Question of the Day - 26 April 2024

Actually, we've never answered this question before. It's a good one.

Since you modify "sense" with "mathematical," the answer is no. When basic strategy calls for a double, you'll win more hands than you'll lose, so why get chintzy when your expected result is to beat the dealer? You reference card counting, but that doesn't come into play; no count-based strategy variations call for doubling for less.

That said, sometimes other factors are involved. For example, if you don't have enough chips to double for the full amount, doubling for less is usually better than not doubling at all. We say "usually," because there are cutoff points at which your reduced double bet is too low in relation to the original wager.

For example, with something like 10 vs. a dealer 9 with a $20 bet and only $2 left to double with, you're better off hitting to preserve the option to hit again. You could work these numbers out with the charts in the appendices of Don Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack 3, but there's not much value in having that information.

So doubling for less is never the best play for maximizing the expected return on a hand; however, here are two reasons to do it. The first is as a cover play. In Radical Blackjack, Arnold Snyder points out the value of doubling for less in certain situations — e.g., 12 vs. 2 (you'll hit the hand only once regardless) — as an effective form of camouflage.

The second is in tournament play. Especially near the end of a round, doubling for less can be used effectively to put you in the lead without risking more chips than you have to. 

Finally, some players of our acquaintance like to try to buy other players' double downs when they want to double for less, but those situations come up rarely and can get messy when they do.