thomasperfecto
07-30-2006, 06:40 AM
I've just been reading the wikipedia on Blackjack and am now somewhat confused because of it.
Quoted...
"Consider a pair of sevens against a dealer 3. This is actually a losing hand (in the long run it loses more than it wins). Infact even if the sevens are are split, 7 against a dealer 3, is still a losing hand. The split is performed only because 14 loses twice as often than a 7, so in the long run you lose less money by splitting, even though in the short term it costs you an extra bet to perform the split"
I understand that you're supposed to split sevens against a three. But I didn't realise that 14 was dog to a dealers 3. If this is true then why does the strategy not advise to hit with 14 against a 3?
Is it simply becaus hitting will bust you more times than you will lose against a 3?
Does anyone have a link to the research that was done to define these blackjack strategy tables?
Quoted...
"Consider a pair of sevens against a dealer 3. This is actually a losing hand (in the long run it loses more than it wins). Infact even if the sevens are are split, 7 against a dealer 3, is still a losing hand. The split is performed only because 14 loses twice as often than a 7, so in the long run you lose less money by splitting, even though in the short term it costs you an extra bet to perform the split"
I understand that you're supposed to split sevens against a three. But I didn't realise that 14 was dog to a dealers 3. If this is true then why does the strategy not advise to hit with 14 against a 3?
Is it simply becaus hitting will bust you more times than you will lose against a 3?
Does anyone have a link to the research that was done to define these blackjack strategy tables?