Confused: Basic Strategy

Here's a recent card counter video where a pair of 7's are split and they both draw an Ace so they both get double downed on and they both draw a 4 for a total of 12 against a Dealer 6. The Dealer draws to a bust and the player's initial $500 bet gets paid $2,000. Player had to buy-in for $500 mid-hand.
See the 15 minute and 5 second mark of the video, hand is about a minute long.


There's also this hand at 2:40 where 4's get split 3 times and he did a double down on one of them. He even drew a 4 on the last hand but couldn't resplit a 4th time. So with a $100 initial bet he had $500 on the felt and won $500.

Defensive splits like 8s allow you to lose less, but they are still long-term losers. I'll happily bankroll an experiment where one side splits and the other hits.

I just hate hitting on 16 for the bust. A split gives me a different chance.

Quote: ChumpChange

I just hate hitting on 16 for the bust. A split gives me a different chance.
link to original post

Split them and try to pawn one off on an eager tablemate.

They only want the open Match The Dealer spot.

Doesn't somebody have a copy of CVCX where they could just run the same decks with different strategies to see how it turns out in a fixed environment?

Quote: Venthus

Doesn't somebody have a copy of CVCX where they could just run the same decks with different strategies to see how it turns out in a fixed environment?
link to original post

Yes I was going to suggest someone run a simulation and show the results over X hands. The splitting 8s example I wouldn’t use, but the A,2 vs dealer 6 would work well. And just show results for someone that hits then continues to follow BS vs someone that always doubles.

That said, I am confused whether OP will be moved by that. He may already agree that of course over the simulation the double player will make more money. OP what say you?

Quote: Wizard

I'm up to a serious challenge where the two sides deal 8,8 vs. any dealer up card to each other. Both sides make the same initial wager. I'll split and the other party will hit. I request re-splitting be allowed as well as double after a split.
link to original post

I might consider it if we will be using European rules because I believe the correct strategy is to hit against an Ace or Ten.

Quote: DRich

Quote: Wizard

I'm up to a serious challenge where the two sides deal 8,8 vs. any dealer up card to each other. Both sides make the same initial wager. I'll split and the other party will hit. I request re-splitting be allowed as well as double after a split.
link to original post

I might consider it if we will be using European rules because I believe the correct strategy is to hit against an Ace or Ten.
link to original post

Lets emphasize again. All opinions here are refer to basic strategy only. No reference to strategies specific to card counting and indices. Again BS was designed with constant in mind. It is assumed the BS player always bets the table minimum. Always, it is a rule. Thats why the players should get pissed off when the pitboss raises the table minimum. The player increases his bet only in double down and splitting situations. But his initial bet was the obligatory minimum.

Of course nobody abides by the rule of always bet minimum. I showed previously my actions when my initial bet is bigger. I deviate from BS selectively. I dont DD every hand as required by BS. If I win that particular hand, I already increased EV. But I avoid DD hands where winning prob is close to the 50-50 mark (like the infamous A+2 v 6 exposed here). I know my chance for a loss is higher compared to hitting. I dont want to lose double the amount of my initial bet. For mw it is better to survive longer at the table. There are always swings in my favor - given an adequate bankroll.

The 8+8 is a bitch. I apply the same tactic. I split if my initial bet was at the minimum. The hand is a losing one by a dangerous margin. Simply I dont wanna lose extra if my bet was above the minimum.

Quote: toolyp

Quote: DRich

Quote: Wizard

I'm up to a serious challenge where the two sides deal 8,8 vs. any dealer up card to each other. Both sides make the same initial wager. I'll split and the other party will hit. I request re-splitting be allowed as well as double after a split.
link to original post

I might consider it if we will be using European rules because I believe the correct strategy is to hit against an Ace or Ten.
link to original post

Lets emphasize again. All opinions here are refer to basic strategy only. No reference to strategies specific to card counting and indices. Again BS was designed with constant in mind. It is assumed the BS player always bets the table minimum. Always, it is a rule. Thats why the players should get pissed off when the pitboss raises the table minimum. The player increases his bet only in double down and splitting situations. But his initial bet was the obligatory minimum.

Of course nobody abides by the rule of always bet minimum. I showed previously my actions when my initial bet is bigger. I deviate from BS selectively. I dont DD every hand as required by BS. If I win that particular hand, I already increased EV. But I avoid DD hands where winning prob is close to the 50-50 mark (like the infamous A+2 v 6 exposed here). I know my chance for loss is higher compared to hitting. I dont want to lose double the amount of my initial bet. For mw it is better to survive longer at the table. There are always swings in my favor - given an adequate bankroll.

