Of Splitting 10s and Flipping Coins

zengrifter

Banned
Of Splitting 10s and Flipping Coins

I'm an enthusiastic 10s-splitter, though I fancy that my 10s get split at a higher count typically than the strict Ev-based indices suggest, thus a bit more RA (risk-averse)... and as the #splits increases, my index rises higher into RA territory.

As ADM has suggested, I also establish myself early-on as a 10-splitter by splitting and re-splitting 10s incorrectly with small bets out, even against a 3 or a 7 perhaps - and, yes it is an excellent way to clear the table of excess players - and if I'm 'lucky enough' to 'cause' the loss of others' bets due to the split(s) I laugh without mercy at the other's loss and announce that "it will work better next time! Now, hurry up and deal some more 10s!" (the others get the message)

As some have heard me fond of saying, if a ploppy invades my table I will often immediately ask them in mock surveyesque fashion "would you play at the same table as some crazy yahoo who splits 10s?" More times than not they will passionately reply "NO!" to which I turn to the dealer and say "hurry up Sally, deal me some 10s!"

Notwithstanding the above, I m also fond of getting another player at the table to split their 10s - usually a wild redneck or one of 'the brothers' - I put up the other half ("partners") - in which case the index need only be BELOW what even doubling on 10 would be.

"Magic Coin"

Flipping coins at the table is an additional flourish that, if done adroitly, can add to one's 'cover' of various plays including 10-splitting.

A beautiful example of this application occurred last November when I was playing at a 2D table with my ploppy-driver - she was at the table w/me because I had two LVA 3-1 BJ coups to play - the count was sky-high and she got 10s. I signaled her to split 10s and immediately the shift-boss was camped-leaning over 1st base and I said "WAIT!" He said "she should do it!" I said "oh no, arrgghh, ok" - she splits and gets a 7 and a 10 - SB says "split'em again, I think you'll win!" I wanted to split BUT I hesitated for her and then said to her "lets flip a coin, heads we split again, ok?" - SB tells me to flip it on the felt "where we can all see it" (apparently he thought I might call it wrong on purpose) - Heads, we split again - another 10 "oh no!," again the SB tells her to split, we flip, heads, split and catch a 9 and an Ace - SB says "doubledown I think you'll win, flip the coin!" I put the coin away and borrowed a line from Robin Williams in Club Paradise - "I may be crazy but I'm not stupid" - we won and I thanked the SB for giving us the courage.

Flipping a coin at the table can be a good subterfuge - at the wide-area/coin-toss-zone, where it doesn't matter which way you decide hit/stand, etc., noticeably going with the coin in almost superstitious fashion, visibly, suggests that there is no strategy, strictly random-decision making. If the flips are working it becomes the "magic-coin" and I may flip it for others as well.

With a noticeably large bet out, I can call the pitcritter over and have him flip the coin for hit/stand/double, etc. - or, even for occasional bet-sizing where there's a close call - heads we let it ride, etc.

If the coin-toss is missing, I can announce that the coin is now (borrowing from Gen. Custer in 'Little Big Man') "a perfect reverse barometer" and do the opposite of what the coin says, thus confusing everybody.

More on "intuitive-process" decision-making when in the 'wide-area-zone' (WAZ) -

In one of the threads below, TH suggested that intuition in the WAZ should not be used unless one can demonstrate that its exceeding the results that would otherwise occur by random-guess... BUT I say that its ok to only achieve the random-guess result because it frees one from over-reliance on so-called "precise index#s - my logic being that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN EXACT INDEX LINE OF DEMARCATION ANYWAY!

So... when you are in the WAZ be guided by the FORCE (or the coin, perhaps).

zg
 

T-Hopper

Well-Known Member
In one of the threads below, TH suggested that intuition in the WAZ should not be used unless one can demonstrate that its exceeding the results that would otherwise occur by random-guess...

The point I was really trying to make is that a good practice program should be able to measure the effect of such techniques. It's not good enough for the program to know the count; it should know the exact EV for every possible play. I believe Eric Farmer's practice program probably has this capability.
 

zengrifter

Banned
I stand corrected - this would make for a potentially powerful practice and and verification simulator. Is Eric Farmer by chance related to Eudemonicn Pie's Doyne Farmer? zg
 

Rob McGarvey

Well-Known Member
5 + 5, Coolest Man Alive.....

There is an exact index for each play, but since that number is based upon the overall effect of + or - cards and not each card individually, there is room for this exact point to move up or down. RA makes sure you are not guessing. And in the grand scheme of things, I'm sure you have made mistakes playing at the table like hitting a hand or doubling a hand that "the book" tells you not to and pulled off a winner by chance. We have the edge, but luck, or variance as it is technically called, will have its way with you.
 

zengrifter

Banned
Re: 5 + 5, Coolest Man Alive.....NO

NO, I disagree - there is NOT a true-precice-exact index# for every play without taking into account the penetration of the particular game, not to mention #decks, rule-subset, hand composition, etc. ALL INDEX#s are an approximation and whether one hits or stands within a couple of integers makes NO real word difference. zg
 

Rob McGarvey

Well-Known Member
Re: 5 + 5, Coolest Man Alive.....YES, oh Yes!

We are both right. We don't know where that point is with our simplified counting systems, but it DOES exist. RA is like jumping across a river by an extra foot or two, rather than landing with your heel wet and your toes dry.
 
Top