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% 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% 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 10s,
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
