Is It A Close Play?

I was playing in the "VIP" lounge at Fallsview last night. 6D/S17/DAT/DAS/Max 4 Splits.I Was playing the $100 minimum alone for a while until another guy got a 100k marker and began playing 5k a hand. We both played perfect BS and it was back and forth for about a half hour of playing.

Then on one hand the other guy gets dealt 4/4 against a dealer 6. He puts up his second 5k and the dealer quickly splits his 4's and gives him an Ace on his first 4, A/4. Me and the dealer both waited for him to put up the next 5k for a double down. He said to the dealer he didn't want the 4's split, he wanted to double. The dealer calls the supervisor over and explains the situation and he analyzed the table and nodded to her and walked off. She put his 4's back together and the Ace on top, 19. Play resumed and dealer busted.

About 20 minutes later (after a dealer change) the same situation comes up, 4/4 vs dealer 6. Again he puts up his 5k and the dealer splits again, again an Ace comes. Same story twice here. Pit boss comes over and lets it slide again, but tells the dealer to please wait for hand signals, and he nodded in agreement. Dealer busted again FWIW.

The point of my longer than it probably needed to be story is what is the correct play here? After seeing it a couple times I began pondering what was in fact the optimal play. Stick with the double down or double again and play out the rest of the cards?

I've played over 200k Blackjack hands in my short time and I couldn't for the life of me figure out what I would do, I kept teetering back and forth on what decision I would make. Maybe to some guys the answer is obvious but I still have no idea.

An answer from the math people, please...

Duh. The answer is obvious:
Basic Strategy

Split 44 against 5 or 6, and never double on 8 in a non-counted shoe game anyway.

Don't forget, BTW, that if the dealer busts anyway, the guy could've made 1.5 times more money by doubling after split on one of the hands. The hands with an ace specifically.

I used the Wizard's BJ calculators found here:
https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/strategy/calculator/

I could not find any combination of rules where you would ever double on any 8, regardless of the dealer's up card.

Additionally, you always split 4s when the dealer is showing a 5 or 6. Otherwise, hit. NOT DOUBLE!

Also, I'd wonder where he placed his chips for the "double". Was it next to the original bet, or was there room between the bets?

Although hand signals are prefered, the former is typical for a double. The latter is a split.

Quote: UltimateHoldem

The point of my longer than it probably needed to be story is what is the correct play here? After seeing it a couple times I began pondering what was in fact the optimal play. Stick with the double down or double again and play out the rest of the cards?

I missed this part of the question.

The correct play is to split. And then double the soft 15.


HOWEVER...

Are you asking if the correct play is, after splitting and getting the ace, to play out the hand or to try to convince the pit that you had intended to double?

There's no way to deny it, but that would be cheating.

And I would elevate it as being much more severe than merely keeping your mouth shut when a dealer make a mistake and pays on a hand that pushed (or push a loser, etc.)

Obviously I know to split 4's against a dealer 6. In most cases however you don't know that your card will be an Ace for 19. My whole question was aimed at the decision after it was dealt.

The player was getting away with a cheat. The casino likely lets him get away with it as the player likely loses a ton of money anyway in the Prive. I'd be calling upstairs after the first cheat, and disallowing the 2nd if the 1st was indeed a cheat (clear hand signal to split).

The Salon Prive dealer hopefully are the best in the bunch.

I agree. He was gaming the system. Would only work with 4,4 ... since that's the only hand where there is a reasonable probability that you would want to double instead of split. (NOBODY splits 5,5).

DJ, you do double on 8 (incl. 4-4) against a 5, 6 in single deck games where you cannot double after split. The difference between doubling and splitting is small, and can change depending on what the count is. In a six deck game, the difference in E.V. is .103 vs. .168 for doubling vs. splitting. Of course, if you knew the next card was an Ace, obviously you would say double instead of split.

Quote: UltimateHoldem

Obviously I know to split 4's against a dealer 6. In most cases however you don't know that your card will be an Ace for 19. My whole question was aimed at the decision after it was dealt.

They did burn (discard) the cards that were dealt after the split, didn't they? Or did they actually put it back in play as if he doubled with same exact cards?

In the latter case he would know dealer's next card exactly (being his second split card).

lol I guess my question wasn't well documented during my initial post. I know you split 4's against a 6. I know he was cheating. I don't care. Neither did the Casino.

