Big Bet Opportunity

[Pelerus]

Last week, after a long break from blackjack, I took a trip down to Foxwoods to check out the new MGM Grand casino that opened there recently. Because I am a low stakes player (being optimistic, I refer to my stake as a 'hail mary bankroll' ) I was pleasantly surprised to find plenty of $10 tables, which at Foxwoods is a rarity.

I played for several hours, spreading from $10 to $100 in their 8 deck DAS LS with decent penetration - about the same as Foxwoods at 1.5 to 2 deck cutoff. My play didn't seem to attract any attention (this has also been the case at Foxwoods).

After about 3 hours, an interesting opportunity arose which is the purpose of this thread. I was at a table with three other players, all of us betting the $10 table minimum. Enter the 'tough guy,' who immediately plunks down a $400 bet with four black chips from his pocket. He wins the first bet. After several more bets of the same size, he has lost the initial $400, and a second $400 from his pocket is in the betting circle. The cards are dealt, and he receives a 9,2 with the dealer showing a 5. As the other players make their decisions, I notice him fumbling for his wallet, and my 'advantage player antennae' immediately go up. Due to the angle that he is holding his wallet at to me, when he opens it I can see about three singles in there, and now I am on red alert.

As the action comes to him, he requests to run to the ATM to come up with the money for a double down, and the dealer calls over the pit. The pit boss explains to him that they can't stop the hand for that purpose, and I realize it's now or never - "I'll cover it" is what I interject, waiting to hear his response rather than proposing any specific arrangement immediately. He says "Ok, how about we go halves" and I immediately agree. After some confusion at the table, with the other players seemingly all wanting to have a say in how the arrangement should be made, the decision is made that a win on the double will result in me getting my $400 back plus $200, while in the event of a loss he will have to repay me $200, presumably from the ATM.

After much ado, with me contributing $200 in green and another $200 in cash to form the double down, the moment is at hand: he asks for the card to be dealt face down, but the pit won't allow it. How I wish they had! ... It is the dreaded slap in the face - the Ace. When the dealer turns his hole card, he shows a 2 for a total of 7, and the sweat is pouring down. His next card is a 4 for an 11, and the sad feeling of inevitability sets in. But then the miracle 5 appears for a sixteen, and then the monkey finally arrives, right on time. :grin:

So, while all's well that ends well, I do have a few questions about the situation. Firstly, I know that having an 11 against a dealer 5 is obviously a positive expectation situation, or else doubling would not be a correct play - but what exactly is the player's advantage in that case, in terms of a percentage to win or otherwise? Also, what is your overall opinion on the situation that arose - was it a good idea to jump in, or should I have stayed on the sidelines. Thank you in advance for your input, and it's good to be back.

 

[sagefr0g]

Last week, after a long break from blackjack, I took a trip down to Foxwoods to check out the new MGM Grand casino that opened there recently. Because I am a low stakes player (being optimistic, I refer to my stake as a 'hail mary bankroll' ) I was pleasantly surprised to find plenty of $10 tables, which at Foxwoods is a rarity.

I played for several hours, spreading from $10 to $100 in their 8 deck DAS LS with decent penetration - about the same as Foxwoods at 1.5 to 2 deck cutoff. My play didn't seem to attract any attention (this has also been the case at Foxwoods).

After about 3 hours, an interesting opportunity arose which is the purpose of this thread. I was at a table with three other players, all of us betting the $10 table minimum. Enter the 'tough guy,' who immediately plunks down a $400 bet with four black chips from his pocket. He wins the first bet. After several more bets of the same size, he has lost the initial $400, and a second $400 from his pocket is in the betting circle. The cards are dealt, and he receives a 9,2 with the dealer showing a 5. As the other players make their decisions, I notice him fumbling for his wallet, and my 'advantage player antennae' immediately go up. Due to the angle that he is holding his wallet at to me, when he opens it I can see about three singles in there, and now I am on red alert.

As the action comes to him, he requests to run to the ATM to come up with the money for a double down, and the dealer calls over the pit. The pit boss explains to him that they can't stop the hand for that purpose, and I realize it's now or never - "I'll cover it" is what I interject, waiting to hear his response rather than proposing any specific arrangement immediately. He says "Ok, how about we go halves" and I immediately agree. After some confusion at the table, with the other players seemingly all wanting to have a say in how the arrangement should be made, the decision is made that a win on the double will result in me getting my $400 back plus $200, while in the event of a loss he will have to repay me $200, presumably from the ATM.

