Ping: Blackjack Players

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by cartman

You are assuming a single deck situation, when most of the time there are 6 to 8 decks in play. The number of decks greatly changes the odds.

Another way to look at it is you are depending on the dealer to bust when you have A-9 and then double down. There is only one card (A) that can help you improve, a bunch of cards that keep you at the same level (Faces and 10s) which can be bust cards for the dealer, and the rest lower your position.

He is also leaving out the unknown dealer card.
Most blackjack formulas *I think* assume a worst case, i.e. dealer has a pocket face card, lowering your odds a minor amount.

Butt moreover the formula is designed to maximize won hands not maximize dollars won.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I believe the golden rule (at least mine anyways) is that you never mess with a very strong hand (like A-9). Same reason you don't split face cards.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Adding up all the win expectancies I get 61.41, making this a sure double situation. Where is my error?

I haven't checked your math or anything, but isn't your error in assuming that 61% makes this a "sure double" situation? Are you perhaps forgetting the cost of the second bet to double down? Calculate your EV for one $100 bet if you stand and for two $100 bets if you double down. I think you're substantially better off standing pat on a nearly sure win than chasing a modestly likely double win here.

[Toddzilla]

I actually tried a version of this playing roulette and betting on the 3:1 payouts. I developed a progression of bets based on the payout so that I increased my bet only the smallest amount necessary to recoup my previous losses plus one more. I actually did pretty well for the first day or two. Day 3 resulted in the QS-illustrated "oh shit" demonstration.

[flere-imsaho]

A somewhat related question, but aside from giving the player an advantage, is there another specific reason why casinos don't let players count cards?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

A somewhat related question, but aside from giving the player an advantage, is there another specific reason why casinos don't let players count cards?

There is no rule banning the counting of cards, but the rule allowing casinos to deny entry to anyone for any reason trumps all.

[Maple Leafs]

However, there is a rule against counting cards with another player, or otherwise co-operating at the table.

You might be able to get a slight edge by counting cards by yourself, but it will be easy for the dealer to notice and you can be politely asked to leave. If you want to really make money you probably need to work with a partner, and that's how you wind up talking to a nice man in a soundproof room.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

A somewhat related question, but aside from giving the player an advantage, is there another specific reason why casinos don't let players count cards?

No, that is the exact and only reason why they don't. It means that the player has an edge and will take money from the casino.

[hhiipp]

Your worst enemy at the table usually isn't the dealer, but an idiot who doesn't know the basics of the game.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by hhiipp

Your worst enemy at the table usually isn't the dealer, but an idiot who doesn't know the basics of the game.

Is this really true or just a perception? It seem that of all the times I see a "bad play" when the dealer has a 16 (for example), half the time it is a guy splitting 10s and and eating up bust cards, and the other half it is a guy hitting a 15 and grabbing a 5 from the deck to make the dealer bust. Have there been studies to show how players playing right are affected by those playing wrong?

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by hhiipp

Your worst enemy at the table usually isn't the dealer, but an idiot who doesn't know the basics of the game.

This is a gripe of mine, and why I won't play sometimes. I mean the attitude people give towards the people that don't play by the book. Sometimes I feel like hitting on a 14 when the dealer is showing a non-face card. Don't get all pissy with me when I do it. I see the first and lat seats at a table free often, and I'd guess it's because people "have to know what they're doing" to play from there?

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by hhiipp

Your worst enemy at the table usually isn't the dealer, but an idiot who doesn't know the basics of the game.

It's been proven that mathematically, it doesn't matter what other clowns at the table do, however it does take a toll psychologically, so it is usually best to get up and leave if there is some moron there.

[Lathum]

IT is very frstrating when someone makes a stupid play, but it doesn't really make a difference.

And it is their money to lose.

My wife is hesitant to play at times for fear of making a bad play and someone yelling at her.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Lathum

My wife is hesitant to play at times for fear of making a bad play and someone yelling at her.

