Bush wants to "Double Down" with a pair of 3s

[edhopper]

The idiocy of what they are calling Bush's "bold double down" strategy.
For all here who don't play blackjack, when you're dealt a pair of Aces or Tens, you double your bet because the odds are you will have two winning hands. So you take a bigger chance.
Bush wants to double down with a pair of 3s. Which would basically increase the odds of losing twice as much.
Hard to think of a stupider thing to do.

[MurrayDelph]

1. I've been thinking of it as

Doubling down on 16 when the other side has a ten showing.

You are almost definitely going to lose, so risk you risk losing more.

[givemebackmycountry]

2. Nice Premise but it's wrong

What you described above is a "split"

A double down is when you are dealt two cards that add up to 9,10 or 11.
Such as a 9 and a 2.
Or a 7 and a 3.
Or a 8 and a 3.
THEN you "double down".

Well, you get the idea.

A split is when you are dealt two tens or two aces.

Although most dealers will look at you like your a complete ass when you do this.
Why take a winning hand and ruin it?
Unless your playing single or double deck Blackjack, and you can do some basic card counting.

[edhopper]

9. Right you are, my bad.

So he is doubling down with a 2 and a 3. Still an asshole move.

[rurallib]

3. Well it's not like he's playing with his own money

or for that matter with his own kids' lives. All Bush has on the line is his reputation and we all know what his reputation is worth. If he loses no one will think the worse of him. How could they? Most already think he's the worst leader of ALL time

[TahitiNut]

4. Remember, though, he's not betting his own money.

Any paradigm that implies he's risking anything of his own (or of his "base's") would be a false paradigm, imho. He's more like a stock broker who's telling (greater fool) clients to buy MORE of a stock that's falling ... calling it a "bargain" and collecting the commissions.

[kenny blankenship]

5. This Bush move is more like "double or nothing"

That is, asking for a rematch at double stakes, after you've already lost your bet once.
I used to say Bush is doubling down back when they launched that catastrophic attempt to "clear" Fallujah. It seemed to me that the bet was lost and that re-attacking Fallujah was a do-over that was bound to infuriate even more Iraqis than before. I was using the term "doubling down" incorrectly--it's double or nothing. If this rematch "surging troop levels" fails, our enemies in Iraq will see us truly defeated. We won't withdraw gradually if this doesn't work but all at once. The insurgents' sense of victory over us will be doubled. If surging isn't a catastrophic failure, about the best it will accomplish is a temporary calm in which Iraqis still hate our guts and want us out of their country yesterday, and Shi'ite and Sunni militias still have scores to settle--in other words we get "nothing", we just get back to the status quo ante before Baghdad erupted into a deathsquad Disneyland.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Unfortunately (for Bush) the dealer (the insurgents) already have blackjacik.

The "war" is already lost. No matter how he shuffles the troops and his "decisions" the war will remain lost.

[whistle]

7. Bush the gambler who doesn't know shit from Shinola ....

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/114000.html


<snip>
Do We Really Want to 'Double Down' in Iraq?
by Mike Pesca

<snip>
But "doubling down," is not just upping your bet, as even a beginning blackjack player knows. It's when the player doubles his bet in exchange for one -- and only one -- card. The best cards to double down with add up to 11, just because there are more 10s and picture cards in a deck than any other cards. And of course getting 21 is the name of the game in blackjack.

There are two conditions, both of which must be met, to make doubling down the smart bet.

First, the odds must be in the player's favor. There is no reason to double your bet if you are not staring down a positive outcome. The second condition is that you must not have a possibility of busting. Don't double down if you could lose.

<snip>
There is one blackjack term that could very well apply to the war in Iraq. If the player has terrible cards, say a 15 or 16, and the dealer is showing a 10 or ace, some -- not all -- casinos allow the player to take back half his bet.

Sure, you give up the chance of hitting a lucky card, and you also do lose some of your bet, but you don't lose everything.

The military probably does not want to adopt this terminology, though. Depending on whether the decision is made before or after the dealer checks his down card, this option is known as either Early or Late Surrender.
<MORE>

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6630562

[PsN2Wind]

8. More like "all in"

with a busted flush.

[edhopper]

10. And of course,

we must not forget that the MSM will keep portraying this as a BOLD MOVE.

[Marr]

11. It's arrogant, not "bold". It's moronic, not "aggressive". It's stubborn,

"not steadfast".

I can't stand the way our big media dresses up these disgusting positions.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. You should never double-down

Aces or 10s.

You should, though, split Aces.

And you shouldn't ever split 10s, nor double-down.

And there ARE many cases where you do split 3s.

But otherwise a good metaphor.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

13. "Scared money never wins". Besides, they never define "victory".

[KansDem]

14. This is just another attempt to eat up time by appearing to do something...

while more lives are lost and $$$ spent.

It's pathetic...