So I split Aces and...

[mdlbj]

I may not have been clear. This condition applies to NOT being able to resplit aces. If you get two aces and split, you only get one card each. If it is another ace, tuff!

That is tuff.

 

[Kasi]

Gee I have four aces on the table rather than 12 or 2 on 2 hands. I give up on you all. Correct me if im wrong but that is a huge advantage regardless of the count.

All a few of us, or at least me, are trying to say is the rule that allows one to re-split aces up to four hands, for a Basic Strategy player in an 8D game, might be worth an extra 0.0008 adavantage.

Alot of the reason why, as Automatic Monkey pointed out, is the opportunity to do so doesn't present itself very often, although when it does, sure, it's a good thing, as you point out.

And, if you want to call that gain "huge" or "awesome", fine with me lol.

And it does represent a good percentage reduction in the overall house edge probably.

So no big deal, just trying to put it in perspective so you don't maybe go driving down the road for an extra 30 minutes, spending $6 in gas back and forth, to play $25/hand for 5 hours because it's a "better game" when you probably are better off staying where you are in a game that has all other rules equal except for that one even assuming betting at the same amount let alone a smaller amount.

Not at all sure of the effect of the rule to a card-counter.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

...Not at all sure of the effect of the rule to a card-counter.

Now you shall be! The RSA rule is worth a 25% increase in SCORE to a typical counter, while the LS rule is worth about 50% all other things kept equal.

One of the reasons why LS is more important is that you put less money at risk in order to use it, while RSA puts more money at risk. Being risk of ruin is what limits our betting when we have an advantage, a risk-reducing play like surrender will allow us to bet more when we have an advantage.

 

[Kasi]

Now you shall be! The RSA rule is worth a 25% increase in SCORE to a typical counter, while the LS rule is worth about 50% all other things kept equal..

Well thanks!

Wow 25%. Never would have guessed that.

What is your definition of a "typical counter" just out of curiosity? You talking a play-all multi-deck game?

But basically you're saying you'd make 25% more dollars an hour?

 

[jack.jackson]

All a few of us, or at least me, are trying to say is the rule that allows one to re-split aces up to four hands, for a Basic Strategy player in an 8D game, might be worth an extra 0.0008 adavantage.

Alot of the reason why, as Automatic Monkey pointed out, is the opportunity to do so doesn't present itself very often, although when it does, sure, it's a good thing, as you point out.

And, if you want to call that gain "huge" or "awesome", fine with me lol.

And it does represent a good percentage reduction in the overall house edge probably.

So no big deal, just trying to put it in perspective so you don't maybe go driving down the road for an extra 30 minutes, spending $6 in gas back and forth, to play $25/hand for 5 hours because it's a "better game" when you probably are better off staying where you are in a game that has all other rules equal except for that one even assuming betting at the same amount let alone a smaller amount.

Not at all sure of the effect of the rule to a card-counter.

RESPLITTING of aces,one deck +.03
RESPLITTING of aces, two deck +.04
RESPLITTING of ace, four deck +.05
RESPLITTING of aces, 6and8deck,+.06
INFINITE DECK +.08

Not sure, but I would think for a counter this is even more valuable since we would be catching more tens on big bets.

Note: Though we get a pair of aces alot less often in a single deck game, opposed to a 6D game. Your more likely to win with a pair of aces in a single deck game.

 

[mdlbj]

I was under the impression that the hand was being played in a positive count.

 

[EasyRhino]

Re: the idea of not splitting the aces and just taking a hit, The TC would have to be between -3 and -9 to NOT split (or resplit) aces, and that would only be against high dealer upcards.

 

[mdlbj]

Re: the idea of not splitting the aces and just taking a hit, The TC would have to be between -3 and -9 to NOT split (or resplit) aces, and that would only be against high dealer upcards.

As well as not playing at a neg count.

 

[SecurityRisk]

As well as not playing at a neg count.

That's not always possible. The count can be positive before the hands are dealt, but negative by the time it's your turn to play.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

That's not always possible. The count can be positive before the hands are dealt, but negative by the time it's your turn to play.

Or you could be playing a pitch game, where you have to play all counts.

Resplitting aces is a very powerful play, but you can play thousands of hands before you get a chance to use it even once and it isn't helping you at all in those intervals. Surrender plays aren't nearly as powerful but you'll be using them every shoe.

S17 vs. H17 also benefits the player but again, only when the dealer has a soft 17 which isn't all that often. At high counts the difference between S17 and H17 becomes marginal, but H17 really hurts the player at low counts (because the dealer needs several low cards in addition to one ace to make his hand) which we aren't playing in shoe games, but we must at pitch. This is why S17 DD games are a good thing to play, and you won't find a S17 SD game anymore.

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

Harrahs 10 years ago I am 3 rd base and playing 2 hands . I get a apir of aces on both hand and the dealer is showing a 6 . My bet was 1,000.00 a hand so I split and have $4,000.00 out . Firstace I get a 2 , second ace i get a 3 , 3rd ace I got a 4 and 4th ace I got a 5 . I am still not worried till the dick shows an ace with his 6 for 17 and I blew $K . What is the odds of that ? Oh well only time it happened . :grin: :cool2:

did you double all those? thus you should have lost $8000? i think you forgot to type a number when you said "$K"

RSA is a desirable rule, but only marginally so. LS is much more important, because the slope of it's value is much steeper as a function of count.

