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.
Recently I went to a casino where they offered A $5 min bet 8 deck game. They offered a rule that I haven’t seen discussed in the books I own or on this website, from what I’ve seen anyway. The dealer would deal the first card to each player plus herself. If you had a ten or a face card (maybe an ace, but I’m not sure) you had the option to put down an additional bet of up to 5x your original bet. Sometimes this seemed profitable when the dealer showed a 5 or 6, but I didn’t take the offer at all because I figured what I had bet with originally was what I should stick to. It was also a full table and when I got dealt a ten, there were other tens on the table as well, so the count was decreasing. I’ll also note when this occurred for me, the count was never very high. Maybe TC of 3 at the highest, but I kept my sessions short and didn’t get much playing time anyway. My question is this; when is it profitable to take that extra bet after the first deal? The only way I see it really benefitting is if the table is full, and everyone else’s cards increases the count while I still have a ten. Otherwise I just stick with the original bet I put down based on the TC at the time before the deal.
Can the 1-12 bet spread be covered in two hands of a 1-6 where two hands are played only during an advantage count? Any advantages or disadvantages to doing it this way?
It would be nice if we could chose the size of our pot and that if the pot didn’t reset every time we refreshed/reshuffled the deck. Also, if we could fine tune the bets to $1 amounts. Just played a few rounds on the Mobile version and, after a few rounds, it stopped working. The page would refresh only to the point of showing zero cards played, but it won’t show the bet amounts or the Play buttons.
Great article, I had suspected that the “bad player” on third base couldn’t actually screw up the table by not playing basic strategy. I’ve seen dealers even get mad and talk down to players.
I do have a question though, what if your example was on the first hand dealt from a 4 deck shoe? If the dealer has 15 as in your example, that means they wouldn’t bust with a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, and if the dealer got an Ace it would depend on the next card that they got to determine if they busted or not. So cards that would definitely bust the dealer would be 7,8, 9, 10, Jack, Queen, King.
So there are 7 cards that will definitely cause the dealer to bust, and 5 cards where the dealer would definitely not bust, and the Ace is kind of a wildcard as it makes the dealer have 16 and need to hit again.
So in this particular case, if Johnny Clueless hits on his 16 and gets a King, it seems that he has very slightly shifted the odds as the remaining cards in the 4 deck shoe have changed by missing 1 additional bust card.
So assuming only you and Clueless and the dealer got cards, it would be something like 52 cards in a deck times 4 decks in the shoe 208 cards, you have 2 of them, Johnny has 3, the dealer has 2 so there’s 201 cards left.
I understand that this changes the odds to a very minimal degree, and also that if you played thousands of hands the effect would likely be nearly negligible.
But it seems for that one particular hand, with a full shoe, Johnny Clueless could alter the outcome making it less statistically favorable for you by a tiny fraction of less than 1 percent (haven’t actually done the math, if someone else would like to please feel free).
Again, great post, and love the affirmation that, especially in the context of someone playing many hands at a table for a period of time, a bad player isn’t going to mess up your win/lose odds. Will help me be more gracious and kind to these erratic players.
Same math. Yes, if you he takes away a card that would hurt the dealer, the table suffers. But when he instead takes away a card that helps the dealer, the positive effect exactly offsets the negative possibility. The net result is also ZERO effect.
Ken, I still disagree with what you’re saying about ZERO effect. We’re not talking about the Clueless player flipping a coin that has a 50/50 percent probability of being either heads or tails. If there are 7 cards that cause the dealer to bust, and only 6 cards where the dealer will not bust (5 definitely no bust, and the ace could lead to a bust or not, depending on the next card dealt) then the odds are his hitting on 16 against 15 is going to hurt you slightly more than it will help you.
I agree we are probably talking about something minimal like 50.1 to 49.9 percent chance of Clueless’s hit helping or hurting, but I don’t think it’s fair to say ZERO effect.
I would love to see someone run a simulator of 1 million hands played and set the rules for the player on third base to always hit on a 16 when the dealer has a 15. I think there would be a difference for the player on first base versus if the player on third played according to basic strategy. I don’t think it would be a life-changing, significant difference, just something greater than zero.
