Surrender after Splits?

My guess would be small, as it would only be likely to occur when dealing with 8,8 v AT9, and 9,9 v 9.
 
since this is a pretty obscure topic, wouldn't basic strategy change a bit on some splits with this rule?

i.e. splitting on hands that you normally wouldn't.

Some splits are +EV but hitting or standing is more +EV.
If you had the option to surrender, surely some a few of these combinations might change, like splitting 6s against 7 as a very rough guess. maybe 9s against 7 might be a stronger case. I have BJA here in my office, but am too lazy to sift through it while I am on the proverbial clock.

M.
 
Mimosine said:
since this is a pretty obscure topic, wouldn't basic strategy change a bit on some splits with this rule?

i.e. splitting on hands that you normally wouldn't.

Some splits are +EV but hitting or standing is more +EV.
If you had the option to surrender, surely some a few of these combinations might change, like splitting 6s against 7 as a very rough guess. maybe 9s against 7 might be a stronger case. I have BJA here in my office, but am too lazy to sift through it while I am on the proverbial clock.

M.
Click to expand...

BS for late surrender does not involve any surrendering against a dealers 7 so even if we end up with stiffs after splitting against the dealers 7 we should be better off hitting them then surrendering (assuming a neutral deck) The only time this may be different is on Ace splits where we are not allowed to hit after splitting.
 
suicyco maniac said:
BS for late surrender does not involve any surrendering against a dealers 7 so even if we end up with stiffs after splitting against the dealers 7 we should be better off hitting them then surrendering (assuming a neutral deck) The only time this may be different is on Ace splits where we are not allowed to hit after splitting.
Click to expand...

right.... i must have overthunk (or under!) this...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top