Pretty sure the guy could get away with anything, short of taking a shit on the middle of the table.

So teddys is saying that the optimal play AFTER THE FACT is to double, not split.


Thank you, that's all I was asking for.

Quote: P90

They did burn (discard) the cards that were dealt after the split, didn't they? Or did they actually put it back in play as if he doubled with same exact cards?

In the latter case he would know dealer's next card exactly (being his second split card).

The 4's were split and an Ace was dealt to his first 4, making 5/15. The cards were then put all together, 4/4/A, 9/19. How would he know the next cards out?

Quote: UltimateHoldem

The 4's were split and an Ace was dealt to his first 4, making 5/15. The cards were then put all together, 4/4/A, 9/19. How would he know the next cards out?

What was dealt to his second 4? Unless both times the deal was stopped before anything was dealt, which is doubtful with a skilled=quick dealer.

If the cards are redealt in the same order, that second 4 card would go to the dealer. So he'd know 2 of the dealer's cards, only hole card excepted.

Quote: UltimateHoldem

Obviously I know to split 4's against a dealer 6. In most cases however you don't know that your card will be an Ace for 19. My whole question was aimed at the decision after it was dealt.

Although I didn't fully indicate it in my third post above, the optimal strategy at that point was to claim that he intended to double.

I.E. At that point, the optimal strategy is to knowingly cheat.

Quote: P90

What was dealt to his second 4? Unless both times the deal was stopped before anything was dealt, which is doubtful with a skilled=quick dealer.

Doubtful?

On the contrary. Both times, the dealer waited, as he should, for instructions to hit/stand/double, after the first card was dealt. It was at THAT point where the player initiated his cheat.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Although I didn't fully indicate it in my third post above, the optimal strategy at that point was to claim that he intended to double.

I.E. At that point, the optimal strategy is to knowingly cheat.

...

On the contrary. Both times, the dealer waited, as he should, for instructions to hit/stand/double, after the first card was dealt. It was at THAT point where the player initiated his cheat.

How are you going to prove the player cheated, DJ? The dealer did not wait for a hand instruction immediately after the first two 4s were dealt. The player could have wanted to split or double at that point. The dealer assumed split, which he shouldn't have. The player gave no hand signal, merely put money forward.

The dealer waited after the third card was dealt, AS HE SHOULD HAVE AFTER THE FIRST TWO CARDS WERE DEALT, expecting the player to double on Ace-4. The act of putting forward more money does not in and of itself indicate the player's intent. There also must be a hand signal when there is more than one possibility for the action. (Hence, the ubiquitous "one finger" gesture used to indicate a double on 5,5).

It is not cheating; it is shot-taking, and taking advantage of poor dealing procedure. I wouldn't think to do it, but it is pretty clever.

Where is Dan to weigh in on this?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Doubtful?

On the contrary. Both times, the dealer waited, as he should, for instructions to hit/stand/double, after the first card was dealt.

I agree, especially since the right play at that point would have been to double the soft 5 (or, apparently, reconstitute the 19)

Quote: DJTeddyBear

the dealer waited, as he should, for instructions to hit/stand/double, after the first card was dealt.

Ah, right. I have misunderstood the situation.

Quote: teddys

How are you going to prove the player cheated, DJ?

Simple. Check the tapes to see if he ever doubled, or even hesitated as if he was thinking about it, when he had 6,2 or 5,3 vs a dealer 6.

Quote: teddys

The act of putting forward more money does not in and of itself indicate the player's intent. There also must be a hand signal when there is more than one possibility for the action. (Hence, the ubiquitous "one finger" gesture used to indicate a double on 5,5).

I agree, but sometimes lazy players along with lazy dealers will make too many assumptions.

Quote: teddys

Where is Dan to weigh in on this?

Probably sleeping. He usually works the late shift.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Simple. Check the tapes to see if he ever doubled, or even hesitated as if he was thinking about it, when he had 6,2 or 5,3 vs a dealer 6.

Well, at least he wasn't counting! It seems like casinos are much more paranoid about counters than they are about hole-carders and shot-takers (who are the real APs these days).

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Simple. Check the tapes to see if he ever doubled, or even hesitated as if he was thinking about it, when he had 6,2 or 5,3 vs a dealer 6.