Although, in the real world, we know that Johnny Clueless probably isn’t going to be completely regular with when he does or does not hit on 16 against 15. Probably will sometimes hit and sometimes not, depending on his “gut” and how much money he has on the table and how many drinks he’s had, lol. So when you’re playing with a real human who is just a wildcard on what decisions they will make, I would agree that it’s probably just as likely for their bad play to hurt you as it is to help you, in the long run.
You’re still not getting it. I’m not saying that his taking a card will help you 50% of the time and hurt you 50% of the time. Not at all.
Indeed, in your example with 7 cards that will make the dealer bust and 6 cards that will make the dealer not bust, he is more likely to hurt your chances. But keep thinking…
With your example, if Johnny doesn’t take a card, the dealer has a 7 in 13 chance of busting.
If Johnny does take a card, there are two possibilities: He takes a dealer bust card (7/13 chance). He has indeed hurt you. The dealer now has a smaller chance of busting (6 of the remaining 12 cards.) He takes a non-bust card (6/13 chance). He has now helped you (and the key is he helped you MORE than when he hurt you.) Now the dealer has an even bigger chance of busting than when we started. (7 of the remaining 12 cards.)
The two effects EXACTLY offset each other, and they will in every possible situation you could describe.
If you can follow the math needed, it is easy to prove.
If Johnny stands, the dealer busts (7/13) = 53.846%
If Johnny hits, we need to add the two possible outcomes together, weighted by Johnny’s chance of each kind of card he may draw. Case 1: Johnny hurts us (7/13), times the dealer’s now-reduced chance of busting (6/12): (7/13) * (6/12) = 26.923% (Yowee, he killed us, right? The dealer is only half as likely to bust compared to if he hadn’t taken that card!) Case 2: Johnny helps us (6/13), times the dealer’s now-INCREASED chance of busting (7/12): (6/13) * (7/12) = 26.923% (Amazing how that worked, eh?)
Add the two cases together: 26.923% + 26.923% = 53.846% In other words, the EXACT same probability of the dealer busting as when Johnny stood.
I cannot explain it any more clearly. I hope you get it.
The article failed to mention caveats to overall strategy, and objective.
I’ll run a negative progression at times. Never by itself of course. That’s stupid. There are ways to MAKE the Casino THINK you’re running negative progression, and actually hide it in something else (No, I’m not giving away everything here).
Regardless, as with any mathematical game, you have to take into account strategy, and objective. Of course, this is taking into account that the individual is not a degen, and is actually going to “work” when they walk into the casino.
You run counting cards, and the rest of your strategy, and you’re up your target amount, plus a little spill over your target. Here … I’ll give you one for free.
Take that SPILL ONLY (and sometimes, if you want every dealer to be in love with you until the end of time, the tip amount) and run your strategy on a strict Martingale. You’ve already made your money. So just run the spill, down to a predetermined kill arena, but run strict negative progression until you hit the new target, or your kill spot is hit.
You __ MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT STRATEGY SPECIFICS __ before throwing around “never’s” and “Dont event think about” ‘s
Blackjack is actually a simple game to beat, with even a rudimentary understanding of differential mathematics; which in my opinion, they should be teaching to 9 year olds.
The Cromwell has made a big push going the opposite direction. Almost entire retail floor is 3/2 shoe and pitch double deck. $10-$15mins normally from what I’ve seen. Maybe up to $25 on the pitch at times but that’s still better than the rest of the strip. Should check it out.
Yes! very much agree with this. I was playing and did something against the rules. this one guy mentioned it, and kept mentioning it, a couple of hands later. as if to say that my 1 decision affected his cards 2-3 hands later. but there were many other events that transpired after my choice to not play the rules. I believe in situational advantages and, in general, play by “the rules.” but to say that my not affects multiple events thereafter is delusional.
