Splitting Tens

[River1]

I’ve been considering the issue of splitting tens against 3, 4, 5 & 6.
I understand the premise of splitting tens against 5 & 6 when the deck is rich however, if the proper play for 3, and 4 is 13 & 12 respectfully, wouldn’t it also be beneficial to split tens against 3 and 4 regardless the count? The lowest hand you could receive would be the proper hand anyway (12) but by splitting you have increased your bet.

Thoughts?

 

[FLASH1296]

Are you nuts ?

You said: "I understand the premise of splitting tens against 5 & 6 when the deck is rich"

Obviously your comprehension is profoundly flawed.

The last thing that you want to do is get more money onto the felt without a significant advantage.

**********************************************************************************************

 

[LovinItAll]

Are you nuts ?

You said: "I understand the premise of splitting tens against 5 & 6 when the deck is rich"

Obviously your comprehension is profoundly flawed.

The last thing that you want to do is get more money onto the felt without a significant advantage.

**********************************************************************************************

You aren't saying that the OP's statement about the index play of splitting T's against 5-6 is incorrect, are you?

To the OP: Hitting 12 v. 2-3 isn't a profitable play. I think you can see the flaw in your logic from there.

Best ~ L.I.A.

P.S. I think the statement significant advantage is subject to interpretation. I know many people who don't count cards because they don't think 1-2% is a significant advantage (though in games like BJ, that advantage provides significant leverage). I happen to agree. It is an advantage, though.

 

[FLASH1296]

"You aren't saying that the OP's statement about the index play of splitting T's against 5-6 is incorrect, are you?"

NO, of course I am not saying that.

I am responding to the following statement which, to me, makes NO sense:

"Wouldn’t it also be beneficial to split tens against 3 and 4 regardless the count? The lowest hand you could receive would be the proper hand anyway (12) but by splitting you have increased your bet."

 

[River1]

Are you nuts ?

You said: "I understand the premise of splitting tens against 5 & 6 when the deck is rich"

Obviously your comprehension is profoundly flawed.

The last thing that you want to do is get more money onto the felt without a significant advantage.

**********************************************************************************************

Well then, Stanley Roberts logic must be profoundly flawed as well;
YH – [10/10] NEVER
R: DS > 5, 6
VR: DS > 4, 6
I have played this strategy successfully many times.

If Roberts Advanced Strategy is flawed I'm sure he'd liked to know why. I know I would.

 

[River1]

"You aren't saying that the OP's statement about the index play of splitting T's against 5-6 is incorrect, are you?"

NO, of course I am not saying that.

I am responding to the following statement which, to me, makes NO sense:

"Wouldn’t it also be beneficial to split tens against 3 and 4 regardless the count? The lowest hand you could receive would be the proper hand anyway (12) but by splitting you have increased your bet."

OK, but why? That is what I am asking. To expound upon the premise of standing on 12 against 4,5,6 (exclude the 3) if I'm playing two hands and am dealt a ten/2 then I'm good. But if I'm playing one hand and dealt two tens against 4,5,6, why not split them to end (minimumly) up with the very same hand as if I was playing two hands? I've just now increased my bet with the same percentages to win with two hands instead of one.

If this is flawed, please share why.

 

[zengrifter]

If Roberts Advanced Strategy is flawed I'm sure he'd liked to know why. I know I would.

Stanley Sludikoff KNOWS that his system is mediocre,
but many practitioners of his system do NOT know it. zg

 

[zengrifter]

OK, but why? That is what I am asking.

Because its all based on computer simulation, or doesn't Sludikoff teach that? zg

 

[Sharky]

OK, but why? That is what I am asking. To expound upon the premise of standing on 12 against 4,5,6 (exclude the 3) if I'm playing two hands and am dealt a ten/2 then I'm good. But if I'm playing one hand and dealt two tens against 4,5,6, why not split them to end (minimumly) up with the very same hand as if I was playing two hands? I've just now increased my bet with the same percentages to win with two hands instead of one.

If this is flawed, please share why.

this kat HAS to be one of LIA's "friends"

 

[MrSmith]

Maybe this well help answer the OP's last question as to why you shouldn't always split 10's vs dealer 3 or 4.

Standing on a 20v3 is an expected return of .6503
Standing on a 20v4 is an expected return of .661

Splitting a 20v3 is an expected return of .2128
Splitting a 20v4 is an expected return of .2934

Hitting each 10v3 has an expected return of .2061
Hitting each 10v4 has an expected return of .2305

In my humble opinion you have destroyed your expected return for twice the price. Not good.

http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix1.html

 

[MrSmith]

OK, but why? That is what I am asking. To expound upon the premise of standing on 12 against 4,5,6 (exclude the 3) if I'm playing two hands and am dealt a ten/2 then I'm good. But if I'm playing one hand and dealt two tens against 4,5,6, why not split them to end (minimumly) up with the very same hand as if I was playing two hands? I've just now increased my bet with the same NEGATIVE percentages to win with two hands instead of one.