Oh yeah, sorry about that.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by cartman

Oh yeah, sorry about that.

well she would yell back at YOU

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Lathum

well she would yell back at YOU

Your wife yelling at me on one side, and then a psychotic dealer attacking my chip stack with her plastic bill-pusher-down-the-slot thing made for an eventful table.

[Lathum]

nice

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by hhiipp

Your worst enemy at the table usually isn't the dealer, but an idiot who doesn't know the basics of the game.

There are definitely tons of idiots around these tables.

[hhiipp]

While it may not be proven mathematically. Dealer shows a 4 if you stand on 13 the next person then hits on 13 and they bust with 23 and the dealer then pulls a 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 or any combination that nets them between 17 and 21, their bad play did in fact effect your outcome.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by hhiipp

While it may not be proven mathematically. Dealer shows a 4 if you stand on 13 the next person then hits on 13 and they bust with 23 and the dealer then pulls a 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 or any combination that nets them between 17 and 21, their bad play did in fact effect your outcome.

And if that idiot pulls a 7 followed by the dealer pulling a 10 for a 24?

[Passacaglia]

Wow, just when you thought this thread was over. The fact that this is a more common misperception makes this tangent come off like a bad sequel, though.

[hhiipp]

I didn't mean to start this into another jbmagic portion of the thread.

Personally what it boils down to for me is I'd rather lose straight up to the dealer because the cards fell their way than to have a player pull the dealers bust card on a 'bad play', someone not playing by the general rules, and then have the dealer beat me. Psychologically it's a different type of defeat.

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by hhiipp

I didn't mean to start this into another jbmagic portion of the thread.

Personally what it boils down to for me is I'd rather lose straight up to the dealer because the cards fell their way than to have a player pull the dealers bust card on a 'bad play', someone not playing by the general rules, and then have the dealer beat me. Psychologically it's a different type of defeat.

Ok, fine. So what do you think about the psychological "wins" you get when bad players make plays that end up 'helping' you (note that there is NO factual argument that can be made this won't happen every bit as often as bad plays hurting you).

[hhiipp]

I feel relieved. The couple of times I've been to casinos if a person didn't understand how to use the hand signals to signify hit or stay after 2-3 hands I walk away in order to avoid possible frustration to come.

While in Windsor a few weeks ago a smoking hot chick sat down with her very average friend, and while I would have loved to just sit there and stare at her jumbliees it was obvious that neither of them had a clue what was even going on. So after a few hands of gawking I politely got up, took a walk around the casino, and went back to the same table when they had lost all their money.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by hhiipp

Psychologically it's a different type of defeat.

If you had started with "no, I realize it doesn't mean anything to my ability to win or lose, I just find it tough to deal with" then we wouldn't all be salivating over the idea that we have another aspiring jb in our midst. But if you really want to insist that the game's actual odds change based on other people's play... please, by all means, entertain us.

[gstelmack]

If everyone is supposed to play exactly correctly by some perceived set of rules, then why play at all? Couldn't you just shuffle the deck, have it tell everyone how much money they won or lost, and then shuffle again? At least that way you could win or lose all your money much faster and get on to something else.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Somehow, I don't quite understand the "psychological defeat" concept in blackjack. Not to say that losing isn't frustrating (in my limited experience, I've never won a hand of blackjack in my life), but I don't see how the frustration can affect your play. If you're playing by using a set of rules or basic strategy or whatever, those are still easy and concrete rules to follow no matter how many hands you've won or lost. I can see it in poker because the action around you is fluid and your decisions can change based on certain situations. With blackjack, though, if you're savvy enough to think that someone else at the table made a "bad" play, then you know what your "correct" play is, right? If you're all geared up to play blackjack for two hours, for instance, what benefit is there to getting up and finishing your session later? Assuming you use the same strategy and the table structure is the same, it's not like your chance of winning is going to be different later.

