Does it really matter whether the objective in splitting is to gain more or lose less? Not really. So if it the best play was to split it the first time, it would still be the best play to split again (and again) if given the chance.

But I agree ... in reality, it's still tough to do sometimes. As some of our more knowledgeable posters would say, "Trust the math."

Good luck!

A couple of points.

88 vs 10 is about as bad as it gets. Stand and you are stuck with a 16, hit and the probability of breaking is high. Standing or hitting are losers.

splitting slightly improves things since occasionally you will win one and lose one. But this is still a losing proposition. Now for "selling". If you split the 8's, you most likely outcome is two 18's. But since on average the dealer finishes with more than 18, those two hands are better than a 16, but you have twice the money at risk. If you can sell one, you just traded a 16 (really bad) for a probable 18 (bad, but not as bad as 16) and since your neighbor "bought the second 8" you slipped out of the extra bet. You lowered your variance. And improved your EV.

Of course, it isn't particularly smart for someone to buy one of those 8's... :) But then I see players do all sorts of stupid things. For example, at Binions two of us were playing a SD game and the other guy got a 11 against the dealer's 10. He had pondered the decision, and finally said "too much money, I'm not going to double." I said "hey, I'll pay the double for you if you want..." He said "great...". Good for me, stupid for him. Had he gotten an Ace (he got the 10 as the count was up) he would have had to sit on the 12 vs the dealer 10 since he agreed to take only one card, yet by taking the risk of having a lower winning percentage, I was the only one that benefitted. But I see that with some degree of frequency. Funny thing was he wanted to "high-five" me as though I caused him to win, even though I won the same amount on his hand. :)

Ray - Good, concise post, and 100% correct as usual.......G.

Money- For the great majority of players, money does a lot of their thinking
and 88 vs 10 is just one example out of many........................

today i begin to surreder 8 8 vs 10

but i lost four BIG bet in a spilt 6 6 vs 6

Same here. I deal simulated games to myself at home using real cards. Then for review I'll always come on here and practice the hit or stand bonus round, then I'll also do some CVBJ.

Also, my KO method says (and I never looked at this before becaue I can't ever find games that offer surrender) to surrender a hard 16 vs. 10; and a hard 16 (except split 8,8) vs. 9, and surrender a hard 16 vs. A. Anyone know why??

So if surrender is not offered what do you do with 8,8 vs 9, 10, and A?Stand vs. 10 & A, and split only vs. the 9? OR Split all and improve the hand since you can't surrender?

Nickels- If no surrender, the only variation that I know of for 88 vs anything
is stand on 88 vs 10 at +6 or greater. This is from a very good level 2 system.
Otherwise, I suspect the always split recommendation should be followed.

To anyone who wants to answer,

In terms of EV, how does the No-hole-card game that beyond14 plays, compare to our standard Las Vegas Strip 6-deck? (Surrender, DOA, RSA, DAS, S17)

beyond14 said:

but i lost four BIG bet in a spilt 6 6 vs 6

Whats a big bet??

I understand all you have said. :) I just want to know what you feel is a BIG bet?. To me $100 is big...to some $1000 is big.

hi , stain ,early surrender is favourable for player , but in my case
, the casino does not offer the surredner when they got A on table
, so such early surrender is still good for us?

stainless steel rat said:

adds -.11% to the house edge. It is a very small change overall. Main thing is to understand the changes to BS. Everything else stays the same, except for the cases of 10 and A showing. An A showing changes a lot, while a 10 showing is still dangerous for some plays.

When they offer early surrender, it more than offsets the above disadvantage, and can actually make a shoe game a +EV game for BS given the right rules... for example, ES with a dealer A showing is a +.39 change to the EV in the player's favor. Not bad.

Without going into all the mind blurring numbers, 16 against a 10 loses more than twice as much money as 8 against a 10. "More than twice" is the key phrase here. Therefore, it's cheaper to play 8 against a 10 twice than to play 16 against a 10 once.
Now, if you are dealt 8/8 against a 10, you've got a bad hand, but playing 8 twice is is the cheapest way out. If you split and catch a third 8, you hate what's happened to you, but again, re-splitting is cheaper than playing out that 16.
The advice in my book about "pawning off" splits is good advice if you can do it. Nobody however, is going to want to buy one of your 8's against a 10. It's just too glaring of an underdog. But I have pawned off one of my 7's against a 2 or 3 to the player next to me. Since splitting there is a proper basic strategy play, it looks like a moneymaker to most players -- when it is in fact just another "damage control" split. Good visual candidates for this move are 2's, 3's, 6's and 7's against a 2 or 3. They all lose money, even when you split them.
I also try to go halves on somebody else's 9/9 against a 7. It's not the optimal play for the holder of that hand, but 9 against a 7 is a favorite and does make money for anyone who has it. If somebody at your table has 9/9 vs. 7 and hesitates -- as most players will, just say, "I like that split; I'll go halves with you".
For non-card counters, these "hand interaction" plays are their only means of improving their overall EV at the table. They should specialize in them!

can i get more information about

which spilt is favourable to us

and which spilt is lower the lost ?


2 2 and 3 3 vs 7 seems quite big chance to lost both or all

Tribute:
18 vs. 7 is a 70% shot to win. 9 vs. 7 is a 59% shot to win. So if you're the one with the 9/9 vs. 7, you make the most by standing. When another player has 9/9 vs. 7 though, if you can convince him to split and you take one of his 9's, you'll have a 59% chance to win a hand you never would've played.