This is not highly probative, in my opinion. He could simply claim that he wished to double only on 4,4 -- some superstition. Past practice does not necessarily indicate future intent.

Then again, I may be reading too much equity into this. Casino "laws" generally are in favor of the house. I am surprised the player got away with this.

Quote: teddys

This is not highly probative, in my opinion. He could simply claim that he wished to double only on 4,4 -- some superstition. Past practice does not necessarily indicate future intent.

Then again, I may be reading too much equity into this. Casino "laws" generally are in favor of the house. I am surprised the player got away with this.

Yes I'm very surprised that he got away with it the 2nd time. The first time maybe, but after that the dealers dealing to him should have been instructed to be strict on the hand signals...2 fingers for split, 1 for double down.

Quote: UltimateHoldem

I've played over 200k Blackjack hands in my short time and I couldn't for the life of me figure out what I would do.

Okay. Right there and then, that is the answer! Even if you normally play 100.00 hands and that guy plays 5,000.00 hands, if you don't know what to do then the fault is that of the dealer.

The dealer's actions bespeak a certainty of the player's intentions. And probably the dealer is correct and probably the player was trying to work a certain advantage after the fact, but its the dealer's fault and the casino takes the loss. Its not just that they want to keep happy some jerk who plays 5,000 a hand, even if he is a shot taker. Its that the cameras are there for a reason and if the cameras do not show the proper hand signal then what on earth are the cameras and the hand signals for.

At a 25.00 table, the dealer would have waited, despite having a sure and certain knowledge of what the player was going to want done. So in some Salon Privee the dealer should wait too.

A shot taker at five grand a shot? Yeah. How do you think he got the five grand in the first place? By going thru life without taking shots?

Some interesting discussion, but I think everyone is thinking a bit too deep here. Everyone is acting like the guy got up in the morning and went to the Casino with the intention of trying to rip the place off, it wasn't like that. From what I was seeing he took advantage of a dealer mistake, and then once it worked he dipped his hand in the cookie jar the next chance he got too. Big deal.

To me it is clearly a dealer procedure error and the player has taken advantage of that, albeit unethically.

The dealer should confirm a 'split' or 'double' as soon as the player places an additional wager down - even more so after the first time it happened!

I saw a game in a UK casino where the last player had 'hard 7' and the dealer showed a '6'. The dealer automatically dealt to the player (Admittedly she should have waited for a verbal action (no hand action required in UK)) and dealt the player a '10'. The player said that he didn't want the card and that he was thinking of staying on '7' to try and bust the dealer (???lol - 'shot taker' to it's fullest). So, in the end, the dealer had to have the '10' which put her on '16' - she then drew an 'Ace' to make '17'. Had the player played correctly (and truthfully) he would have had '17' as well and tied with the dealer. As it was, he lost a wager he should'n't have and I thought "Serves you right".

You're right. He probably didn't wake up, intending to cheat the casino.

However, when he saw an opportunity to do so, he took it.

And unlike the guy who passively takes advantage of a major mistake (an overpayment), he actively took advantage of a minor mistake (a dealer who knows basic strategy).

Interesting story - in the old days my friendly casino used to give the player the first benefit of the doubt (admittedly for less stakes). Personally if splitting I always add and additional bet and move the two bets to the line on either side of the box. The only problem is that you can now split 5s and I was beginning to get fed up with being asked "double or split", so I now always put the second bet on and to the side of the first bet.
Yes there are occasions when the dealer makes a mistake and you know the next card. Sometime I take advantage but usually do what I would have done (e.g. will always hit less than 12 (or double)).
Recently playing three-card poker the dealer would sometimes fail to take my folded bet (even though I pushed the bet with the cards towards him) - sometimes they then look at me quizzically during the payout phase.

Sometime ago I was playing 5-card and noticed that the player next door had a flush and before raising added some money to his original bet. I said nothing but when he did it again a few hands later with a pair of Aces, I put out a marker (so they could see it on the tape), got up, left and mentioned it to the manager. Perhaps I was wrong but I don't like players "cheating".

Quote: charliepatrick

...The only problem is that you can now split 5s and I was beginning to get fed up with being asked "double or split"...

That's a good point - everyone (apart from John Patrick apparently) knows that you do not split 5's and that you should double. The fact that the dealer has to ask every time is partly down to the choice but mainly down to people who would take unfair advantage depending on the next card dealt.