No. It’s the basic gamblers fallacy in hitting a losing streak (for any number of reasons, which could be they simply did not play basic strategy correctly; Hitting at 15 when the dealer stands at 6 for example. Or it could be a simple mathematical deviation). Regardless … your theory falls apart on your own premise. NO ONE ELSE MUST BE AT THE TABLE, per your own words.
That’s not something the Casino controls, or can control. It’s what we refer to in Mathematics, as Non-Linear Complexity variables.
Per your own statement, if anyone else walks up to the table during the above statement, the entire necessity of the Casino “arranging the cards” (which in actuality, they’d be allowed to do) falls apart.
Regardless, Blackjack is so stupidly simple to beat if you have the correct math … even using negative progression as part of your overall strategy (and where the above article falls apart … is the author doesn’t account for other strategy specifics … see the comment below)
I agree, their shuffling machine reads the card, so I am suspicious if that in between lines in laws there is a loop hole that they can some how shuffle, that bunch of smalll numbers comes out, so it ruins all your doubles and splits! Also, Golden nugget that hand shuffle, they change their cards every two hours, I think the way the shuffle, there is a same math to it, and as soon as cards gets shuffle we’ll, two hours cards change comes!
I Agree, though when the True Count hits a minus 2 or 3, it is tempting If I am at a high limit table, over 200 , I would leave with a TC of minus 2, However. On occasion negative counts win,
I think they do. I have witnessed 10 small cards come out in a row and dealers don’t bust. I have also witnessed every player having 20 including the dealer. I think this is due to lack of shuffling. No wonder they allow basic strategy charts. Cards are not coming out random as they should to make the game fair.
With 6 and 8 deck shoes counting cards is not as easy as it used to be , not impossible , but difficult and anyone who can count into a 6 or 8 deck shoe has more than a grade 12 education. I have played this game for over 40 years using basic strategy which I never stray from and when you start losing a few hands in a row its time to get up and leave with your winnings intact and try again later
Recently I went to a casino where they offered A $5 min bet 8 deck game. They offered a rule that I haven’t seen discussed in the books I own or on this website, from what I’ve seen anyway. The dealer would deal the first card to each player plus herself. If you had a ten or a face card (maybe an ace, but I’m not sure) you had the option to put down an additional bet of up to 5x your original bet. Sometimes this seemed profitable when the dealer showed a 5 or 6, but I didn’t take the offer at all because I figured what I had bet with originally was what I should stick to. It was also a full table and when I got dealt a ten, there were other tens on the table as well, so the count was decreasing. I’ll also note when this occurred for me, the count was never very high. Maybe TC of 3 at the highest, but I kept my sessions short and didn’t get much playing time anyway. My question is this; when is it profitable to take that extra bet after the first deal? The only way I see it really benefitting is if the table is full, and everyone else’s cards increases the count while I still have a ten. Otherwise I just stick with the original bet I put down based on the TC at the time before the deal.
would it have better meaning in the training excising if there were moor then you playing against the dealer
When you surrender, it doesn’t show you the dealer’s down card. In a casino environment, they show this card.
Can the 1-12 bet spread be covered in two hands of a 1-6 where two hands are played only during an advantage count? Any advantages or disadvantages to doing it this way?
It would be nice if we could chose the size of our pot and that if the pot didn’t reset every time we refreshed/reshuffled the deck. Also, if we could fine tune the bets to $1 amounts.
Just played a few rounds on the Mobile version and, after a few rounds, it stopped working. The page would refresh only to the point of showing zero cards played, but it won’t show the bet amounts or the Play buttons.
Great article, I had suspected that the “bad player” on third base couldn’t actually screw up the table by not playing basic strategy. I’ve seen dealers even get mad and talk down to players.
I do have a question though, what if your example was on the first hand dealt from a 4 deck shoe? If the dealer has 15 as in your example, that means they wouldn’t bust with a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, and if the dealer got an Ace it would depend on the next card that they got to determine if they busted or not. So cards that would definitely bust the dealer would be 7,8, 9, 10, Jack, Queen, King.
