|
|
July 16, 2004
One Last Blackjack Tip: Never Listen to Liaps (or, "Why We Split")
In a comment on my last post, Liaps writes:
You don't split 9s against an 8 or a 9...If the dealer shows 9 and I have 19, I'll take the push every time - let her have to pull a 20 or 21 to beat me, rather than vice versa.
What Liaps doesn't realize, of course, is that -- according to a little-known branch of academia called "math" -- 9 and 9 make 18, which is not so great against a dealer's presumed 19.
Hopefully nobody listens to Liaps's blackjack-related babble, but just in case some poor fool thinks he has the right idea, I'll once again explain how he's not playing with a full deck.
There's only one reason why we double down: because we are a huge favorite and want to double our wager. But there are two reasons to split.
1.) We our a huge favorite and want to double our wager.
2.) Our current hand is weak and could be improved by a split.
Reason #2 is, of course, why we split 9s against a dealer's 8 or 9. Liaps may scoff at reason #2, but it's why we split 8s no matter what.
Surely Liaps knows the easy-to-remember rule that one must always split aces and 8s. No doubt he follows that rule eagerly. But why does he split 8s against a dealer's 10? Assuming the dealer has another 10 underneath -- or even just a nine -- Liaps will probably lose double his bet. But I'll bet you he does it every time anyway.
The reason he's right to split 8s against a 10 is because 8 + 8, as it turns out, makes 16. Just as a 6 is the dealer's worst upcard and a 7 is the weakest "strong" card (see previous post), for the player a 16 is the worst possible hand and a 17 is when things start looking up. (Why is a 16 so awful? Because it has the same chance of losing as every hand lower than it, but it has less chance of improving.) A 16 is so weak -- and two 18s are so much stronger -- that we split eights regardless of the dealer's card.
By splitting 9s, we hope to improve from an 18 to two 19s. That's an improvement, so why not do it against a dealer's 10? Simply because 19 isn't all that much better than 18. Don't get me wrong, it's better -- but not by the magnitude that 18 is better than 16. We'd rather have a 19 than an 18 against an 8 or 9, but against a 7, 10, or A, we're better off standing.
There's one last point I'd like to make about basic strategy. Basic strategy was not devised by logicians; nobody reasoned out when you get a mathematical advantage from splitting 9s. Rather, basic strategy was devised by computer programs which played millions of different blackjack hands every conceivable way; thanks to these brave computers, we now know what blackjack responses have the best chances of winning (or saving) money. If you ever think you have a logical reason why some component of basic strategy is wrong, just remember: you're kidding yourself. You may think you're playing optimum blackjack, but you're just plain not.
Andrew - 9:40 AMPlease retitle post "Never Listen to LiAps When He's Had 6 Beers and No Dinner." I'm not backing down from my opinion (computers be damned) that you don't split 9s against an 8 or a 9. But I do have to give you that whole "math" point. 9 and 9 is only 18. I will still take my chances with an 18 against a 9 rather than hope to pull two good hands that still might not be good enough. Or maybe I should surrender . . .
LiAps - Jul 16, 2004 - 10:08 AMOK. I just played 100 hands on the BST, ignoring the strategy coach and playing the LiAps method. Let it be noted, the good "COMPUTER" (all hail, all hail!) agreed with me 90% of the time. I played $10 hands without variation (which we all know is NOT LiAps style). End result: I was 42-47-11 and lost $55.
I have a meeting at 11, but before I leave work today, I will play another 100 hands, listening to the coach's suggestions, including ack! surrendering. I will post the results. Just for kicks. We all know I'm stubborn enough never to change my real world crunk.
LiAps - Jul 16, 2004 - 10:34 AMWell, it really won't matter anyway. Playing basic strategy just means you increase your odds -- you could still lose 100% of the hands you play, just as you can sometimes come out ahead by playing the Retard Method, er, the Liaps Method. Blackjack players depend on short-term luck to win; basic strategy lowers long-term expected loss.
