Here are all the comments posted on the site, with the most recent discussions listed first. To participate in any of these discussions, you can reply on the article page.
Yes, in one deck, the effect of removal is quite substantial. Consider what card you would most like to draw if you hit this hand. A seven. And you already have two of the four available sevens in your hand. So stand with (7,7) vs Ten is correct. ONLY in single deck.
Well written, but you display either an extremely limited knowledge of how card counting works or are deliberately attempting to mislead less knowledgeable players. I noticed that you mention playing online several times and provided a direct link to one particular online casino.
It’s true that, with index play, you have more information available for playing the 2nd hand and beyond. However the benefit of the extra information is not even close to enough to overcome the house edge, and you certainly should not be doubling your bet on each subsequent hand. This is a recipe for disaster.
Hi Gronbog, thanks for the kind words and critique. My purpose wasn’t to teach counting, simply to relate a self-taught system fraught with errors and the inevitable results. All I did back then was count Ten cards and Aces so I had a feel for how many were left – like using 1/3 of the simplest possible strategy and I didn’t assign a value to the Tens or any other cards. I think it was a case of knowing just enough to get in trouble. It worked okay as long as the deck got smaller with every deal, not so much when reshuffled between hands. Sorry I wasn’t more clear.
3-5 seats playing single deck: Well, maybe you’ve given me that little prod I needed to do the maths to determine EV for hands 1 through 5 playing single deck. With those numbers, I’ll be able to establish a range of optimal bet increase for each hand, based on known cards.
I can see I wasn’t super clear on “I simply bet ‘more’, usually doubling the wager on each hand.” There is no potential disaster in betting $10 on #1, $20 on #2, $40 on #3, etc. Agreed, those numbers aren’t in line with the odds, of course, each successive seat isn’t x2 as likely to win as the last, but as long as the highest bet is within bankroll limits there’s no harm – Not optimal to be sure, but it’s never brought me ruin. Anything you can do to chip away at the HE is a good thing!
I encourage you to do the math. A simulation is actually what is required. You will find that none of the spots you are betting on will ever have a positive edge, even if you were to apply full indices while playing. So the optimal bet for each is zero. Having a less negative edge on each successive spot is not a reason to increase your bet.
If the principle of your strategy was sound, then you would be better off finding a full table and simply flat betting the last spot. Your would have the maximum amount of information available to you and would never have to bet on a spot with a negative edge. This is, of course, not a valid approach. If it were, we would all be literally fighting one another for that last spot.
With respect to the potential disaster of doubling your bet on each spot, going from $10 to potentially $640 on the final spot, the harm is that will, over time, lose the house edge multiplied by the total of your bets. Betting more on the later spots will only increase the rate at which this will happen. It’s not clear what you mean by “brought to ruin”. For most, it means having lost enough that you quit playing for good. Perhaps you have a large bankroll, or perhaps you replenish it from another source, such as a job. If you have been playing for as long as you imply however, then it is extremely unlikely that you’re in the black.
Perhaps I’m still missing the point of your blog post. I’m hoping that the next post will say that this was one of your biggest early mistakes. But it feels like you’re leading up to a claim that this is a winning, long term strategy.
This Trainer is a waste of time. Poor design and features. Never in my life have I seen so many 21’s on the dealer side and automatically once you start to win your completely wiped out. Ridiculous programmer stupid trainer for idiots. The advice give is mostly wrong.
6 deck, S17, das, early surrender, peek Is all the surrenders something new? Just haven’t seen this before, surrender on hard 5, 6, 7 vs dealer A etc. Thanks
Sorry you don’t enjoy it. I like it and beat it a lot. I like how it mimics a deck without replacement. I wish it allowed multiple players and allowed the possibility of playing multiple spots. I love it. Sincerely, The Milk Man
Does anyone have an answer. I have gotten from 32 to 512. I feel the answer is 128. Does anyone have the right answer. This has been going back and fort with a few people for several days and can’t believe the answers I’m getting. Please respond. Thanks
If you don’t see patterns in how the cards come out of the deck, then you aren’t paying enough attention. And if you don’t know the precise mathematical reason for the valuations assigned by the authors of this game to the J,Q,K, then you can’t really speak intelligently about this particular game.
If you don’t see patterns in the cards coming out of this deck, then you’re just not paying enough attention. It goes both ways, if you are pre-disposed (conditioned?) to dismiss any possibility beyond random. then I guess recognition skills need not apply – grin. And if you can’t rightly say why the authors of this game designated the values of the J,Q,K as 10’s, mathematically speaking, it’s hard to see how one can speak intelligently to this game. But that’s just me.
1 deck, S17, DAS, No Surrender, Peek
Chart is instructing playing to stand on 7,7 vs the dealers 10???? I don’t see how this can be correct? Is it?
Yes, in one deck, the effect of removal is quite substantial. Consider what card you would most like to draw if you hit this hand. A seven. And you already have two of the four available sevens in your hand. So stand with (7,7) vs Ten is correct. ONLY in single deck.