So there are 7 cards that will definitely cause the dealer to bust, and 5 cards where the dealer would definitely not bust, and the Ace is kind of a wildcard as it makes the dealer have 16 and need to hit again.
So in this particular case, if Johnny Clueless hits on his 16 and gets a King, it seems that he has very slightly shifted the odds as the remaining cards in the 4 deck shoe have changed by missing 1 additional bust card.
So assuming only you and Clueless and the dealer got cards, it would be something like 52 cards in a deck times 4 decks in the shoe 208 cards, you have 2 of them, Johnny has 3, the dealer has 2 so there’s 201 cards left.
I understand that this changes the odds to a very minimal degree, and also that if you played thousands of hands the effect would likely be nearly negligible.
But it seems for that one particular hand, with a full shoe, Johnny Clueless could alter the outcome making it less statistically favorable for you by a tiny fraction of less than 1 percent (haven’t actually done the math, if someone else would like to please feel free).
Again, great post, and love the affirmation that, especially in the context of someone playing many hands at a table for a period of time, a bad player isn’t going to mess up your win/lose odds. Will help me be more gracious and kind to these erratic players.
Same math. Yes, if you he takes away a card that would hurt the dealer, the table suffers. But when he instead takes away a card that helps the dealer, the positive effect exactly offsets the negative possibility. The net result is also ZERO effect.
Ken, I still disagree with what you’re saying about ZERO effect. We’re not talking about the Clueless player flipping a coin that has a 50/50 percent probability of being either heads or tails. If there are 7 cards that cause the dealer to bust, and only 6 cards where the dealer will not bust (5 definitely no bust, and the ace could lead to a bust or not, depending on the next card dealt) then the odds are his hitting on 16 against 15 is going to hurt you slightly more than it will help you.
I agree we are probably talking about something minimal like 50.1 to 49.9 percent chance of Clueless’s hit helping or hurting, but I don’t think it’s fair to say ZERO effect.
I would love to see someone run a simulator of 1 million hands played and set the rules for the player on third base to always hit on a 16 when the dealer has a 15. I think there would be a difference for the player on first base versus if the player on third played according to basic strategy. I don’t think it would be a life-changing, significant difference, just something greater than zero.
Although, in the real world, we know that Johnny Clueless probably isn’t going to be completely regular with when he does or does not hit on 16 against 15. Probably will sometimes hit and sometimes not, depending on his “gut” and how much money he has on the table and how many drinks he’s had, lol. So when you’re playing with a real human who is just a wildcard on what decisions they will make, I would agree that it’s probably just as likely for their bad play to hurt you as it is to help you, in the long run.
You’re still not getting it. I’m not saying that his taking a card will help you 50% of the time and hurt you 50% of the time. Not at all.
Indeed, in your example with 7 cards that will make the dealer bust and 6 cards that will make the dealer not bust, he is more likely to hurt your chances. But keep thinking…
With your example, if Johnny doesn’t take a card, the dealer has a 7 in 13 chance of busting.
If Johnny does take a card, there are two possibilities:
He takes a dealer bust card (7/13 chance). He has indeed hurt you. The dealer now has a smaller chance of busting (6 of the remaining 12 cards.)
He takes a non-bust card (6/13 chance). He has now helped you (and the key is he helped you MORE than when he hurt you.) Now the dealer has an even bigger chance of busting than when we started. (7 of the remaining 12 cards.)
The two effects EXACTLY offset each other, and they will in every possible situation you could describe.
If you can follow the math needed, it is easy to prove.
If Johnny stands, the dealer busts (7/13) = 53.846%
If Johnny hits, we need to add the two possible outcomes together, weighted by Johnny’s chance of each kind of card he may draw.
Case 1: Johnny hurts us (7/13), times the dealer’s now-reduced chance of busting (6/12): (7/13) * (6/12) = 26.923% (Yowee, he killed us, right? The dealer is only half as likely to bust compared to if he hadn’t taken that card!)
Case 2: Johnny helps us (6/13), times the dealer’s now-INCREASED chance of busting (7/12): (6/13) * (7/12) = 26.923% (Amazing how that worked, eh?)