If this is flawed, please share why.

The flaw in your logic is that standing on a 12v 4,5,6 is the best way to lose the LEAST amount of money. Some basic strategy plays are not to help you win but to make sure you lose less. Look at the chart for Standing vs Hitting 12 vs 4,5,6. They are all negative expected return plays. Technically you are not "good". Does that help?

P.S. I corrected your quote above to help emphasize my point.

 

[tthree]

To the OP

If this is how you think about blackjack, do yourself a favor and stop thinking. You rarely split TT against any hand!!!!! Only in very lopsided deck composition that favors the player tremendously. 20 is most likely a winning hand. It is only split when there are lots and lots of extra tens and aces AND the dealer has a very weak hand. EVERYTHING you said is so wrong. Ive seen people double hard 16 v T and pull a five. It worked out great for them but I would never ever even consider doing it.

When you said split the TT v 3 or 4 always I took it to imply you are already splitting TT v 5 or 6 ALWAYS. This is so wrong to the power of infinity.

Are you Lia's friend? If so, if you play twice as long with the same advantage you expect to win twice as much money!!!

 

[LovinItAll]

this kat HAS to be one of LIA's "friends"

Hey, even my most dense friends have some redeeming quality that offsets their lack of intellectual prowess!

If your comment included 'doubting quotes', I assure you that I accurately presented the facts in the thread you're referencing. I've started a number of posts/responses and ditched them before hitting 'Submit' because of the blowback I was likely to receive. Sometimes folks on the internet get very serious, you know.

My smartest friends aren't necessarily the most entertaining. My friend bucket is pretty eclectic, and I consider myself lucky because of that. I hope you're enjoying the same in your life.

Best ~ L.I.A.

 

[LovinItAll]

Are you Lia's friend? If so, if you play twice as long with the same advantage you expect to win twice as much money!!!

Haha...that really is pretty damn funny! He did read the responses and finally understood. He has other comments that I dare not share here due to lack of beleiveability. I've said this to him, so he won't mind seeing it in writing: Some folks just need to keep doing what they're doing and not screw with gaming/gambling.

 

[21gunsalute]

OK, but why? That is what I am asking. To expound upon the premise of standing on 12 against 4,5,6 (exclude the 3) if I'm playing two hands and am dealt a ten/2 then I'm good. But if I'm playing one hand and dealt two tens against 4,5,6, why not split them to end (minimumly) up with the very same hand as if I was playing two hands? I've just now increased my bet with the same percentages to win with two hands instead of one.

If this is flawed, please share why.

Because even with a 5 or 6 showing the dealer makes a hand over 57% of the time, and a higher % with any other card showing:

http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix2.html

Look at the bust column in the above link.

 

[River1]

Maybe this well help answer the OP's last question as to why you shouldn't always split 10's vs dealer 3 or 4.

Standing on a 20v3 is an expected return of .6503
Standing on a 20v4 is an expected return of .661

Splitting a 20v3 is an expected return of .2128
Splitting a 20v4 is an expected return of .2934

Hitting each 10v3 has an expected return of .2061
Hitting each 10v4 has an expected return of .2305

In my humble opinion you have destroyed your expected return for twice the price. Not good.

http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix1.html

Thank you for taking the time to illustrate the answer. Now I understand.

 

[River1]

The flaw in your logic is that standing on a 12v 4,5,6 is the best way to lose the LEAST amount of money. Some basic strategy plays are not to help you win but to make sure you lose less. Look at the chart for Standing vs Hitting 12 vs 4,5,6. They are all negative expected return plays. Technically you are not "good". Does that help?

P.S. I corrected your quote above to help emphasize my point.

Yes, it's a great help. Thanks for the answer.

 

[River1]

this kat HAS to be one of LIA's "friends"

Don't know who LIA is, don't really care. I'm new to the board and have less than six posts. As I said in my original introduction, I attended Robert's school of black jack back in the 70's. Yes, he taught computer sim'd strategies but, I have missplaced most of his handouts and thought this board may have some answers to my questions.

I appreciate the effort of those who took the time to actually answer my question.

R1

 

[River1]

If this is how you think about blackjack, do yourself a favor and stop thinking. You rarely split TT against any hand!!!!! Only in very lopsided deck composition that favors the player tremendously. 20 is most likely a winning hand. It is only split when there are lots and lots of extra tens and aces AND the dealer has a very weak hand. EVERYTHING you said is so wrong. Ive seen people double hard 16 v T and pull a five. It worked out great for them but I would never ever even consider doing it.

When you said split the TT v 3 or 4 always I took it to imply you are already splitting TT v 5 or 6 ALWAYS. This is so wrong to the power of infinity.

Are you Lia's friend? If so, if you play twice as long with the same advantage you expect to win twice as much money!!!

No, not LIA's friend. I asked a simple question and appreciate you having spent the time to provide me with helpful information.

R1