Is doubling down worth it?

admiral_mcraven_2: Doubling down is worth it, but only on the hands where the math says so, and your 11 vs 6 was one of them. You had the right move, you just hit the wrong card. That's variance, not a bad decision.

The dealer with a 6 up busts over 40% of the time, and with an 11 you can't bust on your draw, so you're risking one extra bet to capture a big edge. Over a hundred hands, that double wins you money even if it lost you that one. The problem isn't the move, it's that you're judging it on a single result.

The videos you're watching show doubles failing because they're highlights, not because the move is wrong. On a small bankroll, though, you have to be honest about what you can afford. A 2000 kr roll means you shouldn't be doubling on borderline hands like 9 vs 2 or A-7 vs 10, where the edge is thin and a couple of losses wipe you out.

Stick to the clear spots: 10 or 11 against a dealer's 5 or 6. That's where the edge is fat enough to justify the risk. And check the table rules before you play.

If it pays 6:5 on blackjack or the dealer hits soft 17, some doubles flip to hits, and that's where people lose money thinking they're following the chart. You didn't play wrong. You played right and lost.

That happens. The trap is letting one bad beat convince you the math is a lie.

oddvar_66: The dealer busts 35% of the time with a 5 or 6 up, and with 10 or 11 you win more often than you lose, so you're risking one extra chip to capture that edge. Losing players double on stiff totals or against high dealer cards, which turns a small loss into a big one. On soft 18 vs 10 you hit, not stand.

That's the first thing people get wrong about this. The golden rule is protecting your bankroll by only making bets with positive expectation. On 2000 kr, you can't afford to double on 9 against a 6, even if the math is fine on a 3:2 table.

It's suicide on a 6:5 table or a gafling shoe. The answer depends on house rules and your bankroll, but doubling adds about 0.2% to your hourly EV per correct double. The thing that catches people out is doubling on 10 against a dealer's 10 is correct when the dealer stands on all 17s, but flips to a hit when they stand on soft 17.

Learn one move against the wrong rules and you're giving the house 1.5%.

admiral_mcraven: I doubled on A-8 against a dealer 5 at a blackjack table at Bergen airport, got a 2 and won, but I realised later that basic strategy says stand on A-8 vs 5. I played it wrong and still won. Don't take a win as proof that a bad move is good.

hakon_1982: For the standard Norwegian rules where the dealer stands on soft 17, I doubled down 11 times in one session at Galleri Oslo casino with a 10 against a dealer's 10 and won 7 of them. Not because I got lucky, but because I had count+2 and the shoe was 3:2 remaining. The people who tell you 'never double against a 10' are playing a different game.

I worked as a blackjack dealer in the 90s and I've doubled on 9 against a 3, which is the borderline case, and it works out long-term at about 52% win rate. That's worse than doubling on 10 against a 6, which is 68% win rate, but it still has positive EV. It's not about whether you win that hand, it's about whether you win over 100 hands.

The 'when not to double down' crowd is full of people who have never seen a counter flag a dealer's soft 17 hole card. On soft 18 vs 10, you are correct to hit, not double, and that is the move that separates people who know the chart from people who understand the math. The statistically best way to win blackjack is to stop treating double down as a special power and treat it as exactly what it is: a price tag on the right to draw one card, and when the price is right you pay it.

senator_mccain: For me, the golden rule is never double down without checking the dealer's card first. I lost 1500 kr in an hour at a casino in Hamar by doubling on 10 against a dealer's Ace, which is the worst double you can make, and I've seen a friend lose 4000 kr doing the same thing while playing drunk. You can hit 10 against an Ace, that's fine, half the cards make you 20 or 21 and the other half make you 12 or 13 and you're stuck.

But if you double, you're committing yourself to a draw that can never improve you if you catch a face card. The people who say 'blackjack is basically 50/50' have never sat through a pack of 10s against a dealer's 6. It's about the dealer's bust odds, which are 42% when they show a 5, and that number is what makes doubling so good on stiff hands.

When not to double down? When the dealer shows an Ace and you have a hard 11. That's the one I never touch, because the dealer has blackjack 31% of the time and you've already lost before you draw.

stig_02: I played at the Casino at Sjølyst for a year and doubled down on soft 18 against a dealer's 10 twice and lost both times, which is exactly why I now hit instead, even though the chart says double on A-8 vs 6 only. If the dealer stands on soft 17, the worst thing you can do to your bankroll is double down on 9 against a 2. I checked the basic strategy chart and it says hit, and I lost 600 kr testing it.

You should never double down on 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16. Those are the stiff hands where you're just giving the house extra money to bust the dealer, and the chart says hit or stand, never double. The golden rule I use is: never double down when you have a totaled hand below 17 unless the dealer has a 5 or 6 showing, because then the dealer will bust 42% of the time and you're just buying into that.

Is it better to hit or double down? It's better to double down when you have 10 or 11 and the dealer shows 2-9, because you're at the peak of your strength and the dealer is at the peak of their weakness. Otherwise, hit.