Table Games "Rule of 45" & Buying Other Player's Doubles

Just read an interesting piece on the 'rule-of-45' & taking advantage of (proper) double-down hands that other players are dealt, but they're scared to double or can't because they're cash-short.

As a refresher, the rule-of-45 has to do with your hard 16 versus a dealer 10. If your 16 consists of 3 cards, and one of those is a 4 or 5 (or if multiple 4s & 5s are already gone), the better play - contrary to "standard" basic strategy - is to stand, not hit.
I personally play this way against dealer 9s as well...
Those 4s & 5s being gone really do reduce your odds of making a hand when hitting 16.

This isn't new to me, but it occurred that many here may not have given it much thought, so that's one reason for the thread.

The other is to discuss the buying of other player's double-down hands.
This is not something I had ever considered, but reading of the math, it is a significant "advantage" play.

Obviously, there must already be some social level of camaraderie between you & the other players, and it must be "OK'd" by your dealer and/or pit... but assuming those things, I really think this would be effective.

Wondering if others have successfully employed this strategy... and, for others, is this something that would annoy you if you were the one who didn't want to double (when you otherwise should be).

 

I just slide the money to the other player and let them make the double bet for me on their hand. As you said, we were already talking and having a good time. Mostly newish players that also needed some help, or had a big bet to them.

Dealers and pit don’t care as long as the player with the hand makes the bet.

 

There have been several times where I have "doubled for others." The others have been complete strangers and I think its always been because they are cash-short and didn't feel like buying in for any more. The other person has never minded and has given me back my bet and the winnings, if applicable.

TC, regarding the "rule of 45, if you are keeping track of the cards, do you know of any instance where you would hit such a hand depending on the count? I think in general you are supposed to stand on 16 vs 10 if the count is at all positive. Seems like it would also depend on whether it was a double deck versus a shoe game as well.

 

Thanks for the info. Never heard of it. A few questions though

Does it matter how many decks you are playing?

Does this apply to YOUR hand only? If you have 3 cards totaling hard 16 but don't have a 4 or 5. But the previous player took a hit and got a 4 or 5. Do you still stand?

Thanks!

 

I double for my friends all the time. I wouldn't with someone I did not know though. Best bet in the casino when your buddy is cash short and you can double his 11 against a 6 for him!

 

I think it's a rule that whenever you double another player's 8 or 9 they'll get a 3 to the 8 or a 2 to the 9 and blame you because then they just would have hit.

 

Thinking about it, another thing comparable in craps is taking odds or placing additional odds for another player who either doesn't have any odds or isn't taking full odds. What is the casino's stance or the etiquette involved in that?

 

One of my best sessions ever at the Bellagio was when another player was stuck BIG, and had no more funds, and every hand was coming up as a double down opportunity. He gladly let me bet his double down, and I was making more money off his hands than on my own hands. The "hard" part is getting the other player to agree to doubling, as stated above, if they only hit because they had no more money, but the double down card allowed them one more "free" hit without busting and the chance to improve their hand, that other player has to realize that it was the proper play anyway, and the result of the hand should not matter as they would have doubled themselves if they had more chips behind.

 

I do, yes.
I play double-deck games 98% of the time.
If I see any combination of two 4s or 5s on the same hand, or if I know that over half of them are gone, I even stand with a 10-6...unless the remaining cards are very "10-poor".

 

That's a great question!
Hypothetically, one could go to a 20x odds table & do nothing but that... look for that guy with no odds, or only single or double odds, and just bet the difference for him.

 

Right. But it's only the proper play because of the double and you're making all of the profit off the double. The player would be better off just hitting (Unless it's your buddy and you share it). If it's someone you don't know you're actually taking away a lot of other ways for him to make a hand.

 

...unless he has 10 or 11, versus a dealer 2 - 6.
Otherwise - yeah - he would have no motivation to take the offer...unless he was doubling for less & you were just making up the difference.

 

Exactly. Why would a stranger allow you to lock up their hand by doubling on a hand they wouldn't, esp with a dealer 7 to Ten showing, when the player could get another card, say a 2 after doubling on a 9, now having an 11, and be stuck without being able to hit on their 11. Who would allow a stranger to lock up their hand like that? Then the next player takes a hit, and gets a ten, which would have given the first player a 21. A causal player in that situation is going let you hear about how your double down cost them (and it did!).