I admit that I may be missing something.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

If everyone is supposed to play exactly correctly by some perceived set of rules, then why play at all? Couldn't you just shuffle the deck, have it tell everyone how much money they won or lost, and then shuffle again? At least that way you could win or lose all your money much faster and get on to something else.

Exactly. Let me play the game how I want to play it.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I admit that I may be missing something.

You are not.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

If everyone is supposed to play exactly correctly by some perceived set of rules, then why play at all? Couldn't you just shuffle the deck, have it tell everyone how much money they won or lost, and then shuffle again? At least that way you could win or lose all your money much faster and get on to something else.

They have that game, it's called baccarat.

[albionmoonlight]

This isn't news, but a lot of gamblers like to think that they are somehow controlling games of pure chance. That's why Baccarat players take all those notes, and why roulette players like those boards showing what numbers have been hitting, and why craps and blackjack players like to talk about "hot" and "cold" tables.

But it is all, of course, bullshit. If you have fun getting free drinks and losing your money at a 1%-5% rate, then go to Vegas and play the table games. I enjoy them a fair bit, myself. And, if it is more fun for you to keep detailed notes on how the dice are rolling in craps, then please go ahead. I am sure that the casino will even lend you the pencil.

But you are being a tool when you make other people feel bad for not playing "your" way.

[Crim]

This is going to be a long (measured in linear feet due to quotes, not measured in my own witty contribution) post, but it must be said:

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Awesome Strategy = How The Casinos Can Build Those Magnificent Edifices and Still Afford To Serve Free Booze

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Do you understand the difference between these two phrases? I'm thinking that you don't.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Okay, while it's admittedly more fun just to keep poking sticks at jb... here's a link that does a very nice job debunking the (very, very old and still just as flawed) Martingale betting system that he's advocating here:

hxxp://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/bettingsystems-martingale.html

In short, while it seems like a pretty small chance that you will run out of bets to make to get back to that small win -- the chance of getting there and actually losing a lot outweighs the actual benefit of the tiny wins that you do achieve with this betting system.

You basically end up with a long series of results that look something like this:

+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
-1280
(oh, fuck)

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Please stop.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I assure you it is not my game. But at least I'm aware of that fact.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I'm now sorry for my continued contributions to the thread at this point. Either I am up against:

- a guy who revels in his complete cluelessness, making any honest efforts totally pointless (in that case, best of luck to you jb)

or

-an alias address who enjoys tweaking this forum (and others) and has dedicated an absolutely enormous amount of time to doing so (in that case, well done, yuk yuk, fuck you)

Originally Posted by QuikSand

This thread is becoming a free-for-all now.

What would really be great would be if we could all get together, connect all our computers to a lot of other ones, and be able to do research and actually find out about this sort of thing. You know, some kind of inter-network system that people like us could use to actually learn what is actually correct, rather than just spouting off on what we think might be correct. That would be so cool... then stuff like this wouldn't even have to happen.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

There are definitely tons of idiots around these tables.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

If you had started with "no, I realize it doesn't mean anything to my ability to win or lose, I just find it tough to deal with" then we wouldn't all be salivating over the idea that we have another aspiring jb in our midst. But if you really want to insist that the game's actual odds change based on other people's play... please, by all means, entertain us.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

They have that game, it's called baccarat.

While jbmagic has clearly earned some sort of award with his performance in this thread, props to QuikSand for a transcendant supporting role. Well done as usual, QS.

[Lathum]

bump

cartman made me do it, plus it's proof I know how to use the search feature

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by Lathum

bump

cartman made me do it, plus it's proof I know how to use the search feature

Although, sadly, he was searching using the phrase "Elisha Cuthbert Pussycat Dolls salivating psychotic".

[albionmoonlight]

Everytime someone starts a post in a gambling thread with "[w]hile it may not be proven mathematically," an angel1 in Las Vegas gets its wings.


