Sacrifice Bets
- Thread starter JackNero
- Start date
Rob McGarvey
Well-Known Member
What are you getting for what you are sacrificing? There are numerous ways to play this hand, and much of that depends on the count, and what you are facing, ie dealer up card.
"To destroy, surrender, or suffer to be lost, for the sake of obtaining something; to give up in favor of a higher or more imperative object or duty; to devote, with loss or suffering."
"To destroy, surrender, or suffer to be lost, for the sake of obtaining something; to give up in favor of a higher or more imperative object or duty; to devote, with loss or suffering."
phantom007
Well-Known Member
If you do not count, I suggest that one always split 8's. If you do count, then always split 8's, except stand (or even surrender) if higher than approx. +8-12...depends on the indicies of the system that you use.
I think Ian Anderson's "Buring the Tables on LV" has a mention of "sacrifice bets"...basically bad plays by "players from the far east".
phantom007.
I think Ian Anderson's "Buring the Tables on LV" has a mention of "sacrifice bets"...basically bad plays by "players from the far east".
phantom007.
phantom007
Well-Known Member
Addendum: vs. Dealer 10.
Reminds me of a time when I split 6's. The first hand busted. Second hand got another split resulting in 2 double down hands that resulted in pat and winning hands. An obviously Middle Eastern looking and sounding player at the table commented "you martyred the first hand for the other to succeed". My immediate thought was I hope this guy is not wearing a suicide explosive belt.
You play with a seated player(SP) playing with 1 unit bet. You backline with a 100 unit bet. You get 8,8 against dealer 9. SP splits but you don't follow.
So there are 2 hands on the table 8 with 1+100 units and another 8 with just 1 unit bet. The point is with this play you lose less. Or du you want to bet your 100 unit on 8 if the dealer have a 9? I don't think so.
Do I have missunderstood something? Comments..
So there are 2 hands on the table 8 with 1+100 units and another 8 with just 1 unit bet. The point is with this play you lose less. Or du you want to bet your 100 unit on 8 if the dealer have a 9? I don't think so.
Do I have missunderstood something? Comments..
<<<<......... SP splits but you don't follow.
So there are 2 hands on the table 8 with 1+100 units and another 8 with just 1 unit bet. The point is with this play you lose less. Or du you want to bet your 100 unit on 8 if the dealer have a 9? I don't think so.
Do I have missunderstood something? Comments.. >>>>>
I believe there is one basic problem with this strategy. At least in casinos where I play. The house rules would not allow you to split a $101 bet for $1. Splits must always be for the same amount as the original bet. Although I am not sure if where backline betting is a separate bet you can pass on the slpit or not.
So there are 2 hands on the table 8 with 1+100 units and another 8 with just 1 unit bet. The point is with this play you lose less. Or du you want to bet your 100 unit on 8 if the dealer have a 9? I don't think so.
Do I have missunderstood something? Comments.. >>>>>
I believe there is one basic problem with this strategy. At least in casinos where I play. The house rules would not allow you to split a $101 bet for $1. Splits must always be for the same amount as the original bet. Although I am not sure if where backline betting is a separate bet you can pass on the slpit or not.
>>>>I believe there is one basic problem with this strategy. At least in casinos where I play. The house rules would not allow you to split a $101 bet for $1. Splits must always be for the same amount as the original bet. Although I am not sure if where backline betting is a separate bet you can pass on the slpit or not. <<<<
BradRod,
I have not seen backline betting allowed in any U.S. casino either. From what I have seen, you need to hand your bet to the player and they have to add it to their bet. Then yes all spilts need to have the same bet put up to make the split.
I did just finish reading Burning the Tables and I believe it was in Australia that this backline betting was described. The extra bet was kept seperate and you did not have to follow the split. That is, you could just stick with the one hand while the player split.
Pill
P.S. BradRod, how has the new count been going?
BradRod,
I have not seen backline betting allowed in any U.S. casino either. From what I have seen, you need to hand your bet to the player and they have to add it to their bet. Then yes all spilts need to have the same bet put up to make the split.
I did just finish reading Burning the Tables and I believe it was in Australia that this backline betting was described. The extra bet was kept seperate and you did not have to follow the split. That is, you could just stick with the one hand while the player split.
Pill
P.S. BradRod, how has the new count been going?
Firstly, if you are backbetting a nonpartner, you just need to know when to split and when not to.