Add the two cases together: 26.923% + 26.923% = 53.846%
In other words, the EXACT same probability of the dealer busting as when Johnny stood.
I cannot explain it any more clearly. I hope you get it.
What is the “google play” title to this app?
The article failed to mention caveats to overall strategy, and objective.
I’ll run a negative progression at times. Never by itself of course. That’s stupid. There are ways to MAKE the Casino THINK you’re running negative progression, and actually hide it in something else (No, I’m not giving away everything here).
Regardless, as with any mathematical game, you have to take into account strategy, and objective. Of course, this is taking into account that the individual is not a degen, and is actually going to “work” when they walk into the casino.
You run counting cards, and the rest of your strategy, and you’re up your target amount, plus a little spill over your target. Here … I’ll give you one for free.
Take that SPILL ONLY (and sometimes, if you want every dealer to be in love with you until the end of time, the tip amount) and run your strategy on a strict Martingale. You’ve already made your money. So just run the spill, down to a predetermined kill arena, but run strict negative progression until you hit the new target, or your kill spot is hit.
You __ MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT STRATEGY SPECIFICS __ before throwing around “never’s” and “Dont event think about” ‘s
Blackjack is actually a simple game to beat, with even a rudimentary understanding of differential mathematics; which in my opinion, they should be teaching to 9 year olds.
The Cromwell has made a big push going the opposite direction. Almost entire retail floor is 3/2 shoe and pitch double deck. $10-$15mins normally from what I’ve seen. Maybe up to $25 on the pitch at times but that’s still better than the rest of the strip. Should check it out.
Yes! very much agree with this. I was playing and did something against the rules. this one guy mentioned it, and kept mentioning it, a couple of hands later. as if to say that my 1 decision affected his cards 2-3 hands later. but there were many other events that transpired after my choice to not play the rules. I believe in situational advantages and, in general, play by “the rules.” but to say that my not affects multiple events thereafter is delusional.
No. It’s the basic gamblers fallacy in hitting a losing streak (for any number of reasons, which could be they simply did not play basic strategy correctly; Hitting at 15 when the dealer stands at 6 for example. Or it could be a simple mathematical deviation). Regardless … your theory falls apart on your own premise. NO ONE ELSE MUST BE AT THE TABLE, per your own words.
That’s not something the Casino controls, or can control. It’s what we refer to in Mathematics, as Non-Linear Complexity variables.
Per your own statement, if anyone else walks up to the table during the above statement, the entire necessity of the Casino “arranging the cards” (which in actuality, they’d be allowed to do) falls apart.
Regardless, Blackjack is so stupidly simple to beat if you have the correct math … even using negative progression as part of your overall strategy (and where the above article falls apart … is the author doesn’t account for other strategy specifics … see the comment below)
I agree, their shuffling machine reads the card, so I am suspicious if that in between lines in laws there is a loop hole that they can some how shuffle, that bunch of smalll numbers comes out, so it ruins all your doubles and splits!
Also, Golden nugget that hand shuffle, they change their cards every two hours, I think the way the shuffle, there is a same math to it, and as soon as cards gets shuffle we’ll, two hours cards change comes!
Is one thousand hands long enough?
Really stupid to split a 20…ever. Sometimes may get lucky in the end lose your money
I Agree, though when the True Count hits a minus 2 or 3, it is tempting If I am at a high limit table, over 200 , I would leave with a TC of minus 2, However. On occasion negative counts win,
I think they do. I have witnessed 10 small cards come out in a row and dealers don’t bust. I have also witnessed every player having 20 including the dealer. I think this is due to lack of shuffling. No wonder they allow basic strategy charts. Cards are not coming out random as they should to make the game fair.
With 6 and 8 deck shoes counting cards is not as easy as it used to be , not impossible , but difficult and anyone who can count into a 6 or 8 deck shoe has more than a grade 12 education. I have played this game for over 40 years using basic strategy which I never stray from and when you start losing a few hands in a row its time to get up and leave with your winnings intact and try again later