After much ado, with me contributing $200 in green and another $200 in cash to form the double down, the moment is at hand: he asks for the card to be dealt face down, but the pit won't allow it. How I wish they had! ... It is the dreaded slap in the face - the Ace. When the dealer turns his hole card, he shows a 2 for a total of 7, and the sweat is pouring down. His next card is a 4 for an 11, and the sad feeling of inevitability sets in. But then the miracle 5 appears for a sixteen, and then the monkey finally arrives, right on time. :grin:

So, while all's well that ends well, I do have a few questions about the situation. Firstly, I know that having an 11 against a dealer 5 is obviously a positive expectation situation, or else doubling would not be a correct play - but what exactly is the player's advantage in that case, in terms of a percentage to win or otherwise? Also, what is your overall opinion on the situation that arose - was it a good idea to jump in, or should I have stayed on the sidelines. Thank you in advance for your input, and it's good to be back.

lmao great story. i did essentially the same thing twice in one night. the first time i lent a guy (not a friend but an aquaintance at the joint) a black chip so he could double down. he won. i got my lousy hundred back. the second time he let's me have the double. i lost it.
so but anyway foolin with black chip bets was for me way overbetting. so i dunno what making a $400 bet is for you. it would be overbetting for me.
so i dunno what the count was or how deep in the pack you was but the program below shows your basic strategy ev for that scenerio off the top of the pack.

 

[hawkeye]

I saw a guy sweating two good double downs today, and both times while he was thinking I offered to take half and both times it gave him the confidence to do it. He won both. They were obvious doubles though.

 

[EasyRhino]

the decision is made that a win on the double will result in me getting my $400 back plus $200, while in the event of a loss he will have to repay me $200, presumably from the ATM.

Here would be the "normal" way to go teams.

You've both got $400 each on the spot. If you lose, you both lose, if you win, you both win.

I can see how you'd want to "hedge" your contribution to not bet $400, but then you've incurred an extra risk about this guy flaking when he goes to the ATM. I wouldn't have risked that. I would have just contriuuted $200 to the double down for less.

And as frog's calc shows, the advantage on 11v5 is pretty gigantic (6% win chance), so $400 bet was probably justified, if $100 is your normal big bet. But it would cause some more nerves.

 

[cardcounter0]

You do realize the guy would have bolted had the double down lost, right? So you were putting up $400 for a chance to win $200, you had $48 in EV.
If you were willing to risk $400 for that, you should be spreading more than 1:10. 1:10 spread in an 8 deck game is probably the biggest reason you aren't getting any attention.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

... and then the monkey finally arrives, right on time. :grin:

Glad I was able to help!

So, while all's well that ends well, I do have a few questions about the situation. Firstly, I know that having an 11 against a dealer 5 is obviously a positive expectation situation, or else doubling would not be a correct play - but what exactly is the player's advantage in that case, in terms of a percentage to win or otherwise? Also, what is your overall opinion on the situation that arose - was it a good idea to jump in, or should I have stayed on the sidelines. Thank you in advance for your input, and it's good to be back.

No you did it right. You advantage was around 62% for that hand- if you've got it, bet it.

Only thing you have to watch out for is players not understanding (or pretending they don't understand) the terms of the deal and screwing you.

 

[johndoe]

You do realize the guy would have bolted had the double down lost, right? So you were putting up $400 for a chance to win $200, you had $48 in EV.
If you were willing to risk $400 for that, you should be spreading more than 1:10. 1:10 spread in an 8 deck game is probably the biggest reason you aren't getting any attention.

Exactly right. If you're paying for DD, you win what you put in, period, regardless of what the other guy does. I've done this many times, and it's a great bet when the opportunity arises (see "scavenger blackjack").

However, on the flipside, it is to the other player's disadvantage if he couldn't DD otherwise, since you're removing his option to take another card, without rewarding him.

 

[Pelerus]

I can see how you'd want to "hedge" your contribution to not bet $400, but then you've incurred an extra risk about this guy flaking when he goes to the ATM. I wouldn't have risked that. I would have just contriuuted $200 to the double down for less.

Actually, if I could have bet the entire $400 myself without giving him a "loan" for $200, I definitely would have - both because the EV is high enough that a $400 bet is justified given my normal $100 big bet (as sagefr0g and Monkey noted), and because of the flaking risk that you mention (although in that case, I would probably have to "make him an offer he can't refuse" :devil.

However, on the flipside, it is to the other player's disadvantage if he couldn't DD otherwise, since you're removing his option to take another card, without rewarding him.

This is why I felt I had to agree to go "halves" as we did if I wanted any part of the action. Although in this case he would not take another card regardless of the result, he certainly has no obligation to give me the right to his DD, even if he can't afford it, and I can't expect him to give me that right for nothing. In essence, I am purchasing from him the right to his double, although in this case that purchase came in the form of a loan which had a positive expectation for him (and consequently also reduced my EV).

I suppose that, had I known the exact percentages, I could have offered to pay him up front rather than making a loan: my offer would equal some amount less than my EV for the $400 bet I am making on an 11 vs. 5.

 

[EasyRhino]

Pelerus, the dealer's upcard was a 5, so the dude would have no business taking another card. allowing another to double, or double for less, would have cost him nothing. But you still incurred the flakeout risk.

Now, if *I* was the dude, and you offered to go teams with me on, say 11v10, then *I* might be interested in cajoling you into some sort of risk pooling or hand-buying... and it would be in your best interest to reject my requests.