Well written, but you display either an extremely limited knowledge of how card counting works or are deliberately attempting to mislead less knowledgeable players. I noticed that you mention playing online several times and provided a direct link to one particular online casino.
It’s true that, with index play, you have more information available for playing the 2nd hand and beyond. However the benefit of the extra information is not even close to enough to overcome the house edge, and you certainly should not be doubling your bet on each subsequent hand. This is a recipe for disaster.
Hi Gronbog, thanks for the kind words and critique. My purpose wasn’t to teach counting, simply to relate a self-taught system fraught with errors and the inevitable results. All I did back then was count Ten cards and Aces so I had a feel for how many were left – like using 1/3 of the simplest possible strategy and I didn’t assign a value to the Tens or any other cards. I think it was a case of knowing just enough to get in trouble. It worked okay as long as the deck got smaller with every deal, not so much when reshuffled between hands. Sorry I wasn’t more clear.
3-5 seats playing single deck: Well, maybe you’ve given me that little prod I needed to do the maths to determine EV for hands 1 through 5 playing single deck. With those numbers, I’ll be able to establish a range of optimal bet increase for each hand, based on known cards.
I can see I wasn’t super clear on “I simply bet ‘more’, usually doubling the wager on each hand.” There is no potential disaster in betting $10 on #1, $20 on #2, $40 on #3, etc.
Agreed, those numbers aren’t in line with the odds, of course, each successive seat isn’t x2 as likely to win as the last, but as long as the highest bet is within bankroll limits there’s no harm – Not optimal to be sure, but it’s never brought me ruin. Anything you can do to chip away at the HE is a good thing!
I encourage you to do the math. A simulation is actually what is required. You will find that none of the spots you are betting on will ever have a positive edge, even if you were to apply full indices while playing. So the optimal bet for each is zero. Having a less negative edge on each successive spot is not a reason to increase your bet.
If the principle of your strategy was sound, then you would be better off finding a full table and simply flat betting the last spot. Your would have the maximum amount of information available to you and would never have to bet on a spot with a negative edge. This is, of course, not a valid approach. If it were, we would all be literally fighting one another for that last spot.
With respect to the potential disaster of doubling your bet on each spot, going from $10 to potentially $640 on the final spot, the harm is that will, over time, lose the house edge multiplied by the total of your bets. Betting more on the later spots will only increase the rate at which this will happen. It’s not clear what you mean by “brought to ruin”. For most, it means having lost enough that you quit playing for good. Perhaps you have a large bankroll, or perhaps you replenish it from another source, such as a job. If you have been playing for as long as you imply however, then it is extremely unlikely that you’re in the black.
Perhaps I’m still missing the point of your blog post. I’m hoping that the next post will say that this was one of your biggest early mistakes. But it feels like you’re leading up to a claim that this is a winning, long term strategy.
It is not.
Well Gronbog, it turns out that any benefit in betting more with each seat is very slight. Hardly worth doing the maths. Thanks for your comments!
Perfect work you have done, this web site is really cool
with superb info.
This Trainer is a waste of time. Poor design and features. Never in my life have I seen so many 21’s on the dealer side and automatically once you start to win your completely wiped out. Ridiculous programmer stupid trainer for idiots. The advice give is mostly wrong.
6 deck, S17, das, early surrender, peek
Is all the surrenders something new? Just haven’t seen this before, surrender on hard 5, 6, 7 vs dealer A etc.
Thanks
What’s the difference between early and late surrender?
Early surrender is vs a dealer T or A *before* they check for blackjack — extremely valuable.
Late surrender is *after* they check.
This trainer is a joke.
Sorry you don’t enjoy it. I like it and beat it a lot. I like how it mimics a deck without replacement. I wish it allowed multiple players and allowed the possibility of playing multiple spots. I love it.
Sincerely,
The Milk Man
I have been asking this question. How many blackjacks can be made in an 8 deck shoe?
Does anyone have an answer. I have gotten from 32 to 512. I feel the answer is 128. Does anyone have the right answer. This has been going back and fort with a few people for several days and can’t believe the answers I’m getting. Please respond. Thanks
Not complicated. There are 4 Aces per deck, times 8 decks. That’s 32 possible blackjacks.
Don’t think that’s correct. Just one deck. 4 Aces and 4 Tens (picture cards + 10) =16 different ways to get 21.
4 aces x 4 (10)=16 per deck. So 8 decks x 16= 128. So again is that correct or not. Some people have come as high as 512.
If you don’t see patterns in how the cards come out of the deck, then you aren’t paying enough attention. And if you don’t know the precise mathematical reason for the valuations assigned by the authors of this game to the J,Q,K, then you can’t really speak intelligently about this particular game.
If you don’t see patterns in the cards coming out of this deck, then you’re just not paying enough attention. It goes both ways, if you are pre-disposed (conditioned?) to dismiss any possibility beyond random. then I guess recognition skills need not apply – grin. And if you can’t rightly say why the authors of this game designated the values of the J,Q,K as 10’s, mathematically speaking, it’s hard to see how one can speak intelligently to this game. But that’s just me.