Double for less? Never say never

Doubling is an essential part of blackjack strategy. When the player has the advantage, it lets him get more money on the table and, in the long run, win more or lose less.

To many players, doubling feels aggressive, so they don't always do it. In fact, failing to double when you should isn't conservative, it's wasteful, because in the long run by winning less than you should you are reducing your return from the game.

One way players deal with a reluctance to double when they know they should is by doubling for less. Conventional wisdom is that this is never the right thing to do because it takes away part of the long-term gain you get from doubling when you have the advantage.

But, a few weeks ago, I saw a possible reason to double for less. This incident illustrates one of the things that makes blackjack so interesting to me. It is more than a mathematical exercise; it is played by human beings with quirks and foibles, and what they do is sometimes unexpected and mysterious.

I was playing a double-deck game, dealt face down, at a downtown Las Vegas casino. The gentleman at third base was betting two hands, usually at two, three or four times the minimum bet.

At one point this guy decides to double one of his hands for less. The dealer calls out "doubling for less," which is common practice. Among other reasons, this makes it tough for the player to claim later that he had doubled for the full amount and is owed more than he was paid.

Some time later -- as best as I could see -- he was playing two hands and on one of them, doubled for less -- two units on a three-unit bet. The dealer didn't call it. After the hand was over, she had lots of bets to pay off, which she did quickly. Again, as best as I could see, this guy was paid three units for his two-unit "double." No one said anything.

I can't even be sure I saw what I thought I saw, and I certainly can't say whether this guy intentionally doubled for less. The fact that he had doubled for less before did lead me to believe he did it again.

If I saw what I thought I did, it raises an ethical question: Should he have taken the money? The law in Nevada is clear that players are not responsible for dealer mistakes and are not obligated to point them out or return the money.

This incident suggests that a blackjack player could add to his income by doubling for less when dealer payout mistakes are likely. Whether he's comfortable doing so is something every player must decide for himself.