How nice of you to identify yourself as the "rube" described in the original post :)
I actually never used to split tens even when it was correct because it was a red flag (that's why the dealer shouts out to the pit boss "splitting tens!"), with otherwise correct play, that I knew what I was doing -- but it sounds like you weren't going to stay still long enough for them to figure that out, so in that situation, it may not only be correct, but OK to do as well (but part of successful card-counting IS avoiding detection -- perhaps the hard part -- and therefore sometimes calls for avoiding very unusual plays, especially if they're still fairly "close" decisions).
When I played blackjack (very) seriously, a good friend of mine, who also understood and had learned card counting and correct strategy, was constantly irritated by the bad play of others, especially if they sat at "third base" and thus directly affected the dealer's cards by their play (obviously, they must have known what was coming and not been smart enough to do the right thing). His avoidance of "hunches" and adherence to good strategy was totally contradictory to his superstition about the third base player. No logic I guess.
Remarkably, while he was and is intelligent, I could never convince him that the net effect of bad (or good) play by any other player in any position at the blackjack table is zero (unless you want to discuss someone taking too many cards and thus "using up" the ones you expected to be coming, for example in a ten-rich deck).
If anyone complained that my own "unusual" (translate: correct if you know what you're doing, especially if you're counting and know you should vary from basic strategy) plays at blackjack were messing up his game, I would offer him the opportunity to pay me my bet plus my expected win (or sometimes just my bet + 10%) and then I would gladly play the hand as they would direct (after all, my correct play rarely had a 10% EV, under the best of circumstances). No one ever took me up on it -- guess they felt I should do what they wanted and suffer the consequences myself :)
My favorite part was making the offer when I KNEW I was going to do something the other guy thought was "wrong" -- then, when they declined and I went ahead as appropriate, they thought I was making "bad" plays just to irritate them.
Eventually my "bad play" and the request for them to pay me to play the way they wanted would solve the problem -- via their departure from the table -- there are always other tables -- and I never minded playing with fewer players at the table -- my positive EV for the game translated into more hands (for me) and more $$ per hour with fewer players at the table.
You see the same problem at the poker table with some players who know what's correct (and they may even be right) and who don't (for some reason) want other players to make bad plays -- someone makes a bad call with a weak hand and then sucks out to win the hand, and his opponent berates his bad play ("how could you make such a bad call??") -- while it is indeed unfortunate, I always need to remind that player that he/she wanted to be called by a weak hand, he/she just didn't want the weak hand to achieve the low-percentage suck-out and win. And if I get them aside, I also remind them that if they keep telling them every time they make a bad play, pretty soon they won't do it anymore.
It's even more entertaining when someone calls their big bet bluff (holding nothing) with a weak hand, and the bluffer loses -- again "how could you make that call, don't you know that a bet that size means I have a monster hand? You should have folded!!!" -- when I'm asked this myself, I'll simply respond something like "oh, I didn't know that 10 high was a monster hand".
Of course, poker is different than blackjack, in that doing well at poker relies on other players being inferior, while at blackjack, if I'm good at what I'm doing, it doesn't matter if the other players at the table are even better -- they'll win more than me, but we'll all win. Unfortunately for me, that's not the case at poker.
--BG
==================
> 3c. Re: More on Bill Zender
> Posted by: "007" 007@embarqmail.com
> mdmgyn
> Date: Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:59 am ((PDT))
>
> That it's based on a misconception doesn't stop a blackjack
> player
> from feeling its effects. I jumped into a single deck
> game at
> Harrah's Tahoe once, probably after 1 or 2 rounds had been
> dealt after
> the shuffle. On my first hand, the count was high
> enough to split
> tens, which I did, the dealer ended up with 21, and, since
> the dealer
> was then going to shuffle, I left. It wasn't
> appreciated by the other
> players.
>
> But I disagree that no one here would believe it.
> Many people do. It
> takes some effort to think past misconceptions like that,
> which not
> everyone has done.
>
> ma18ks wrote:
>
> >This paragraph is a joke, right? No one in the
> forum would have the audacity to spout this kind of ploppy
> BS and actually mean it.
> >
> >--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com,
> Rprosdc <rprosdc@...> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I am sure I am not the only person who
> occasionally finds him or herself at
> >> a table populated by a group that has been playing
> together for a number of
> >> shoes, developed a rhythm and comeraderie, and to
> its delight finds itself
> >> in the middle of a warm or hot shoe ... when all
> of a sudden some rube plops
> >> down and makes an outlandish bet or play that
> effectively the tables' luck.
