Question on Gambling (Blackjack)

[CraigSca]

I don't consider myself an expert on blackjack, although I do know the proper strategies and I do occasionally dabble in card counting. Unfortunately, unemployment, two kids, and a 2,000 mile plane ride have seriously dented my Las Vegas action . However, I'm going to throw the question out there anyway...

I am a thoroughly analytical guy. Don't give me hunches, assumptions, etc., give me real data to back up your assertions. I have a few books on the strategies behind blackjack and the various methods to limit the casino's advantage to < 1%. I can deal with the mathematics behind it all, but one thing I've always questioned: A lot of the books suggest that you take your time, scout particular tables and find one that is a winner. Sit down, start playing and, if the table starts running cold, find a new one. I'm not sure this makes any sense. If the game is truly based on chance, is there really such thing as a hot or cold table? Isn't it the same as getting heads 5 times in a row when flipping a quarter? I can see where the count could be so poor you may want to limit your bets in the current shoe, but that doesn't mean the "table" is cold. Is there any mathematical truth to a hot or cold table, or is it purely in the book for the psychological effects?

The only thing I can THINK they are saying is that the dealer shuffle isn't truly random, and therefore a cold table remains cold -- I think this is dubious at best.

Any thoughts?

[rkmsuf]

It's the same logic behind a hot or cold slot machine...none.

[JHandley]

I would attribute a table going hot or cold to the level of the other players at the table. Sorta like a poker player going on tilt, if you get one or more players suddenly taking chances they shouldn't because they believe they are due, then the rest of the table could suffer.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by JHandley

I would attribute a table going hot or cold to the level of the other players at the table. Sorta like a poker player going on tilt, if you get one or more players suddenly taking chances they shouldn't because they believe they are due, then the rest of the table could suffer.

How so? If you are counting it makes no difference. If you are not counting I fail to see how it makes a difference whether Joe next to me takes a card of not. Doesn't change my odds significantly...

[JHandley]

If the other players are taking the bust cards for the dealer, then your odds do stay the same, however, it just makes your odds of hitting or staying the same. At the same time, it helps prevent the dealer from busting.

It was the only scenerio that I could come up with that would explain why you would look for a hot or cold table. Mathematically, there is no logic behind it.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by JHandley

If the other players are taking the bust cards for the dealer, then your odds do stay the same, however, it just makes your odds of hitting or staying the same. At the same time, it helps prevent the dealer from busting.

rkmsuf has it right above. someone taking a bust card from the dealer only changes the probability of the dealer getting a bust card marginally. If you are not counting, and playing a 6-8 deck shoe, the change in probability is insignificant.

[QuikSand]

The only thing that makes any sense if is the advice isn't really focusing on the "table" but rather on the "shoe" -- implicitly saying that it might make sense to play if the count is right. But that's something you ought to learn while playing at the table for a while (since the shoe change) and not by wandering around looking.

Sounds like one more piece of bogus gambling advice to me.

And of course, the decisions of the other players at the table have nothing to do with it.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

The only thing that makes any sense if is the advice isn't really focusing on the "table" but rather on the "shoe" -- implicitly saying that it might make sense to play if the count is right. But that's something you ought to learn while playing at the table for a while (since the shoe change) and not by wandering around looking.

Sounds like one more piece of bogus gambling advice to me.

And of course, the decisions of the other players at the table have nothing to do with it.

But counting cards essentially tells you that the shoe is about to go opposite of the way it has been going, doesn't it? If there are been a lot of 10's and A's out of the shoe already, the remaining deck is bad for the player, but presumably the players have been doing well. If a lot of 5's are gone, the dealer should have been doing well so far, but the remaining cards in the shoe set up well for the player.

This begs the question, is it ethical for casino operators to write books giving gambling advice beneficial to the house?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Samdari

But counting cards essentially tells you that the shoe is about to go opposite of the way it has been going, doesn't it? If there are been a lot of 10's and A's out of the shoe already, the remaining deck is bad for the player, but presumably the players have been doing well. If a lot of 5's are gone, the dealer should have been doing well so far, but the remaining cards in the shoe set up well for the player.

I can't disagree with you -- it's just that the only way to justifiably say that one table is better than another is based on the card count. Period. Yes, the logic is reversed from what was described above, I agree.

Bottom line is that there is plenty of "advice" in print from any number of sources that is simply untrue. I don't have any idea whether any or it comes from the gambling houses -- it probably doesn't have to. Some guy who writes about about how to beat the roulette table will make his money by selling the book - he doesn't care whether people win or lose (he can't afford to care abotu that, since they will lose).

[Maple Leafs]

Sounds like a classic case of the gambler's fallacy.

Unless they're bringing psychology into it. We've all played cold tables (in any game) and realize the bad vibe that comes with that. Could that cause a player to make bad decisions? Probably, which may be where they're going.

(However, you could make the same argument for a "hot" table clouding judgement, so again it's probably a non-starter.)

[Franklinnoble]

You should read this:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...simmons/040409

[rkmsuf]

Is there a cliff notes version?

[QuikSand]

It's worth it. Good stuff.

[panerd]

Taking the bust card is the biggest mathematical fallacy that people seem to actually beleive in. It is like beleiving that the change of stickman or new dice actually cause a '7' to come up. People just never notice when a crappy player happens to take a low card and actually cause the dealer to bust. Now don't get me wrong I don't enjoy playing with people who split King's or hit on soft 19, but they have absolutely zero effect in the long run on whether you will win or lose. And if a 'casino rat' ever sits at your table and starts telling war stories about all of his bad blackjack beats, ask him why he continues to play a game where his long term expectation is to lose.

[CraigSca]

I agree, everyone remembers when the guy next to you hits on 13 against a dealer 5, and gets the 10 you needed on your double-down. It's all about selective retrieval, no one remembers the incorrect play that actually pans out for you.

As far as hot and cold tables, it sounded bogus to me, and I was just wondering if I was missing something. Again, the only thing I can see is clouded judgment from losing consecutive hands at a cold table...

-Craig