Using a nickel to protect
a penny
18 August 2003
By Mark Pilarski
Dear Mark,
Using Atlantic City Blackjack rules with my
computer, I ran an experiment and I played many
hundred of hands. When I was dealt two hard tens
and the dealer had either a five or six showing,
instead of standing pat, I split the tens and
doubled down. At least 75 percent of the time
the dealer broke, and I won on both hands.
I realize this is an unorthodox play, but it
seemed to work, at least when I do it on the
computer. I also have done it at Atlantic City
much to the chagrin of other players, and I
would guess I have won about 75 percent of the
time there too.
Am I on to something good or should I revert to
the standard play of standing with this hand?
Morris S
Except for John Scarne, all gaming writers I
have ever read recommend against ever splitting
10s in the standard version of blackjack. But
John Scarne's book, Scarne on Cards, was first
published in 1949, well before computers could
analyze blackjack with multi-million hand
simulations. Consequently, since 1962, when
Edward Thorp, (the first blackjack specialist
using a computer (IBM 704)) published his book,
Beat the Dealer, no blackjack author recommends
splitting 10s--under any circumstances. Our
friend Scarne stands alone--except for you, of
course.
While running a couple hundred computer hands
can warm up your fingers, it's no way to
accurate evaluate splitting 10s. Heck, you can
flip a fair coin 200 times and have it come down
heads 75% of the time, but we both know that in
the long run, it's a 50/50 proposition.
But your question is an intriguing one, Morris,
so I've gone a step further and took the liberty
of running a 20 million-hand simulation test
using a piece of software called BJ Trainer. The
results clearly favored no splittum, the
technical term for leaving those 10s alone
rather than splitting them against a 5 or 6.
There is, however, one time when it is proper
basic strategy to split 10s and that is on a
Face-up Blackjack game. In Face-up Blackjack,
all the cards dealt are exposed, including both
of the dealer's cards. Only here does correct
strategy call for splitting 10s against a
dealer's 13, 14, 15, or 16.
But, before scampering to the nearest Face-up
game and twinning those tens, reflect on the fee
involved: the casino edge on regular blackjack,
using perfect basic strategy, is 0.4% and on
Face-up it's five times that - yup, 2.0 fat
percent. Wow! And why is that? Because in
Face-up you lose when you push (tie)
Dear Mark,
Recently, a dealer was not even halfway through
the shoe and the cut card appeared and she
shuffled-up. Next round, even fewer cards were
dealt before she had to shuffle again. Seems she
was doing more shuffling than dealing. What
gives? Stewart S
"This gives," Stewart. Management at the joint
where you played is panicky over the possibility
that some customers' cerebra are alive - they're
thinking! There might be here and there among
them CARD COUNTERS!
Personally, I believe if those timorous stewards
of gambling were to conduct time and motion
studies of their blackjack games, they would
find out that blackjack becomes more profitable
for the casino when the dealer's shuffle points
are deeper. By allowing additional deck
penetration, the dealers will deal more hands
per hour, the extra action more than making up
for an occasional loss to a card sharpie.
Besides, since they employ pit bulls to run off
the counters anyway, they're just erecting a
super umbrella over their standard umbrella,
and, I think, using a nickel to protect a penny
Gambling quote of the week: "I figure the casino
management summit was held late last year and
the conspiracy developed from there. How else do
you explain the downgrading of so many machines
in quick succession?" --Gayle Mitchell, Gaming
writer
|