Now if the player isn't doubling down to begin with, then by definition aren't playing proper strategy. So then, even if the dealer say has a 2 or 3 showing, the player might take want (or be justified) taking a second hit on a 12, 13, or 14 or so. Or other downright bad plays. Giving up all this decision making up to "help out" a stranger?

Now to the other point, the "rule of 45". This can only be correct for some instances in single deck, which barely exists any more with traditional rules! The count could be extremely negative despite seeing two or three 4's or 5's on the current hand! Hell, even in single deck with a full table, the count could be negative despite you having a 16 with multiple 4's and 5's in your hand, making a hit the proper play!! What kind of BJ strategy ignores the full count of the shoe based on the cards in player's current hand (and/or ignores other players current hands)? This "rule" must be coming from a very causal board or site.

 

You could, and I've seen it done quietly between players that knew each other, but shouldn't a sensible house prohibit it? 'If you want to make a zero HA wager, sir, you owe us a line bet.'

I've bought Don't Come 6/8s from players that waived off the action, though that depended on the mood of the boxman. But in that case, while I'm the favorite, the house still enjoys the same HA.

 

I wouldn’t even ask another player to double on 8/9s..

11, but only against 4/5/6 as even that may unfairly take an opportunity from that player.

In the rare, drunken times I have asked, I will buy the player a drink and/or make a side bet at minimum for the opportunity.

 

Sort of related to this - was playing recently and a guy had an obvious double (11 vs a 5 or 6). I think he was just playing for $10 or $15 but did not have enough to make the bet. I tossed him a couple reds so he could double and keep the game moving. He does and wins the bet - but just keeps the money. I don't say anything but wonder if he is at least going to pay me back. Probably 20 or 30 minutes later he cashes out and at that point he does give me back what I had tossed to him. He kept the winnings which was fine. Had I been on the other side I would have at least paid the "loan" back immediately - and then at least offered all or a portion of the winnings on the double. Had this guy busted out and left the table with nothing I don't think I probably would have ever seen my $10 .

 

It's discussed in Fred Renzey's Blackjack Bluebook II (most recent edition, 2014). He suggests it applies to single, double, and multi-deck.

 

Wow, that's pretty terrible. I've never given someone chips to double, but early on when I used to buy in for cheap and get short fast, or when I was too scared to double my 11 against a 9 or 10 I let people double for me all the time and always immediately paid them back plus the winnings after the hand was over. I was never upset if I ended up hitting a low card - I just as easily could have denied the double. Plus, there are still plenty of times when it looks like a double has gone wrong, only to see the dealer bust anyway.

 

For the sake of easy math, let's use a single-deck, head-to-head, and you have a 3-card hard-16 with only one 4, a 9 and a 3.
How many value cards give you 17 through 21? That would be 5, or 20 cards total, with 8 that bust you (32 total). Dealer has a 10 showing.
So - you know about 4 cards gone: 10, 9, 4 & 3.
2 of the bust cards and 2 that help your hard-16. That leaves 18 that give you a hand and 30 that bust you. 5-to-3 that your hit will bust you (62.5%).

Now - let's look at a traditional hard-16, Q-6, vs. a dealer 10.
You know about 3 cards gone: Q, 10 & 6. That leaves 20 that give you a hand (40.8%) and 29 (59.2%) that bust you. You have a 3.3% better chance of making a hand then you do with a 3-card hard-16. Hitting or standing with hard-16 is already a nearly 50/50 "correct" play, either way you play it, absent any other information.
You hit with that added 3.3% of not busting.
...or, rather, you stand when your chances of busting are 3.3% higher (with 9-4-3) than "normal".

Now, with all of that said, if you're employing a 'point-count' system, where every value card has it's own value for the count, then - yeah - a very-negative count, despite your 3-card hard-16, might very well indicate that you should hit.
If, on the other hand, you're using a plus/minus count (where 2-3-4-5-6 are 'plus', 7-8-9 are neutral, and 10-J-Q-K-A are 'minus'), then your negative count has ignored 4 of the bust-cards in this situation: 6-7-8-9. ... 30.77% of the cards...

 

I would always hit hard 16 against a 10 or A when surrender not offered.
Then I saw a YouTube by Henry Tamburin a couple years ago and he lists hitting a 3 card 16 against a 10 as one of the top 5 most misplayed hands.
He does not qualify by a 4 or 5 being one of the three cards.
I have got the Stinkeye from several players for standing on a 3 card 16 but I'm stcking with it.