Dear Mark:
Why is doubling down in blackjack so
advantageous for the player? Also, why
shouldn’t I always take insurance? The worst
that could happen is losing half my bet.
Hector F.
The three main reasons why doubling down is
so advantageous to you, the player, is
because 1) you know the dealer’s up-card, 2)
the casino is allowing you to bet more money
with that information, and 3) your chances
of winning the hand, when you should to be
doubling, are better than the dealer’s.
You always want to bet more when the casino
is at a distinct disadvantage so as to
increase your potential return. Your edge
comes from the new bet’s paying even money
on hands that you are favored to win.
Let me give you an example of where doubling
down will give you a substantial edge over
the casino.
Take doubling down on an 11 against a dealer
six. The odds with this hand are that you'll
win 63.3, lose 30 and tie 6.7 percent of the
time. Play this hand for $5 a thousand times
and you can expect to win $3,165 and lose
$1,500 for a net profit of $1,665 on
doubling this one wager alone.
Far too many players don't double, fearing
that losing the extra bets might wreak havoc
on their bankrolls. Hey, Hector; if you find
you’re getting cold feet betting one of the
best wagers the casino has to offer, you
shouldn’t be on that denomination game.
Back when I dealt blackjack, I was always
amazed at how many players would take
insurance on every hand (even dog ones like
a 16) when I was showing an Ace. They, as
your question states, believed that the
worst that could happen was losing half
their wager.
God forbid (actually the casino forbade) me
telling players that 10-point cards (10, J,
Q, K) make up 31% of the deck, so there was
a 69% chance that I didn’t have a blackjack.
With that 69% chance that the dealer doesn’t
possess a snapper, and there’s you insuring
your weak hand, you could easily lose both
the insurance and your original bet.
So NO on insurance, Hector, even if you have
a Blackjack. With a 3 to 2 payoff, you'll
make more money in the long run by never
taking it.
Dear Mark: Suppose I have the
following hand: A Jack of spades, 10 of
hearts, six of diamonds, four of clubs and a
four hearts. Being that the pair of fours
does not pay, wouldn’t the correct strategy
be to go after the royal (as you’ve stated
in the past, that’s what we’re here for) and
discard the fours? Don B.
Hold on, Don. When I made that statement, it
was to debate keeping a high pair over a
three-card royal. I stated; “the expected
value (win potential) of three cards to a
royal and a high pair is so insignificant,
even I abstain from perfect basic strategy
and jump on the chance, as remote as it
might be, of hitting the elusive royal
flush.” As for a low pair hand, it is far
superior to a single high card hand.
Let's review your example: A Jack of spades,
10 of hearts, six of diamonds, four of clubs
and a four hearts. If you are trying to
force as many royals as possible, sure, you
hold just the Jack and discard the rest. But
the expert play here is to hold the pair of
4s. The frequency of hitting two pair, three
of a kind, full houses or four of a kind
when you hold the low pair more than makes
up for always chasing that elusive royal.
Gambling
Wisdom of the Week: In poker as in
life, there will always be people who will
take advantage of your weaknesses." --VP
Pappy
