Doubling for less? Ever?

I see people "doubling for less" a lot. Sometimes it's because they don't have the money to double, sometimes it's because they don't have exact change, sometimes it's because "it's not a good double" or "it doesn't feel right".

Assuming it's correct Basic Strategy doubling opportunity, my thinking is that it doesn't make sense to double for less, and in fact I would "double for more" - as much more as possible - given the chance. Again, under BS rules, you are never doubling when it's not a sound move. You might not win this double bet, but over time you will win more often than you will lose. Or is the proper way to think of it is "you will make more money" since you don't have to win 51% of doubled bets to come out ahead, since you will win 100% more when you do and it wins?

I know that the count will affect WHEN you double, since there are index plays that change the regular BS rule, so it might make sense to adjust how much you double just like you adjust when. I doubt that the folks I see doubling for less are doing it as an index play, since they often double for less with 11 against a 5 or 6

Assuming that you are playing BS without counting, does doubling for less ever make sense?

Someone with a better grasp on the numbers will answer soon, but I see it your way. It's black and white. Either it's a good double or it isn't. No in between.

Beyond Counting: Exhibit CAA has information on this when your "doubling for less" is the same as just hitting. If anyone has a copy on their HD then they can paste it.

Quote: Deucekies

Someone with a better grasp on the numbers will answer soon, but I see it your way. It's black and white. Either it's a good double or it isn't. No in between.

That is correct. Absent some non-standard angle or shot you are taking, you either double for full or you don't. Even worse is that often people double for less in situations where the correct play is just to hit. And when you double, not only are you throwing more money into a -EV situation, you take away the option to hit again if you should.

The only blackjack book I've seen that advocates doubling for less is Blackjack Bluebook II, where Renzy runs some numbers on the least costly situations you could double for less for cover purposes. Basically, it's a ploppy move. So if you know you're only giving up a few cents on some double for less (for example doubling for a single dollar), it might be a form of cheap cover.

Quote: BigJer

Beyond Counting: Exhibit CAA has information on this when your "doubling for less" is the same as just hitting. If anyone has a copy on their HD then they can paste it.

But in general DD for the whole amount.

The only times I can think of when doubling for less would be a good move are:

In tournament play sometimes it can be a good strategic move as described here.

In games with rules like being allowed to double (but not hit) split aces or redoubling (with taking another regular hit prohibited) you double for less when you want to take another card for as little as possible.

Quote: racquet

Assuming it's correct Basic Strategy doubling opportunity, my thinking is that it doesn't make sense to double for less

Correct. Basic strategy calculations assume you will be winning or losing 2 units, and I thought there were at least a few cases where it's close enough that if you're not putting a full second unit out, you're losing money vs hitting.

If you can't double for the full amount, hit, and question why you didn't leave the table 5 hands ago.

In normal blackjack play, doubling for less is never right.

However, another unusual case where it may be very useful it in playing a game where Mindplay is in use. This software will monitor your skill level and raise red flags if you're counting.

So, imagine you bet $100 and have 12 vs. 3 and the count is zero. The right play is to hit and you know you won't take any more than one card. So, you double for less, just $1 more. As I understand it, Mindplay doesn't record that you doubled for less, just that you doubled. This will make you look like a fool, divert any heat, and possibly earn you more comps.

Quote: Wizard

In normal blackjack play, doubling for less is never right.

However, another unusual case where it may be very useful it in playing a game where Mindplay is in use. This software will monitor your skill level and raise red flags if you're counting.

So, imagine you bet $100 and have 12 vs. 3 and the count is zero. The right play is to hit and you know you won't take any more than one card. So, you double for less, just $1 more. As I understand it, Mindplay doesn't record that you doubled for less, just that you doubled. This will make you look like a fool, divert any heat, and possibly earn you more comps.

Not to derail, but since the thread has mostly already been answered.... Jesus this confuses me how this question (no offence, typical newbie question that I would have also answered had others not already) can be taken more seriously that the other guys post who was just excited to be part of our community. Mr. Wizard I hope you can review this thread and chime in on it, because some members of our community (in my opinion) represented the forums quite poorly.

Quote: Romes

Not to derail, but since the thread has mostly already been answered.... Jesus this confuses me how this question (no offence, typical newbie question that I would have also answered had others not already) can be taken more seriously that the other guys post who was just excited to be part of our community.

I'm not sure where this criticism is being leveled - at this thread or the other one. But if here, well...

I think I was just asking for confirmation of what I thought I already knew - never double for less. I see enough of it out there, sometimes from people who otherwise seem to play consistently correct basic strategy, that if there was some reasoning behind it that was at least a little bit sound, I'd like to know. Newbie or not (and I am new to this site, but an oldie for sure) the responses were informative and beneficial. Newbies who might be lurking out there might actually benefit from them.

Nothing confusing about that.

Quote: Wizard

In normal blackjack play, doubling for less is never right.

However, another unusual case where it may be very useful it in playing a game where Mindplay is in use. This software will monitor your skill level and raise red flags if you're counting.

So, imagine you bet $100 and have 12 vs. 3 and the count is zero. The right play is to hit and you know you won't take any more than one card. So, you double for less, just $1 more. As I understand it, Mindplay doesn't record that you doubled for less, just that you doubled. This will make you look like a fool, divert any heat, and possibly earn you more comps.

That is an interesting technique to throw off MindPlay, wizard. I hadn't heard that before. But you do know that Mindplay has been discontinued right?

For anyone who may not be familiar with Mindplay, the casino industry was using this technology to monitor players betting and playing habits. When Mindplay determined that a player was increasing wagers with the count because he had an advantage, Mindplay would notify either the pit or the dealer and they would immediately shuffle away any such advantage (preferential shuffle). Someone sued, saying this was against the rules as shuffling away player advantages altered the random outcome. AP friend and attorney Bob Nersesian handled the case.

The casinos countered that the purpose of Mindplay was to more accurately track players betting habits, for comp purposes, which was a laugh. The Judge ruled that Mindplay could be used but with a so many round delay, I forget what it was, something like 20 round delay. This would eliminate the possibility that Mindplay could notify the dealer/pit and shuffle away player advantages, but could still be used to accurately track player wagers for comp purposes.

After the ruling all of the sudden, the casinos didn't seem to care as much about accurately tracking players for comp purposes and Mindplay came to an end. Lol

Thanks for the executive summary! I knew Mindplay hit a snag but didn't know it was dead.

Nevertheless, the day will come where I think every bet, card, and decision will be tracked. I'm surprised this isn't already done in video poker.

Quote: kewlj

Quote: Wizard

In normal blackjack play, doubling for less is never right.

However, another unusual case where it may be very useful it in playing a game where Mindplay is in use. This software will monitor your skill level and raise red flags if you're counting.

So, imagine you bet $100 and have 12 vs. 3 and the count is zero. The right play is to hit and you know you won't take any more than one card. So, you double for less, just $1 more. As I understand it, Mindplay doesn't record that you doubled for less, just that you doubled. This will make you look like a fool, divert any heat, and possibly earn you more comps.

That is an interesting technique to throw off MindPlay, wizard. I hadn't heard that before. But you do know that Mindplay has been discontinued right?

For anyone who may not be familiar with Mindplay, the casino industry was using this technology to monitor players betting and playing habits. When Mindplay determined that a player was increasing wagers with the count because he had an advantage, Mindplay would notify either the pit or the dealer and they would immediately shuffle away any such advantage (preferential shuffle). Someone sued, saying this was against the rules as shuffling away player advantages altered the random outcome. AP friend and attorney Bob Nersesian handled the case.

The casinos countered that the purpose of Mindplay was to more accurately track players betting habits, for comp purposes, which was a laugh. The Judge ruled that Mindplay could be used but with a so many round delay, I forget what it was, something like 20 round delay. This would eliminate the possibility that Mindplay could notify the dealer/pit and shuffle away player advantages, but could still be used to accurately track player wagers for comp purposes.

After the ruling all of the sudden, the casinos didn't seem to care as much about accurately tracking players for comp purposes and Mindplay came to an end. Lol

It was actually last tested in Reno many years back with a 5 round latency. In its original form it violates the Nevada Gaming Commission rules which states that the odds of the game cannot be changed while in play. They do not have to do preferential shuffle. The computer automatically alters the HE on the game and can tell what HE you are playing at.

Imagine the Americans would not accept the CSM. The shoe gadget and Card Counting is as American as Apple Pie. This is why BJ is so popular in the US but not outside the US. Elsewhere in the world you get only the CSM. And to think they could use the Mindplay gadget in the US is unbelievable.

Quote: Deck007

It was actually last tested in Reno many years back with a 5 round latency. In its original form it violates the Nevada Gaming Commission rules which states that the odds of the game cannot be changed while in play.

Well, Mindplay was a 'device', so there was some crossover where you were not only talking about changing the outcome, but using a device to do so. BUT, many of us feel that regular 'preferential shuffling' still violates the "changing the outcome or odds clause". Casinos do preferential shuffling without the aid of a device all the time. Some places, you raise your bet more than double and they shuffle (especially handheld games). This is preferential shuffling that changes the odds and outcome of the game. If the rounds advantageous to the player are shuffled away, the house has a huge advantage....much bigger than what is thought to be the IHA (initial house advantage).

In my mind that Mindplay ruling should have been a stepping stone to a ruling doing away with all preferential shuffling. It may be that no one has brought such a case. There also is the issue that if you start limiting how casinos can protect their game, they will just revert to all really bad conditions as Atlantic City did when Kenny Uston "won" his case. So bringing and winning such a case, might not be such a win.

Quote: kewlj

Well, Mindplay was a 'device', so there was some crossover where you were not only talking about changing the outcome, but using a device to do so. BUT, many of us feel that regular 'preferential shuffling' still violates the "changing the outcome or odds clause". Casinos do preferential shuffling without the aid of a device all the time. Some places, you raise your bet more than double and they shuffle (especially handheld games). This is preferential shuffling that changes the odds and outcome of the game. If the rounds advantageous to the player are shuffled away, the house has a huge advantage....much bigger than what is thought to be the IHA (initial house advantage).

In my mind that Mindplay ruling should have been a stepping stone to a ruling doing away with all preferential shuffling. It may be that no one has brought such a case. There also is the issue that if you start limiting how casinos can protect their game, they will just revert to all really bad conditions as Atlantic City did when Kenny Uston "won" his case. So bringing and winning such a case, might not be such a win.

Good luck to you if you want to take on NGC on preferential shuffling. I don't think you will win.

Quote: racquet

I'm not sure where this criticism is being leveled - at this thread or the other one. But if here, well...

I think I was just asking for confirmation of what I thought I already knew - never double for less. I see enough of it out there, sometimes from people who otherwise seem to play consistently correct basic strategy, that if there was some reasoning behind it that was at least a little bit sound, I'd like to know. Newbie or not (and I am new to this site, but an oldie for sure) the responses were informative and beneficial. Newbies who might be lurking out there might actually benefit from them.

Nothing confusing about that.

racquet I was not taking any kind of aim at your thread. The only reason I pointed something out was because there was a heated discussion in another thread that I wanted to refer the Wiz to given I felt this thread was a good example of a point I was making in the other thread.

You're fine to ask your question, and as I mentioned in my last post I would have been more than happy to answer it, providing the proper mathematics where applicable, had others not already sufficiently answered it. I apologize for the slight derail, I was trying to make a point about something important to our forums community.

You ask an excellent question, racquet. Not a day, possibly not an hour, goes by that I don't witness this foolish move and all the excuses that go along with it. As asked, which was playing basic strategy and not counting, the answer is a resounding never double for less! If someone does this because they're out of chips, they've got much bigger problems.

I would rather hit than double for less and limit myself to one card. I think the EV might even be better for that reason. Who's got the software to prove it?

I'm not a fan of cover play, certainly not at red or even light green action. The doubling for less on a 12 when taking one card seems to make sense but I don't like it because the dealer will most always call it out. He'll call it out very loudly, possibly more than once, he'll pause and maybe do a little dance if the mood strikes him. All these things attract attention and take time. If you double a black chip with a white chip, who's to say Mindplay or some other software program won't pick that up?

If anyone feels compelled to double for less, perhaps it would be better to do it on a hand where you can't break such as a soft hand against a deuce. At least they won't call it out.

By the way, I make good money from people who double for less.

Quote: 1BB

I would rather hit than double for less and limit myself to one card. I think the EV might even be better for that reason. Who's got the software to prove it?

https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/appendix/1/

I think that the way to compare is to multiply the expected return by doubling by whatever correction factor to adjust for the new bet size. So, if you're doubling for half, I think that's ER*1.5/2. (Someone who's actually smart should correct me on this.)

In the cases where ER for doubling for less is still greater than the ER for hitting, you're still sacrificing a notable amount to house edge.

Quote: kewlj

Well, Mindplay was a 'device', so there was some crossover where you were not only talking about changing the outcome, but using a device to do so. BUT, many of us feel that regular 'preferential shuffling' still violates the "changing the outcome or odds clause". Casinos do preferential shuffling without the aid of a device all the time. Some places, you raise your bet more than double and they shuffle (especially handheld games). This is preferential shuffling that changes the odds and outcome of the game. If the rounds advantageous to the player are shuffled away, the house has a huge advantage....much bigger than what is thought to be the IHA (initial house advantage).

In my mind that Mindplay ruling should have been a stepping stone to a ruling doing away with all preferential shuffling. It may be that no one has brought such a case. There also is the issue that if you start limiting how casinos can protect their game, they will just revert to all really bad conditions as Atlantic City did when Kenny Uston "won" his case. So bringing and winning such a case, might not be such a win.

There was a period where Mindplay changed its name. Maybe it was bought out or licensed differently, but it was renamed to something else. I don't know if this changed anything.