It's a little like 99.9999% of us spending extra time going through an airport because of the 0.00001% who would take advantage of a more relaxed procedure.

Splitting versus doubling on 4's and 5's, a hand signal is required. NEVER assume as dealer, I am surprised.
I'd say, "Show a hand signal, what do you want to do?" once I see a second bet that can be for either a split or double down. Quite often people put a bet out, and just let the dealer assume it one or the other to see the next card for free (a big no-no for a dealer is to assume.) The they say on an ace, "No it was a double down," or on a 6 or 7, "no, it was a split."

Quote: DJTeddyBear

You're right. He probably didn't wake up, intending to cheat the casino.

However, when he saw an opportunity to do so, he took it.

And unlike the guy who passively takes advantage of a major mistake (an overpayment), he actively took advantage of a minor mistake (a dealer who knows basic strategy).

"passively" cheating - or passively taking advantage of an overpayment? Got to love this. Either you don't know, or DO know and don't care, of the status of the money that you put in your pocket.
If you purposely intend to take no action - that is, to let it "fly" - when knowing something, that "no action" reponse IS the action taken, and it ain't really "passive." (A presidential "pocket veto" is such a type of active "passive" action.)

You either know, or don't know, that a payout or action is wrong. You either accept, or refuse to accept and then remark, that a payout is wrong.
If you honestly didn't know what was going on, THEN you passively took advantage of a mistake, because you didn't know.
If you claim, "I didn't know the payout or action was wrong" when it is corrected, - and you're lying about it, that's not passive. You had to have made a conscious decision to say to yourself "I'll TAKE the money!" :)

Quote: CharliePatrick

...The only problem is that you can now split 5s and I was beginning to get fed up with being asked "double or split"...

Do you get fed up being ask to wave off on a 20? Signal Hit on a 9? If there are two or more valid options, even if one is obvious better than another, let us not demand or assume that the dealer is supposed to assume. You stand on your 19, and the next player draws a 2. "Oh, I meant to hit! Call the floor" can be said, and believe me, some people will try. The only hand that requires no further hand signals is hitting and getting to a 21.

Quote: Paigowdan

...Do you get fed up being ask to wave off on a 20? Signal Hit on a 9?...

NO - I usually don't wait and try always to use hand signals - including "stand" on a Blackjack! I think it's easier if you get into a habit of making your intentions clear even if on some occasions when it's obvious what you're going to do. Personally I hate it when (i) having taken a third card, a dealer automatically gives you another if your total is less than 12 before you ask (ii) on hard 17 doesn't at least acknowledge your total before moving to the next player (I'm told it's sometimes correct to hit against an 8).

Quote: charliepatrick

NO - I usually don't wait and try always to use hand signals - including "stand" on a Blackjack! I think it's easier if you get into a habit of making your intentions clear even if on some occasions when it's obvious what you're going to do. Personally I hate it when (i) having taken a third card, a dealer automatically gives you another if your total is less than 12 before you ask (ii) on hard 17 doesn't at least acknowledge your total before moving to the next player (I'm told it's sometimes correct to hit against an 8).

I agree: it's the player's option to hit on 17 as it is on 9. When a player says, "what do you think I want to do?" I say "I don't care what you think, I need a signal to proceed, buddy." It's like running a red light at 3AM when no one else is out on the road, you do it by the book to cover your ass. It's generally safe to move forward when a player has a hard 19 or better, and there are some dealers who just crank out hands by running forward if any hand is pat by basic stratgegy dictates.

We used to have a second table games pit where a few dealers dealt in that pit without a floorman being present. I once had a shot taker there, basically trying to run the game with other people on the table. After it passed the point where the other players left because they didn't want to play with that shot taker on the table (he was doing such things as taking three minutes to decide to hit a 14 against a dealer's 8, saying "I can take as MUCH TIME AS I WANT - Na, na-na-na, NA!" and the like...) I finally had him alone heads up.

