Do you ever split a pair of 7's against a dealer 8??

[psyduck]

Any# decks? zg

6 in my study.

 

[Syph]

Splitting 77 vs 8 is standard dollar-weighted basic strategy (DAS). Along with 99 Vs A. (H17, DAS)

http://www.bjrnet.com/thop/T-H_Basic_Blackjack.zip

I was under the impression this was considered standard play for a counter, using a limited set of indices, for quite some time now.

Curious.

Best,
Syph

 

[blackjack avenger]

DD = Double Disaster

I have done it twice in DD, correct play. I got to resplit both times and got killed! If there is a bad blackjack story I can probably top it!

Of course I can remember some fond times with DD's.:joker::whip:

good cards

 

[tribute]

This may sound really stupid, but I am new to blackjack. There was this guy at the table trying to give me advice. I had a pair of 7's and the dealer had an 8. He told me I was supposed to split these, but that just sounds really stupid. Aren't you already in a poor position with a pair of 7's against an 8. Wouldn't splitting the 7's make things even worse if you're assuming the dealer has a 10 in the hole??? Maybe I'm the one that's stupid, but it makes no sense to split in this situation. Thanks in advance for your replies!

I play a lot of DD games with DAS and it does not seem like a good play to split 7's vs. the dealer 8, but the charts and math say do it. You can refer to the Basic Strategy Engine on this site for all game scenarios. I have found them very helpful when learning to play. You will also continue to get "advice" from fellow players but you just have to know your stuff. I remember an arrogant guy at my table once who scolded me for splitting
9's. He said "you should never split a winning hand". Obviously he had not done his homework.

 

[iCountNTrack]

As it had already been mentioned in this thread, for a DD with DAS the difference between hitting and splitting is very very small ~0.05% in favor of splitting. And it really does alternate between the two with varying deck composition. This is one of the fewer hands you will see, so there is no need to really milk the topic.

 

[Renzey]

As it had already been mentioned in this thread, for a DD with DAS the difference between hitting and splitting is very very small ~0.05% in favor of splitting. This is one of the fewer hands you will see, so there is no need to really milk the topic.

I believe the greatest use of splitting 2/2, 3/3 and 7/7 vs 8 comes with a minimum bet out at a near neutral count. The loss in hand EV (shoe game) ranges from 1.0% to 1.5%. This means if you have a $25 bet up and split any of these, you'll be spending about 30 cents out of your advertising budget. It's a very cheap way to look like you're making a very stupid play. That's what camo is all about. The scenario should play out something like this:

You look at the player next to you and ask, "Are you supposed to split these?" He replies, "No way! Why make two 17's against her 18?" Then you ask the dealer, who summons the floor person. He consults his vest pocket chart and replies, "The book says just hit it." You come back with, "If the book says hit it -- then I'm splittin' em."

These 3 and 12 other low cost camo plays are illustrated on page 186 of BJBBII as "the Nifty 15".

 

[psyduck]

I believe the frequency of those split hands is very low. If you use them as cover, you will hardly be noted.

 

[Renzey]

I believe the frequency of those split hands is very low. If you use them as cover, you will hardly be noted.

Among the three of them, one will come up about every 8 hours (756 hands). But when one does, it's easy to call attention to it. And since splitting looks so bad, and is in fact a violation of correct basic strategy, it's easy for all to remember.

 

[aslan]

I believe the greatest use of splitting 2/2, 3/3 and 7/7 vs 8 comes with a minimum bet out at a near neutral count. The loss in hand EV (shoe game) ranges from 1.0% to 1.5%. This means if you have a $25 bet up and split any of these, you'll be spending about 30 cents out of your advertising budget. It's a very cheap way to look like you're making a very stupid play. That's what camo is all about. The scenario should play out something like this:

You look at the player next to you and ask, "Are you supposed to split these?" He replies, "No way! Why make two 17's against her 18?" Then you ask the dealer, who summons the floor person. He consults his vest pocket chart and replies, "The book says just hit it." You come back with, "If the book says hit it -- then I'm splittin' em."

. . . because everyone knows the house wrote the book. :laugh:

--Courtesy of past ploppy table-mates.

 

[psyduck]

Among the three of them, one will come up about every 8 hours (756 hands). But when one does, it's easy to call attention to it. And since splitting looks so bad, and is in fact a violation of correct basic strategy, it's easy for all to remember.

I alway doubt the effectiveness of using "silly" plays as cover. You think it is a bad play. The house may think you know too much and thus pay more attention to you.

 

[paddywhack]

I alway doubt the effectiveness of using "silly" plays as cover. You think it is a bad play. The house may think you know too much and thus pay more attention to you.

Can be very true. Especially when that "silly" play winds up being profitable.