Only split the following in this situation:
9,9 v 2-6
8,8 v 3-7
7,7 v 6
3,3 v 5-6
2,2 v 5-6
(If DAS)
9,9 v 2-6, 8
8,8 v 2-7
7,7 v 4-6
6,6 v 5-6
4,4 v 5-6
3,3 v 4-6
2,2 v 4-6
Secondly, if the controller of the box is your partner betting table min, and you are placing a much bigger wager behind, it can be good for your partner to make the following splits (but for you not to follow unless the play is included in the above list):
9,9 v 2-6, 9-A
8,8 v 2-A
7,7 v 2-A
6,6 v 2-A
3,3 v 2-A
2,2 v 2-A
(If DAS)
9,9 v 2-6, 9-A
8,8 v 2-A
7,7 v 2-A
6,6 v 2-A
4,4 v 5-6
3,3 v 2-A
2,2 v 2-A
The above lists are taken from Andersen's BTTILS, pp.254-5.
You need to make sure, in the case of 'sacrifice splits' (those where your partner makes a suboptimal play for your collective benefit) that the ratio of the rider's bet to the controller's is sufficiently large to justify the sacrifice. You can do this in at least a couple of ways. Refer to Appendix E in Wong's _Professional Blackjack_ to find for X,X v Y the EV associated with splitting. Compare this to the EV with optimal play. The difference is the cost of the sacrifice split. Now, approximate the EV for playing X v Y by averaging the EVs for different two-card combinations that give the player a total X. Compare this with the EV from playing one hand with total X,X. This will tell you the gain from only playing one hand of total X, rather than one hand of total X,X. Once you have the controller's loss from the sacrifice split, call it L, and the gain for the rider, call it G, you can take the ratio |L|/G to determine the minimum bet ratio (between rider and controller) necessary to justify the sacrifice split. For instance, if the gain to the backbettor is .02 of money wagered, and the loss to the controller is -.06 of money wagered, the bet ratio would need to be greater than 3:1 (.06/.02 = 3) before the sacrifice split would be worthwhile.
Another way to find the minimum bet ratio would be to gain access to the bj21 Green Chip pages. A POM some time ago presented the minimum bet ratios for various sacrifice splits.
Only split the following in this situation:
9,9 v 2-6
8,8 v 3-7
7,7 v 6
3,3 v 5-6
2,2 v 5-6
(If DAS)
9,9 v 2-6, 8
8,8 v 2-7
7,7 v 4-6
6,6 v 5-6
4,4 v 5-6
3,3 v 4-6
2,2 v 4-6
Secondly, if the controller of the box is your partner betting table min, and you are placing a much bigger wager behind, it can be good for your partner to make the following splits (but for you not to follow unless the play is included in the above list):
9,9 v 2-6, 9-A
8,8 v 2-A
7,7 v 2-A
6,6 v 2-A
3,3 v 2-A
2,2 v 2-A
(If DAS)
9,9 v 2-6, 9-A
8,8 v 2-A
7,7 v 2-A
6,6 v 2-A
4,4 v 5-6
3,3 v 2-A
2,2 v 2-A
The above lists are taken from Andersen's BTTILS, pp.254-5.
You need to make sure, in the case of 'sacrifice splits' (those where your partner makes a suboptimal play for your collective benefit) that the ratio of the rider's bet to the controller's is sufficiently large to justify the sacrifice. You can do this in at least a couple of ways. Refer to Appendix E in Wong's _Professional Blackjack_ to find for X,X v Y the EV associated with splitting. Compare this to the EV with optimal play. The difference is the cost of the sacrifice split. Now, approximate the EV for playing X v Y by averaging the EVs for different two-card combinations that give the player a total X. Compare this with the EV from playing one hand with total X,X. This will tell you the gain from only playing one hand of total X, rather than one hand of total X,X. Once you have the controller's loss from the sacrifice split, call it L, and the gain for the rider, call it G, you can take the ratio |L|/G to determine the minimum bet ratio (between rider and controller) necessary to justify the sacrifice split. For instance, if the gain to the backbettor is .02 of money wagered, and the loss to the controller is -.06 of money wagered, the bet ratio would need to be greater than 3:1 (.06/.02 = 3) before the sacrifice split would be worthwhile.
Another way to find the minimum bet ratio would be to gain access to the bj21 Green Chip pages. A POM some time ago presented the minimum bet ratios for various sacrifice splits.