Posted by rkfranke
Jul 31, 2010

## appendix 9 repost

miplet answers the question, but not fully. I understand this is a "long run" answer, meaning you lose less per \$5 bet in the long run by splitting. But, in the short run (this hand alone), it appears you lose nearly double by splitting than by just hitting. What am I missing?

PapaChubby Aug 01, 2010

The house edge is relative to the original bet of \$5 in both cases. So the 13% house edge for splitting is 13% of the original \$5 bet, not the total \$10 bet after the split. So splitting is the best play in the short run and the long run.

rkfranke Aug 01, 2010

Thank you papachubby. To be sure I got this thru this thick skull, pls verify the following.

If I bet \$5 and get 3-3 versus dlr up of 2, I split, bet another \$5 and expect to lose 67 cents (33 cents per hand).

If I hit this hand, I expect to lose 71 cents on the hand.

PapaChubby Aug 01, 2010

Yes, that is correct.

Wizard Aug 05, 2010

I agree, that is correct. Also, such gambling questions are not appropriate for blog entries. A blog is supposed to be like a diary.

Posted by rkfranke
Jul 30, 2010

## Appendix 9 question

Splitting 3-3 vs a dealer up-card of 2 shows a expectation of -0.1333 if splitting and -0.1421 if hitting. Does this mean, for a \$5 bet, then \$5 more to split, you expect to lose 10 X .1333 = \$1.33 when splitting and 5 X .1412 = \$0.71 when hitting?