Andrew F - Jul 16, 2004 - 11:21 AM"Full Deck" HAH! Now to go eat that cat. . .
RM - Jul 16, 2004 - 1:18 PMI kill me.
Andrew F - Jul 16, 2004 - 1:36 PMResults taking the coach's tips: 48-49-3, $15 profit, coach agreed with me 87% of the time.
BUT Mr. Furdell, your precious COMPUTER does not recommend splitting 8s against a 10. It recommends surrendering. Another reason that computers are big pussies and I'm always right. Who wants a beer?
LiAps - Jul 16, 2004 - 1:47 PMOoh, that's actually a good question. Should the 8-8 be surrendered instead of split against a 9-10-A?
James F - Jul 16, 2004 - 2:15 PMNo, the rule is split 8s, don't surrender them. The only thing I can think of is that Liaps entered the wrong parameters when he started the game. (But I can't imagine any version of blackjack in which you would surrender 8-8 against a 10...)
Andrew F - Jul 16, 2004 - 2:18 PM6 Deck, Hit on Soft 17 (because that's the way Vegas is moving, per your prior posts), Surrender early, split any cards, double after split. What parameters am I missing?
LiAps - Jul 16, 2004 - 2:32 PMActually you want late surrender (nobody offers early surrender, which is when you can surrender before the dealer checks for blackjack).
Must be a bug in the software, then. You should split those 8s.
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/basic/cbs6ds.htm
James F - Jul 16, 2004 - 2:57 PMWhy don't you all just start playing baccarat, which requires absolutely no strategy or even thought, only chips and the physical ability to move them. Plus, you get to look like James Bond.
Pinz - Jul 16, 2004 - 3:42 PMIt's no bug. Plug those rules in the basic strategy engine:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bjbse.php
In the unlikely event that you found a table that allowed early surrender, you should indeed surrender two 8s against a 10 or an A, because the dealer might have a blackjack.
Andrew F - Jul 16, 2004 - 3:43 PMI tried playing it with late surrender for 40 hands or so, but couldn't get a pair of 8s. Anti-Semitic computer!
LiAps - Jul 16, 2004 - 3:58 PMBelieve me, you split 8s against anything. It's right there in the table.
As to baccarat, well...a lot of people try to look like Bond when they gamble, and it never works. Martinis are kind of gross, and tuxedos are a hassle. Better to look like a more obscure superspy, like Napolean Solo, who preferred a nice game of Pai Gow. (I made that up.)
Andrew F - Jul 16, 2004 - 4:05 PM"a lot of people try to look like Bond when they gamble"
Especially Simon Templar.
RM - Jul 16, 2004 - 5:41 PMI played some blackjack yesterday in AZ. I pushed on a 19, 20, 20, and blackjack. All this in a row! It just wasn't meant to be.
It's good to have strategy, but getting good cards and dealer getting bad cards are still the best way to go.
I have now gambled in 6 states plus Canada.
Pup - Jul 19, 2004 - 9:33 AM
The CIA had an opening for an assassin. After all of the background checks, interviews, and testing were done there were three finalists - two men and one woman. For the final test, the CIA agents took one of the men to a large metal door and handed him a gun.
"We must know that you will follow your instructions, no matter what the circumstances. Inside this room you will find your wife sitting in a chair. You have to kill her." The first man said. "You cant be serious. I could never shoot my wife!"The agent replies, "Then you?re not the right man for this job."
The second man was given the same instructions. He took the gun and went into the room. All was quiet for about five minutes. Then the agent came out with tears in his eyes. "I tried, but I cant kill my wife." The agent replies, "You dont have what it takes. Take your wife and go home."
Finally, it was the womans turn. Only she was told to kill her husband. She took the gun and went into the room. Shots were heard, one shot after another. They heard screaming, crashing, banging on the walls. After a few minutes, all was quiet. The door opened slowly and there stood the woman. She wiped the sweat from her brow and said, "You guys didnt tell me the gun was loaded with blanks. So I had to beat him to death with the chair."
Jokes - Oct 9, 2004 - 9:16 AM