I fanned the cards on the table and waved off "no action" on the $5 in the betting circle, pushed the bet back and we had a chit-chat.
I said, "no action if you're going to be a jerk. You can't do what you want and run the game on me."
He said, "oh, really now?"
- "yup. If you want to play Blackjack, I'm your boy, but if you're going to pull on my dick, I ain't playing." Said it as plain as day, it was the fact of the matter.
He had this look of surprised on his face, like he never heard this before. Believe me, if a floorman was in the pit, I'd let him handle it, but I didn't, and this was just ridiculous; he wasn't gambling, it was playing mind games, a player saying, "Now watch ME run the game on YOU, na-HAAA!" A total non-starter, his intentions were clear.
So he said, "I don't have to take this." (- while I was openly saying exactly the same thing.) "I can go elsewhere."
I said, "Would it BE that easy? Take Lake Mead to Boulder highway, hang a left, and Joker's Wild is right there. See if they put up with your shit."
He looked at me with his mouth open, took is six nickels ($30), and just left. He didn't go to the other pit and say, "well, I am outraged! Yada Yada Yada. Na, na-na-na, na.." He just up and left. And yes, I was gambling.

The floorman saw the guy leave from the other pit, and said to bring the lid on the table up, take a break and go to craps.
He then said when closing the table, "I saw you two talking. What were you talking about?"
"He asked for directions to McCarran airport, so I told him to hit the highway: take 215 East, and follow the signs. Better than taking 515/95 North and going across Tropicana Avenue to Paradise Road."
"Good job, 'Action Dan.' Excellent Customer Service!"
He knew exactly what was going on. I never did that again, never had to. 99% of the time, a floorman is within reach, just pass it over to them.
Since that time, Orders from Above (Corporate offices) said to basically tolerate as much as you can in terms of this. A sad day. Taking action from shot-takers who simply drive out the other customers is a bad business decision, I feel. The Western closed for a reason, it was a shit house that was allowed to become that way. But for that matter, it was "unclean-able up." People descend to the lowest level possible if they or others plus resources allow them to.

For that matter, if a dealer is allowed to run over game plays by assuming that 4's are split with no sign, applying basic strategy to players' intention on game play, players will see that and then deliberately respond "I wanted to double down" when an Ace is drawn.

Quote: Paigowdan

Quote: DJTeddyBear

And unlike the guy who passively takes advantage of a major mistake (an overpayment), he actively took advantage of a minor mistake (a dealer who knows basic strategy).

"passively" cheating - or passively taking advantage of an overpayment? Got to love this. Either you don't know, or DO know and don't care, of the status of the money that you put in your pocket.
If you purposely intend to take no action - that is, to let it "fly" - when knowing something, that "no action" reponse IS the action taken, and it ain't really "passive." (A presidential "pocket veto" is such a type of active "passive" action.)

Dan -

I didn't intend to imply that EITHER form of cheating was "acceptable". It's just that the passive cheat is more of a misdemeanor, while the active cheat is more of a felony.

Of course, not a problem. I do agree there are many and various levels of gambling deeds, all sorts of shades of grey; misdemeanors, felonies, venial sins, mortal sins. Peoples' accountibility skills run the gamut. Deal for a while, you see samples on every level, and some good guys, too.

Regarding splitting or doubling 4's, I'm amazed at how many people will double down a pair of 4's but never double down 3-5 or 2-6.

In a single deck game where you may not double after split, you should double 4-4 and 3-5 against a 6, but not 6-2. Why? I have no idea.

Now that's a close play. It will save you eight cents on an $10 bet.

EDIT: I got a decimal point wrong somewhere.

Correct SD strategy, built around CDE, is too detailed to explain everything. Although a simplistic explanation could be that 4 and 5 are the best cards to improve a 6 (to 10 or 11), and taking these out hurts the dealer.

Quote: teddys

Now that's a close play. It will save you eight cents on an $10 bet.

That's not close at all. 8 cents of $10 is a massive 0.8%.

Quote: teddys

...single deck game...you should double 4-4 and 3-5 against a 6, but not 6-2...

Some of the single deck changes are because there are only 52 cards in the deck and removing some cards affects various results. For instance you don't hit 7-7 vs 10 (presumably because there are only two 7s left to make 21).

Simplistically suppose the dealer already had a 10 with their 6; with 44 or 53 you've removed two good cards for the dealer to make a point, whereas taking 62 only removes one; so the chance of dealer busting is more if you have 44 or 53.

As you say some of the decisions that apply to single deck should occasionally affect your normal play, eg hitting 13 vs 2, splitting 3s vs 8. While I've never considered doubling 8 vs 6 (6 decks, S17, UK rules), I do tend to hit 10-3 vs 2 or 10-2 vs 4.