The 8+8 is a bitch. I apply the same tactic. I split if my initial bet was at the minimum. The hand is a losing one by a dangerous margin. Simply I dont wanna lose extra if my bet was above the minimum.
link to original post

This thread is worthy but its title is awful. Can admins change it to something more meaningful. Basic strategy confusion?

Quote: ChumpChange

Here's a recent card counter video where a pair of 7's are split and they both draw an Ace so they both get double downed on and they both draw a 4 for a total of 12 against a Dealer 6. The Dealer draws to a bust and the player's initial $500 bet gets paid $2,000. Player had to buy-in for $500 mid-hand.
See the 15 minute and 5 second mark of the video, hand is about a minute long.

There's also this hand at 2:40 where 4's get split 3 times and he did a double down on one of them. He even drew a 4 on the last hand but couldn't resplit a 4th time. So with a $100 initial bet he had $500 on the felt and won $500.

link to original post

Isnt it advertising for Canada’s casinos? Like nose-thumb to trump?! Lol! To me that video is cooked big time! You dont see the shoe. The outcome favors the player big time and there is no heat from pitbosses. Why would casinos teach players how to beat the house big time? Makes no sense other than advertising.

Quote: toolyp

Lets emphasize again. All opinions here are refer to basic strategy only. No reference to strategies specific to card counting and indices. Again BS was designed with constant in mind. It is assumed the BS player always bets the table minimum.

link to original post

(clipped!)

To the best of my knowledge, basic strategy informs the player of the optimum way to play the hand they are dealt on whatever bet they have made.

The unstated assumption is that the player has enough in reserve to allow split and double bets as necessary.

You're right that basic strategy doesn't tell you how to bet initially, only how to play.

Quote: Dieter

Quote: toolyp

Lets emphasize again. All opinions here are refer to basic strategy only. No reference to strategies specific to card counting and indices. Again BS was designed with constant in mind. It is assumed the BS player always bets the table minimum.

link to original post

(clipped!)

To the best of my knowledge, basic strategy informs the player of the optimum way to play the hand they are dealt on whatever bet they have made.

The unstated assumption is that the player has enough in reserve to allow split and double bets as necessary.

You're right that basic strategy doesn't tell you how to bet initially, only how to play.
link to original post

I beg to differ. The initial bet must be constant throughout. Otherwise various bets alter EV negatively sometimes. Wizard asked in his challenge that Both sides make the same initial wager. I referred to DD hands where winning prob is close to the 50-50 mark (like the infamous A+2 v 6 exposed here).

I come back to an example posted here. 100 hands, hitting 55% winning, double down 53%, minimum bet 1.
1. constant initial bet as required by BS
Hit: 1*(55-45)=1*10=+10
DD: 2*(53-47)=2*6=+12 = advantage DD

2. variable initial bet egzample initial bet 5 with 2 extra losing DD hands
Hit: 1*(55-45)=1*10=+10
DD: 2*(53-45-5-5)=2*(8-5-5)=2*(-2)=-4 = DISadvantage DD

As they say, shit happens. What you gonna do? I simply hit instead of DD that A+2 if my initial bet is bigger.

Maybe this will help address the confusion:

The reason EV is "per ORIGINAL dollar bet" and not "per TOTAL dollars bet" is because the extra money wagered on the double down is an investment. This is obvious when you get 6-5 vs 6 where hitting would need only one card anyway, so would you rather take one card at your original bet, or take one card at double your original bet? You should double and take one card because you have an advantage with that hand. When you have an advantage and the casino will allow you to bet more, you should bet as much as they will allow.

Only going by percentage chance of win is not the way to maximize your EV. Suppose you had the choice of two roulette wheels to play operated by "dumb casino". At this dumb casino, Wheel A has no slot for 2 because they gave 21 two slots. Wheel B has no slot for 2 or 25 because they gave 21 three slots. Both wheels pay 35 to 1 for any single number. In both cases, you have an advantage if you bet on 21.

Wheel A has a required bet (both minimum and maximum) of $100 and Wheel B has a required bet of only $10. Do you play Wheel A for $100 on 21, win 5.26% of the time, or do you play Wheel B for $10 on 21 and win 7.89% of the time? Wheel A requires more money to play it and wins less frequently!