Down if the hand cannot be busted by the DD card, but exposed if the hand busts. I do not think it is fair for the action of a DD to force improper strategy by following players if the hand is busted. Have the dealer check the down DD card in much the same way they used to check for tens or aces before the mirrors. Expose the card if it busts the hand. (i'Ve been in one casino's tourney's that do this and it is great, especially when someone doubles on hard 19, the dealer checks, and then places the card down{in play}.)
Fred,
The scenario you describe is something that will randomly happen to all players equally - you need to double and you benefit from having the outcome hidden. As such, I'd say it is neither a good nor a bad thing.
The true benefit will come from finding and exploiting situations in which you can choose to double (usually for less) when you normally would not. If you do this and others do not, then you gain an advantage in the long run.
London Colin said:I think we essentially agree, but ....
My point was that you don't gain any overall advantage from the face-down DD card unless you vary your strategy in some way to exploit it. Otherwise, for every occasion on which you benefit from its effect, there will be a corresponding occasion when the roles are reversed.
London Colin said:So the difference that you were pointing out to stretch seems like a bit of a red herring. It hurts you as often as it helps you (unless, for some reason, you find yourself acting first a disproportionate amount of the time).
London Colin said:I didn't vote in the poll. I like the face-down DD as part of the overall UBT package, but I don't think it can be evaluated in isolation. I'm not sure I would want face-down DDs without the ability to DD for less. The secret bet is another factor, but I don't think that is as important.
Interesting. I was limiting my thinking to the ways in which the DDer can benefit from hiding his actions, but what you seem to be pointing out is that, paradoxically, someone on the receiving end of this uncertainty can actually benefit, by virtue of dealing with it better than others do.Now the other players betting next have to figure out what the probability of the DD on the stiff is and how that relates to the probability of BRL winning versus losing. In the past the result was evident and obvious and eliminated that uncertainty. Red herring – I don’t think so. Uncertainty factor introduced? Absolutely