Hi Fred,

Talking someone into taking half of a losing split hadn’t occurred to me, but I would feel guilty about taking advantage of a player who knew less than I – even an obnoxious know-it-all. I vote for unethical on that one.

Buying half of an unfilled double however, is different, as long as the other player is willing. I’ve had too much negative reaction though, when I’ve asked if I could double for another player when he was going to pass it up, since he’d be limiting himself to just one hit with nothing to gain by doing so. Sometimes the others at the table get involved, on that player’s side. In general though, I vote for ethical on the doubles.

Thanks Fred,

I read about hand interaction in your book Bluebook II, and at the time, I knew right away it was a strategy that would not fit in with my personality or playing style. I guess I prefer the more laissez faire style of play.

Hey Fred,

If you’re an advantage player, I see nothing at all wrong with optimizing your EV by making use of the others at the table. It’s no different than wonging in and wonging out, or opening up a second box or taking it out. Each of those moves will have a negative impact on the incumbents at the table, although not for the reasons they expect.

Fred,

Fred,

We are all at the blackjack table to come away with as much of the casino’s money as possible. If we were to add a little extra money by snookering a side transaction, where is the harm? I have many times bought other players’ blackjack hands when they were about to accept even money. I’m sure I am well ahead of the game by making this move. Although I have not yet applied any of the snookering plays you wrote about, I will definitely look into the practice on my next trip.

Hi,

My personal option is to use any winning strategy that is legal. Since you feel sympathy towards your tablemate, you may refrain from affecting his/her earnings. But if he is a recreational player, he will likely lose all his money anyway, so a few percent of the bet can doubtfully affect him. As for an advantage player, he will decline the offer for a "snooker" play anyway, so there’s nothing to lose by either of you.

Dear Sir,

I can see filling in the rest of somebody else’s double for less, because that will in no way affect his own outcome. But as for any other hand interaction ploy that will carry a negative impact on the other player’s EV, I think it’s wrong. People sit down at a blackjack table with the understanding that the enemy is the house. They shouldn’t have to worry about being "sideswiped" by the predator sitting next to them.

Fred,

Making deals at the table with other players is legal. My view is to let each player offer, accept, or reject deals with other players according to their own evaluation of the situation. In most deals of any kind anywhere, both parties usually feel they have something to gain or they wouldn’t make them. Often, somebody’s right and somebody’s wrong. I don’t see this being much different.

Mr. Renzey,

I’ve pondered this rather provocative form of blackjack play at some length. At first, it struck me as just a sharp, effective way to improve one’s bottom line. Then I began thinking, "What about when I have a pair of 8s against a dealer’s 10? It would surely help me to sell one of my 8s to someone, but who would buy it? It’s an obviously bad hand!"

Yet, I might succeed in selling one of my 7s to somebody against a dealer’s deuce. This too, you say is a bad hand, but doesn’t look like it. So the only difference between successfully selling one of my 8s against a 10 and one of my 7s against a deuce is the deceptive wrapping, which makes me feel like a used car salesman.

Then again, why would a player refuse to by an 8 against a 10, but accept a 7 against a deuce, unless it was because he expected to gain a profit on the 7. To do that, he'd have to be willing to cut in on what looked like my own good hand.

This whole strategy seems to bring out the "dog eat dog" in all of us, and I’m not sure I like that.