--recommends that in a H17 game, the best move is to surrender 88 vs both 10 and A. http://renzey.casinocitytimes.com/article/dont-confuse-surrender-with-new-blackjack-gimmicks-39741.

I play in PA, where late surrender is allowed. Whenever I get an 88 against a 10 and surrender, I'll sometimes get odd looks or comments. I've noticed that more and more people who play in PA are employing it now, but many of them tend to misuse it, surrendering on 14 vs 10 and the like. Reinforces that old adage about a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing.

I think that you are misreading the info in that link. "8/8" and "16" aren't the same.

Edit: To be more precise, "8/8" is NOT an example of 16. That's why he list's "8/8 vs A" separately , even though he had already listed "16 v A".

Yeah, that's not right. You should split 8,8 against 10. I just went and double checked, to make sure I wasn't wrong. The index for surrendering is 1, I think,

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I think that you are misreading the info in that link. "8/8" and "16" aren't the same.

Edit: To be more precise, "8/8" is NOT an example of 16. That's why he list's "8/8 vs A" separately , even though he had already listed "16 v A".

Yep, you're absolutely right. I stand corrected on Renzey's strategy. Two card 16 and 88 are not the same. I've never played in a H17 game where late surrender was allowed, so I'm unfamiliar with Renzey's subtle change in how to handle 16 and 88 vs 10 and A. Sorry 'bout the confusion on my part.

When I'm not counting cards in a S17 game, then I prefer Hornick's strategy to surrender 88 vs 10, but to split 88 vs A. Renzey would split 88 vs 10 in such a situation. I also surrender 15 vs 10 and 16 vs 9, 10 and A. I'll sometimes employ Red 7 count and adjust my surrender startegy, depending on the count.

Quote: Pabo

When I'm not counting cards in a S17 game, then I prefer Hornick's strategy to surrender 88 vs 10, but to split 88 vs A.

Are you sure that that's his strategy? That just sounds wrong. I am pretty sure that splitting 88 vs 10 is higher EV. I would have to look it up to be 100% sure. I almost never play in a game that offers surrender, so I don't remember most of the finer points.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Are you sure that that's his strategy? That just sounds wrong. I am pretty sure that splitting 88 vs 10 is higher EV. I would have to look it up to be 100% sure. I almost never play in a game that offers surrender, so I don't remember most of the finer points.

Here's a quote from Hornick's book, page 52: "There is one more case where it makes sense to surrender. That is when you hold a pair of 8s (for the dreaded 16) and the dealer shows a 10. If you can, you should surrender rather than splitting and hoping to get two big hands and then still having to get lucky to win."

Well, the situation is Hit or Stand is > -50%, Split is -47% (with added variance, you play two hands at -23.5%), and surrender is -50% with a decrease in variance "For The Play".
The number of times one is faced with the 88 vs. 10-value is small, so surrendering, though against Basic, will not cost you much in overall EV... maybe .001%.

In a Hit Soft 17 game with surrender, you will Surrender 88 vs. Ace: Stand soft 17 you will split.