1One of those Cirque du Soleil angels.

[Toddzilla]

QS is the wind beneath my wings...

[flere-imsaho]

I'm glad someone bumped this as it brought a smile to my morning.

[Coffee Warlord]

Just....wow.

So we're sitting at work talking about gambling. Got to blackjack. Guy next to me...

"You know how you win at blackjack? You bet one, you lose, you double it, you lose, you double that. When you win, you just put that extra aside. That's how you make money."

[MJ4H]

I have prayed for this thread to show back up.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Just....wow.

So we're sitting at work talking about gambling. Got to blackjack. Guy next to me...

"You know how you win at blackjack? You bet one, you lose, you double it, you lose, you double that. When you win, you just put that extra aside. That's how you make money."

Holy Crap, did you even try and explain it to him?

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Holy Crap, did you even try and explain it to him?

I didn't have the heart. I told him that was an excellent way to lose everything and his only response was, "The Israelis (clients) taught us that!"

S'okay. This is also the guy who thinks he knows horse racing.

[Toddzilla]

Take him to that riverboat near St. Charles and watch the fun...

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by jbmagic

Best to stick with one color when doing that double strategy in Roulette. This way your not jumping around picking a color.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Please stop.

this is my favorite part

[MJ4H]

why on earth would anyone want that to stop?

[Lathum]

so my wife and I are out with another couple Friday night, my wife and the other lady work together. I know the husband OK, chat in passing at work functions, been skiing with them, stuff like that.

So we are talking gambling and we start talking about roulette. He tells me he only bets the outside and has a great system that he never loses at. You can imagine the rest...

[flere-imsaho]

[cartman]

Bringing this epic thread back for a more serious discussion.

I was in Vegas a couple of weeks ago, and saw a new game called 'Blackjack Switch'. It allows you to play two hands, and if you'd like, switch the second card dealt to each hand between the hands. Seems like easy money, right? But there's a catch. Blackjacks are only paid even money, and if the dealer gets a 22, then all hands push. I'm very leery of these new games, as they all seem to have a huge house edge.

But this one appears to only have a 0.2% house edge. But to get to that, there is a ton of math involved around the proper times to switch the cards.

hxxp://wizardofodds.com/blackjackswitch

The strategy once the switch decision is made is straightforward, but the math behind the switch decision is mind numbing. That is a lot to memorize and keep track of. But I like a challenge!

I'm heading back out to Vegas at the beginning of October, and probably will give this a shot between time at the poker tables. Anyone have any first hand experience with this variant?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Okay, while it's admittedly more fun just to keep poking sticks at jb... here's a link that does a very nice job debunking the (very, very old and still just as flawed) Martingale betting system that he's advocating here:

hxxp://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/bettingsystems-martingale.html

In short, while it seems like a pretty small chance that you will run out of bets to make to get back to that small win -- the chance of getting there and actually losing a lot outweighs the actual benefit of the tiny wins that you do achieve with this betting system.

You basically end up with a long series of results that look something like this:

+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
-1280
(oh, fuck)

Originally Posted by jbmagic

You better sticking to something else. if you lose that many hands in a row. Blackjack might not be your game.

I'm not sure if I missed this the first time around, or just forgot about it. Awesomeness.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I'm not sure if I missed this the first time around, or just forgot about it. Awesomeness.

yeah, one of the best posts in FOFC history

[QuikSand]

Having yet another occasion to look back on this thread, I find myself reading it -- especially my own contributions -- sort of like a football team and coaching staff going over our own game film.

Oh, I can't believe he actually said that...you have to correct that... okay, that was good... all right, I think you got it right that time... NO WAY... okay, now try to talk him down...yes, yes, yes... WTF???....Hmm, maybe it's time to try a different approach... Wow, this guy is a brick... I give up... wait, no... No, I'M ALL IN NOW...

Anyway... thread just delivers, no matter what.