Poll

17 votes (80.95%)
3 votes (14.28%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
2 votes (9.52%)

21 members have voted

Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1398
  • Posts: 23612
March 24th, 2016 at 5:28:07 PM permalink
Okay, please be among the first to visit my new page on 4 Card Split.

As always, I welcome questions, comments, and especially corrections.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
RoyalBJ
RoyalBJ
Joined: Jul 18, 2011
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 260
March 24th, 2016 at 5:58:17 PM permalink
Saw one item to be corrected:

Under Strategy:

First, you want to bet as little as possible on the 4 Card Split bet. <= it is called the "4 Card Blind" bet.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 15024
March 24th, 2016 at 6:37:15 PM permalink
Wizard,

According to the rack card, it says that you would accept the, "Instant Winner," payout with a three-card hand, otherwise fold. The way I understand that, it would basically mean that there is no way to form a Three-Card non-instant winner hand that would be in accordance with Optimal Strategy. As a result, lacking an instant winner, the cards would always be split 2-2. Am I understanding that correctly?

Given that such is the case, any hand that is on the hierarchy of Two-Card Raise hands would have an expected value (after the Raise) greater than -1 unit, because if not, the correct decision would be to fold.

That being the case, it might be simply a matter of determining the Expected Value of each hand on the Two-Card Raise hierarchy against every possible dealer up card. At that point, one might look at the combined value of both hands for a Two-Card Raise as opposed to keeping one hand and folding the other.

For example, if you had the hand A-A-Q-10 (no Flush opportunity for the sake of argument) and you were up against a Dealer King, then you could theoretically go A-A + FOLD or you could go A-Q + A-10, so then that is where the combined value of the hand would come into play against knowing a Dealer has a King as well as three random cards (but not the ones you have).

In that situation, both A-Q and A-10 have an Expected Value greater than -1, or they would not be raise hands. However, the question is might they have a worse combined Expected Value than keeping the Aces and folding the Q-10? Shooting from the hip, I'd be inclined to keep the Aces and fold Q-10.

Otherwise, if there is only the potential to create one Two-Card hand that would be in accordance with the hierarchy, then it goes without saying that the player would make the best hand possible in accordance with the hierarchy of hands. On a hand like K-10-10-6 against a dealer King, keeping the pair of Tens is nothing short of obvious.

Assuming I am reading into that Three-Card fold statement correctly, then the only thing there would be to analyze (from a strategy perspective) is the situations in which a player could potentially make TWO Raise hands, and then to decide under what conditions it is better to make a higher hand on the hierarchy and fold the other hand as opposed to playing both the Raise hands.

All of that is obviously way above my pay grade, but I think that those would be suitable assumptions from which to start.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
charliepatrick
charliepatrick
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 2495
March 24th, 2016 at 6:49:59 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

...there is no way to form a Three-Card non-instant winner hand that would be in accordance with Optimal Strategy...

I would guess that if you had A 9 6 3 offsuit then against some upcards you're probably better off just keeping the Ace and ditching 963, whereas if you need A-10 to play then you're folding both in any case,
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1398
  • Posts: 23612
March 24th, 2016 at 7:35:31 PM permalink
Quote: charliepatrick

I would guess that if you had A 9 6 3 offsuit then against some upcards you're probably better off just keeping the Ace and ditching 963, whereas if you need A-10 to play then you're folding both in any case,



Yes, I was just going to make such a comment. I agree that an expected value table of each hand would help in the splitting strategy. However, how many people are actually going to use it at the table?
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
rsactuary
rsactuary
Joined: Sep 6, 2014
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 1880
March 24th, 2016 at 8:41:02 PM permalink
The analysis of the 4 Card Blind bet uses the Ante paytable. And that 4 card blind paytable just doesn't look right. 4 Card Royal and you only get 30 to 1???
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 15024
March 24th, 2016 at 9:02:34 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Yes, I was just going to make such a comment. I agree that an expected value table of each hand would help in the splitting strategy. However, how many people are actually going to use it at the table?



I absolutely would, if you're going to give me a game that has a better HE than most Blackjack games if I play it right, then I definitely want to play it right!

With respect to the A963 comment from the previous post, can I take it that a player can (and would) split to 3-1 even without a made hand sometimes? On the Odds Page, it says that you would, 'Fold,' a Three-Card hand unless it was already a winner. It says, "Accept Instant Winner payout, otherwise fold." That leads me to believe that you would not play a three-card hand unless it is an instant winner...or is that just generally correct?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1398
  • Posts: 23612
March 24th, 2016 at 9:06:43 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

With respect to the A963 comment from the previous post, can I take it that a player can (and would) split to 3-1 even without a made hand sometimes? On the Odds Page, it says that you would, 'Fold,' a Three-Card hand unless it was already a winner. It says, "Accept Instant Winner payout, otherwise fold." That leads me to believe that you would not play a three-card hand unless it is an instant winner...or is that just generally correct?



I didn't mean for it to be interpreted that way. Do others take my strategy to mean that? No, for a lousy hand like A-3-6-9 you probably would split it A/369 and then raise on the ace and fold on the 369.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 15024
March 24th, 2016 at 9:14:49 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I didn't mean for it to be interpreted that way. Do others take my strategy to mean that? No, for a lousy hand like A-3-6-9 you probably would split it A/369 and then raise on the ace and fold on the 369.



If I may be so bold, I would suggest taking out the words, "Otherwise fold." That would eliminate any ambiguity while still stating that the Instant Winner Payout should be immediately accepted.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
RoyalBJ
RoyalBJ
Joined: Jul 18, 2011
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 260
March 24th, 2016 at 10:14:24 PM permalink
Just noticed, (1) the 3 Card Ante pay table and the 4 Card Blind pay table are reversed. (2) 3 Card Ante paytable has two columns, but same numbers. One column for Instant Winner and the other for Winning Ante.

  • Jump to: