Dumbest thing I've heard said at the table

[sagefr0g]

..........
I'm sure if you saw someone hit a 10,2 vs 4 in an 8D game, u'd be screaming at them for making the "wrong" play. But, in that case, you'd be "wrong" by maybe 1/10000 of your bet (I think!).
........

lol, that is a classic statement. not sure on your mathematical accuracy there but the statement has IMHO shrouded with in it one of the key elemnents of understanding needed for those who dare to play blackjack.

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

Sorry for explaining - I just thought when you said "its just that i cant believe in like 5 books i didnt see that talked about once.. im guessing the reason why is because its a really really small difference, but from now on are you saying i should stand if my hand is a 3+ card 16?" that you hadn't heard too much about it.

And, by the way, the difference in gain in 1-2 decks of employing comp-dependent strategy, while more than in shoes, is still very small.

But one girlfriend's "huge" is another's "very small" lol.

I don't even know what a ploppy is. If anything I think you're a young guy trying to learn more about BJ. Nothing wrong with that.

im 23, and i know a shitload more than i should for my age, trust me on that.. and btw, for single deck, the house edge can be cut in HALF by using composition vs total.. thats not a small margin to me.. i consider going from a .5 to .4 house edge a large reduction (if thats not large to you, then i guess $100/hr compared to $120/hr isnt large either)

The term "ploppy" was coined by author Frank Scoblete. This is his what he says:

"To set the record straight, a ploppy is a moron with an attitude. A ploppy is a fool. A ploppy usually looks like what he or she usually is -- something even a cat would think twice about dragging in. Ploppys come in all shapes and sizes (often quite strange actually) and, while most of them have low IQ's, some could be bright in a technical way. I have met ploppy doctors, ploppy lawyers, ploppy teachers, ploppy politicians, ploppy book reviewers. But generally speaking, the ploppy population is at the lower end of the bell curve of intelligence, often at the lower end of this same curve in manners, comportment, fashion, and hygiene. Ploppys usually travel alone but when they travel in mated pairs they are a sight to behold and a scent to smell. No one reading this book is a ploppy because by definition, ploppys don't read books about blackjack. They have their own strategies."

 

[Kasi]

and btw, for single deck, the house edge can be cut in HALF by using composition vs total

Don't think so. Just my opinion.

But feel free to share any sources or calculations your statement is based on.

Glad to know a ploppy is a moron with an attitude - thx.

BTW, a decrease from .5 to .4 is a 20% decrease, so, maybe not $100 vs $120. (not that losing only $96/hr vs $120/hr really thrills me that much.)

But I didn't learn that until I was at least 25 or 30.

 

[ChefJJ]

The term "ploppy" was coined by author Frank Scoblete.

If you go by what Scoblete says, you should be an excellent AP (LOADING ON THE SARCASM).

good luck

 

[aslan]

This really has nothing to do with strategy just an overall consensus...

What are some of the dumbest thing you hear either the ploppies or dealers say?

Some lines that I hear on a regular basis that put people on a brain function level comprable to Terri Shiavo:

"A Push is a Win"

"It's a good idea to insure a 20 because if they dealer doesn't have blackjack chances are you win."

"Sure you won that hand by standing on 14 against a dealer 10, but now you've messed up the cards."

"Always split A's and 8's."

"Sure I lost $500 but at least I got a free buffet."

Last week a older man told me, "I just play Blackjack to relax. My real game is roulette." I asked him what his system was for playing roulette. He said he didn't have a system, he just played a lot of numbers.

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

Don't think so. Just my opinion.

But feel free to share any sources or calculations your statement is based on.

Glad to know a ploppy is a moron with an attitude - thx.

BTW, a decrease from .5 to .4 is a 20% decrease, so, maybe not $100 vs $120. (not that losing only $96/hr vs $120/hr really thrills me that much.)