LS lowers the house edge .005% more than RSA, so its a super small difference

Sure. In an 8D game you get to resplit aces 1 out of 2401 hands, and less with fewer numbers of decks. But with LS you'll be surrendering all the time, especially if you use all the surrender indices where you'll be doing it with some big bets down. Winning by losing!

ya, id rather have LS because it reduces variance and is used a lot more, wheras the opposite is true for HSA

If you get A,A for the first two cards and the count is even or high, I would play BS and split, BUT, if the count is real low, should you reconsider and not hit. You know you will probably get two low cards and be stuck with two stiffs that you can't hit again. Also, if you don't hit, at what point would the count need to be to just stay and die (or hope for luck)?

dont you mean "reconsider and not split"? i would always split and resplit aces

Gee I have four aces on the table rather than 12 or 2 on 2 hands. I give up on you all. Correct me if im wrong but that is a huge advantage regardless of the count. Why shuffle track or cut to the high cards. Think about the above posts and tell me why casinos that the person is playing does not allow re-split aces.
Ok, ok.. What does your laminated BS chart say to do when you have 2 aces?

agreed

Now you shall be! The RSA rule is worth a 25% increase in SCORE to a typical counter, while the LS rule is worth about 50% all other things kept equal.

One of the reasons why LS is more important is that you put less money at risk in order to use it, while RSA puts more money at risk. Being risk of ruin is what limits our betting when we have an advantage, a risk-reducing play like surrender will allow us to bet more when we have an advantage.

i never thot of it like that.. i seriously dont see how LS and RSA have the same effect on the house edge.. i would totally rather have LS, even if RSA lowered the house edge by .1-.15%.. i would like to see a chapter or article on RoR vs advantage, in that i mean things like choosing a worse game that has LS over a game with like a .2% lower house edge that doesnt have LS, because RoR is the only thing stopping card counters from going nuts (that and heat)

 

[glovesetc]

$4,000.00 was what I lost

cause you could only get one card on splitting aces and therefore no chance to double . :grin: :cool2: there was no surrender either - harrahs in AC is where it happened in the high limit pit .

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

cause you could only get one card on splitting aces and therefore no chance to double . :grin: :cool2: there was no surrender either - harrahs in AC is where it happened in the high limit pit .

oh ok, i got caught up in the RSA thing i assumed damn near everybody was assuming that

 

[Sonny]

i would like to see a chapter or article on RoR vs advantage, in that i mean things like choosing a worse game that has LS over a game with like a .2% lower house edge that doesnt have LS, because RoR is the only thing stopping card counters from going nuts (that and heat)

There is a chapter about this in Blackjack Attack. It is the basis behind the SCORE ratings. Check it out.

-Sonny-

 

[rdorange]

dont you mean "reconsider and not split"?

Yes that is what I meant!
You have a low count (fewer tens). You get AA against a dealer 10. You could just hit the 2 or 12, or you could put more money out on a hand that is negative to win at best. Why put out more money? Minimize the loss.
That is just the opposite of getting more money on the table against a dealer bust card when you split any two weak cards. You are getting as much money on the table as possible and not betting that your hand is a winner, but that the dealers hand is a BUST!

 

[rollem411]

Yes that is what I meant!
You have a low count (fewer tens). You get AA against a dealer 10. You could just hit the 2 or 12, or you could put more money out on a hand that is negative to win at best. Why put out more money? Minimize the loss.
That is just the opposite of getting more money on the table against a dealer bust card when you split any two weak cards. You are getting as much money on the table as possible and not betting that your hand is a winner, but that the dealers hand is a BUST!

I think if you don't split it hurts you. The only time you don't split the AA is when the dealer has an A showing AND a low count.

 

[rdorange]

Dealer has to check his ace

When the dealer checks his ace and doesn't have Bj, I always split the aces. He doesn't have Bj and that is in my favor. In a low count I already know he probably has a low soft hand and will have to hit. It is when he shows that 10 up card that I question it.

 

[Kasi]

When the dealer checks his ace and doesn't have Bj, I always split the aces. He doesn't have Bj and that is in my favor. In a low count I already know he probably has a low soft hand and will have to hit. It is when he shows that 10 up card that I question it.

Not sure exactly what you mean by "low count" but I think always split aces in any positive count no matter how low it is.

If the dealer checks for BJ with a 10, and even if he doesn't, I think it's even greatly more unlikely that you would ever want to not split the hand.

If the count is low enough (negative), basing a split decision merely on the fact the dealer did not have BJ with an Ace up would be wrong every once in a while lol. In other words, it depends on the actual count at the time not whether the dealer has a BJ or not on that particular hand.

Guess, overall, I'm confused whether you are counting or not lol.

Basically always split A,A vs 10 or less unless you really know what you are doing. You will almost never be wrong in doing so since negative counts high enough to justify it don't happen very often.

 

[bj bob]

Not sure exactly what you mean by "low count" but I think always split aces in any positive count no matter how low it is.

You've got me scratching my head on that one, Kasi.

 

[Kasi]

You've got me scratching my head on that one, Kasi.

Hey - I was confused what he meant by a "low count" too lol.

But, on the off-chance he might have meant a low count that was still positive, I thought I'd throw that in lol.

What I meant was, more specifically, don't hit A,A vs A until TC -4 in multi-deck and more than that in 1D.

And that TC's of -8 and -9 in multideck that would justify hitting A,A vs 8,9,10 don't happen very often so, pretty much, always split.

All in the vain hope that one might get alot more specific than "low" or "if the dealer doesn't have BJ" as a basis for deviating from BS while at the same time seemingly saying they are counting.