Discussion, Griffin book
- Thread starter picasso
- Start date
Yes
1.) The implication is that winning hands are more likely to use good cards, consequently more likely to decrease the count.
No
1.) "... humongous computer simulation of basic strategy play."
BS can be varied assuming it is done correctly. No guarantee that the guy next to you played BS.
2.) He ran the thing for a single deck.
3.) This is irrelevant to card counters.
See #1 above for Yes.
4.) If you're considering "winning" the hand you have at the moment, thus discounting double downs, you might actually have a better chance of winning seeing that you won't bust as often. If you're looking at a win rate, I would imagine that this could easily be negated if not overcome by playing faster.
5.) This focused on a betting strategy. The only ramification that I can think of is side counting results. If told with a smile, the idea would be a joke. If told with a serious face, the speaker would be a joke.
1.) The implication is that winning hands are more likely to use good cards, consequently more likely to decrease the count.
No
1.) "... humongous computer simulation of basic strategy play."
BS can be varied assuming it is done correctly. No guarantee that the guy next to you played BS.
2.) He ran the thing for a single deck.
3.) This is irrelevant to card counters.
See #1 above for Yes.
4.) If you're considering "winning" the hand you have at the moment, thus discounting double downs, you might actually have a better chance of winning seeing that you won't bust as often. If you're looking at a win rate, I would imagine that this could easily be negated if not overcome by playing faster.
5.) This focused on a betting strategy. The only ramification that I can think of is side counting results. If told with a smile, the idea would be a joke. If told with a serious face, the speaker would be a joke.
Last edited:
