Splitting 8-8

I have one correction to make. I incorrectly said:

Quote:

However, the calculator even says it's a split with no DAS (double after split), eight decks and only being allowed to split once. It doesn't really get any worse than that for 8-8 and is still better than surrendering and much better than just taking a card. The only way hitting becomes better is those same rules against a ten and the dealer does not check for Blackjack, so you can't eliminate the dealer from having an ace, and in fact, the other rules don't matter and you would still only take one card if the dealer doesn't check (unless you could surrender).

With 8-8 against a Dealer Ace, no Doubling After Splitting, and two or more decks, it becomes better to surrender.

I wasn't exactly wrong, but I thought we were only talking Dealer Nines and Tens until I saw your most recent post.

Even if you could Double After Split, your best option is Surrender 8-8 against A, if available, if you are playing more than two decks.

NOTE: If Surrender is not available, splitting remains your best possible action, unless getting into EoR exceptions.

With DAS allowed on 1-2 decks, you would always split eights against a dealer ace unless Effect-of-Removal said otherwise. These Effect-of-Removal exceptions can actually come up frequently in two deck games, for example, if you are playing with one other player and you see he has a natural, SURRENDERING 8-8 against a dealer Ace with two decks becomes MUCH better even if you can DAS. That's just one example of many possible.***

***Also assumes that this is the first round out of the two decks.

(Now do you see why I hate Blackjack?)

Quote: moses

BC Marshall writes: Wow! I really didn't expect such a detailed and intelligent answer, but I am now convinced. The best play is to split 8-8 against all.

Not so fast my friend. Suppose you have 88vs10 with a TC high enough to warrant a max bet. Hence, this means there are many 10's still in the deck. You get 18, 18. Dealer gets 20. You lose two max bets instead of one. The depth of an extra hand prompts the dealer to shuffle away a postive deck.

Those same two 10's would have been the first card of a two hand bet in a straight up game.

That was my underlying reasoning for starting this thread. Not taking count into consideration, since not all of us are counters, but intuitively it just seems a bad proposition to risk two 18's against a 20. It seemed the safer and smarter bet to just hit and take one loss instead of two.