Splitting 8s

Question for everyone. According to The Wizard's strategy card for BJ, in a 4-8 deck game where the dealer hits on a soft 17, it says to split 8s if surrender is not available. However, after looking at a few other reputable cards, they all say to hit on a pair of 8s in the same game if surrender is not available. I believe the Wizard's to be correct, but would like to know the explanation.

EDIT: I stupidly forgot to mention that everything above is against a dealer Ace.

I don' t know of any other "reputable cards" that you might be referring to.
I do know that the theory is that its not all that great to have a hand with an 8 its simply pretty bad to have a hand with a 16, so the rule is always split Aces and Eights.
I really don't know of any author who advocates a player treating it as a hand of 16 and hitting it.

Quote: Tryclyde

Question for everyone. According to The Wizard's strategy card for BJ, in a 4-8 deck game where the dealer hits on a soft 17, it says to split 8s if surrender is not available. However, after looking at a few other reputable cards, they all say to hit on a pair of 8s in the same game if surrender is not available. I believe the Wizard's to be correct, but would like to know the explanation.

Most decisions depend on the dealer's card - only against A would you surrender if allowed.

Quote: FleaStiff

I don' t know of any other "reputable cards" that you might be referring to.
I do know that the theory is that its not all that great to have a hand with an 8 its simply pretty bad to have a hand with a 16, so the rule is always split Aces and Eights.
I really don't know of any author who advocates a player treating it as a hand of 16 and hitting it.

Even Lucky Ned splits 8's. Realy funny website if you haven't seen it before.

Oh jeez, I forgot to write a pretty crucial piece of info. This is in regards to playing against a dealer Ace.

Quote: miplet

Even Lucky Ned splits 8's. Realy funny website if you haven't seen it before.

http://filthycritic.com/vegas/images/nedchart.jpg

Comic sans, even. Nice.

Quote: Tryclyde

Oh jeez, I forgot to write a pretty crucial piece of info. This is in regards to playing against a dealer Ace.

You only hit 88 vs Ace in no peek blackjack when you can lose more than one bet to a dealer bj.

Quote: miplet

You only hit 88 vs Ace in no peek blackjack when you can lose more than one bet to a dealer bj.

Probably still surrender if allowed.

In European rules blackjack, where the dealer doesn't look under Aces/tens, but unlike American blackjack, if you double or split, you lose your entire bet if the dealer has a blackjack, basic strategy dictates that you play extremely conservatively against an Ace, and that includes NOT splitting 8's.

I would NEVER play European BJ for this reason, by the way. It seems like such a total ripoff to modify the rules this way--the only justification for it is that it pumps up the house edge.

Thanks for the clarification guys. I've never played European style so I had no idea about that specific scenario; it is definitely an abominable rule.

Quote: mkl654321

I would NEVER play European BJ for this reason, by the way. It seems like such a total ripoff to modify the rules this way--the only justification for it is that it pumps up the house edge.

In fairness most European games are 'Stand Soft 17' so while the 'No Hole Card' does hurt the player it does not hurt as much as the dealer hitting on 'Soft 17' (as in a large % of Vegas games).

Quote: Switch

In fairness most European games are 'Stand Soft 17' so while the 'No Hole Card' does hurt the player it does not hurt as much as the dealer hitting on 'Soft 17' (as in a large % of Vegas games).

Sure. But while the H17 rule is an extension of the house's attempt to play its hand optimally, the "no hole card rule" is a perversion of one of the basic elements of the game--namely, if either a player or the dealer has a "natural", play stops immediately and the bet is resolved. The concept of the "natural" being an instant winner and all play ceasing at that moment is also seen in baccarat, and probably some other games I can't think of at the moment.

I also note that the no hole card rule could be an attempt to head off cheating, but in American casinos, any additional bets made (doubles or splits) when the dealer doesn't take/look at her hole card until the players finish their hands are declared null and void if the dealer has a blackjack--so, no harm to the player.

Also, if there's a single most excellent way to piss off the casual player and make him not want to come back, it's to have him hit out to a five-card 21, then the dealer takes her hole card, gets a blackjack, and takes the guy's money anyway. That's why I think the European rule is so utterly stupid--the addition to the house edge just isn't worth the ill will it engenders. Of course, European casino gambling's origins are in a much more elitist, aristocratic environment than American casino gambling ever was--so enraging the customer might not have mattered that much to them.

I'm not entirely sure but I think that the hole card was taken away to stop players (hole-carders) from cheating i.e. dealer Queen upcard and spotting a 6 hole card - one of my fav gangster scenes involved the cattle prod in "Casino". (This is obviously before the 'peeker' was introduced).

I began my playing days in UK casinos so I didn't know any different back then. You're right in that it is very annoying to get a 3 or 4 card '21', against a dealer '10' only to have an Ace dealt for the dealer's 2nd card at the end. I also agree that for the sake of 0.13% (or is it 0.11%, I forget?) it may outweigh the negativity to allow a hole card.

I'm not sure if there is a definitive answer as to whether the dealer had a hole card when the game was first introduced. I think that there are disagreements as to when the game was first played prior to being installed in Vegas in the 30's. I would be interested to know if there is a correct answer.

Also, up until recently you could only double on 9, 10 & 11 in the UK so we do seem to have some rules 'trimmed' and they do seem to be against the player rather than for.

Quote: Switch

I'm not sure if there is a definitive answer as to whether the dealer had a hole card when the game was first introduced. I think that there are disagreements as to when the game was first played prior to being installed in Vegas in the 30's. I would be interested to know if there is a correct answer.

I don't think the first versions of the game involved the hole card, as well as 3-2 payment for blackjack. The term "blackjack" itself used to mean a hand, consisting of an ace of spades and a black jack (spades or clubs), which paid 10 to 1.