I have not played the game in a long time and in a post yesterday I asked a question about hitting versus doubling with an 11 against a dealer upcard of 10.
The response was unanimous that doubling is the proper play.
But now I have another question.
Let's say we are talking about the same single deck game.
Let's assume that dealer has an upcard of 10 and let's also assume that the hole card is an Ace, which would mean he has a blackjack. (Insurance in this case would not be an option.)
Does the dealer reveal that blackjack before I have a chance to take additional cards?
Or does he NOT reveal that blackjack and force me to first play the hand?
If the latter is true, then if I were (using the basic strategy) to double down against what turns out to be a blackjack, I would lose twice my initial bet.
What I am asking here is this.
When people say in a single game that you should double down with an 11 versus a dealer upcard of ten does that assume that the dealer has, in fact, revealed a blackjack at the very outset? (That would mean that doubling would not be an option since I would not be allowed to take any additional cards.)
Or does it assume that the dealer has not revealed a blackjack and you could (with a double down) lose twice your bet?
And, if the latter case is true ..... that the dealer does not reveal a blackjack at the outset and forces you first to play your hand .....
And with the possibility that even a double-down 21 could lose to his eventually-revealed blackjack .....
Would the best basic strategy play in that single deck game, under those circumstances, still be to double with the 11 rather than to simply hit it?
The response was unanimous that doubling is the proper play.
But now I have another question.
Let's say we are talking about the same single deck game.
Let's assume that dealer has an upcard of 10 and let's also assume that the hole card is an Ace, which would mean he has a blackjack. (Insurance in this case would not be an option.)
Does the dealer reveal that blackjack before I have a chance to take additional cards?
Or does he NOT reveal that blackjack and force me to first play the hand?
If the latter is true, then if I were (using the basic strategy) to double down against what turns out to be a blackjack, I would lose twice my initial bet.
What I am asking here is this.
When people say in a single game that you should double down with an 11 versus a dealer upcard of ten does that assume that the dealer has, in fact, revealed a blackjack at the very outset? (That would mean that doubling would not be an option since I would not be allowed to take any additional cards.)
Or does it assume that the dealer has not revealed a blackjack and you could (with a double down) lose twice your bet?
And, if the latter case is true ..... that the dealer does not reveal a blackjack at the outset and forces you first to play your hand .....
And with the possibility that even a double-down 21 could lose to his eventually-revealed blackjack .....
Would the best basic strategy play in that single deck game, under those circumstances, still be to double with the 11 rather than to simply hit it?
Last edited: