Assault on a Native store

Just recently I observed a team operating inside an Indian casino. They used a different approach, I think. Their strategy was to use two players at the table but only one would play the shoe for a black off the top. If the count was severely minus, then that player would stop and another player would be called in to finish the remaining shoe betting quarters. However, one particular shoe provided a real spectacle. As I was counting along with them, the shoe got to about +10. At that point a new player came to the table and put down a minimum bet at 3rd base. Immediately, the player who had been sitting out put a max bet on 1st base. The active player spread to two hands for the max. The dealer shows a deuce, the 1st baseman has 33 and the guy in 2nd base has 6,4 and 5,4 respectively. I know and the 1st baseman knows he is going to double-down. The player in 1st seat balks for the longest time, acting like he's undecided about the right move on his 33s. Finally the pit boss begins to lose patience and starts demanding that he act on his hand. So he says he'll split his hand. "Fine", says the boss. "Indicate it by using a hand signal." Well, the player doesn't signal, he just sits there. Then he starts complaining about the third player getting in and how he's only betting the minimum while he has the max out. Then ensues some sort of heated argument about casino policy, and this guy's acting really upset and unhappy. Utimately the pit boss tells the player to act on the hand or it will be called off! But the player remains undeterred. Remarkably, his entire bet was pushed out of the betting circle! The 2nd baseman doubled on the first hand and caught and ace. On the second hand, he caught a ten. The guy in 3rd base had a natural. Dealer drew and broke. Can't really figure out if this was a professional team or an aspiring amateur team. Anyway, it was interesting and I was glad to see he refrained from pulling out a pair of jockey shorts and sliding them over his head. It was my understanding they hit this particular store for $50K+ over a 3 day period.

Why did you just stand there and back-count with such a high count. Why didn't you grab a spot or two and bet a large chunk yourself with the count being so high?

I also don't understand why the guy with 3/3 didn't split.???

if he could have the bet undone the way he did? It's a negative ev play so his way was much better.

when is splitting 3/3 against 2 a neg. EV at +10 when there is DOA2?

I realize that with hind-sight drawing an ace and a 10 would not be so great. However, not so sure if Ace/3 is negative EV with 2 showing.

Sorry - forgot to take the +10 into account. Splitting 33 off the top of the deck is a negative EV, my bad.

EV for splitting 33 vs 2 in a 6D, S17, DOA, DAS, RSA 0, RSP4 game is -0.13326, it is slightly better than hitting which has an EV of -0.14218

The reason I didn't jump in and play with a such a high count is because it would be contrary to my modus operandi. This casino knows I only play single and double deck games. I never want to draw unnecessary attention to myself by doing something the casino might consider to be unusual or abnormal.
About the player not splitting 33s. I thought about this for some time. It could be that one player was counting while the other was shuffle-tracking aces. This theory would tend to hold weight because only one player would play the shoe at a time unless the count became extremely high. Plus the fact that they were taking time out for consultations during the shoe. So maybe they really were professionals although they tried hard to pass themselves off as high-rollers.

What if the count was +10, is the EV better against the 2?