But I didn't learn that until I was at least 25 or 30.

you dont think so? http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/house-edge-calculator.html that is my source.. it actually cuts it more than half
125 vs 100, 100 vs 96, 120 vs 100.. all the same

If you go by what Scoblete says, you should be an excellent AP (LOADING ON THE SARCASM).

good luck

whats wrong with scoblete? just because he invented the speed count? he is very smart (ive read a lot of books tho, so i may be getting confused, but i do know that a lot of authors talk about him)

 

[ChefJJ]

whats wrong with scoblete? just because he invented the speed count? he is very smart (ive read a lot of books tho, so i may be getting confused, but i do know that a lot of authors talk about him)

You can definitely form your own opinion on the guy, but I think he's pretty damn near a fraud...he's got ways to win at any game! The speed count isn't the only thing.

 

[zengrifter]

You can definitely form your own opinion on the guy, but I think he's pretty damn near a fraud...he's got ways to win at any game! The speed count isn't the only thing.

Scoblete's 'Best Blackjack' is a solid book. He's a good promoter, I wouldn't consider a fraud. zg

 

[waveslider]

Heres a good one

over 100 hours at blackjack and over 100 hours at jacks or better video poker (which i also used a strategy sheet for, which is a lot larger than a blackjack chart)

Casinos were built on not hitting sixteen.....

Heard this said this once.............

100 hours is just a little neg variance makeup work on a bad weekend!

 

[waveslider]

Off Topic

Where is/are the indice(s) for doubling in a neg count?

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

You can definitely form your own opinion on the guy, but I think he's pretty damn near a fraud...he's got ways to win at any game! The speed count isn't the only thing.

of course, look at any blackjack author, and he will have one even on slots (usually a "beat the casino" general type book), that doesnt mean his information on good games are bad.. think about it, how many gamblers play slots? 60%? way more? ok so why not make a book on slots? i like this guy named john grochowski, and he has several books on all the games, but he is very smart and will tell you flat out in the book that you cant beat slots without comps (even that is mostly of a lie), but those books can actually be books on why not to play those games, it just doesnt seem like it.. he is just try to make money, but at the same time he knows a lot.. not sure how that makes som1 a fraud, but in an extreme case, if a mathematician robs a bank, he is still smart (in math that is!)

Where is/are the indice(s) for doubling in a neg count?

i would like to know the negative count for doubling on a 15

 

[Kasi]

you dont think so? http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/house-edge-calculator.html that is my source.. it actually cuts it more than half)

Thanks Bob. I appreciate that.

My only guess is maybe his "optimal" return might be based on composition-dependent strategies up to 9-10 cards.

And why he chose to assume a cut-card in his "realistic" return, rather than a BS return, I don't know.

Anyway, take a look at the Wiz's Appendix 15, I think it is, and he lists alot of comp-dependent returns versus total-dependent returns. I don't think any are over a .0004 difference and never close to half I don't think. But maybe it's based on only up to 6-card comp-dependent hands or, perhaps, more real-world rules than one is likely to encounter in SD. Just a guess.

Anyway, have fun trying to reconcile some of his stated returns there with his calculator.

I'm not a big fan of Scolbete either, fwiw.

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

Thanks Bob. I appreciate that.

My only guess is maybe his "optimal" return might be based on composition-dependent strategies up to 9-10 cards.

And why he chose to assume a cut-card in his "realistic" return, rather than a BS return, I don't know.

Anyway, take a look at the Wiz's Appendix 15, I think it is, and he lists alot of comp-dependent returns versus total-dependent returns. I don't think any are over a .0004 difference and never close to half I don't think. But maybe it's based on only up to 6-card comp-dependent hands or, perhaps, more real-world rules than one is likely to encounter in SD. Just a guess.

Anyway, have fun trying to reconcile some of his stated returns there with his calculator.

I'm not a big fan of Scolbete either, fwiw.

what is a "basic strategy return".. that makes no sense.. is that with or without a cut card? if yes, what is the penetration? you see how it matters? i dont like how he did cut card with total, and shuffle every hand with composition.. i wonder what the penetration is anyways, because surely it cant be a solid number.. he is smart, im sure for 1 deck he did like 40%, then 50% for 2 deck, then 75% for shoes, or something similar.. wait a minute, do you think that a cut card has nothing to do with your return if your not counting? it does.. its small, but there is a difference.. i also dont like when he does a calculation assuming infinite decks, or other odd things you dont find in the casino.. if he had a lot of time, he should make a basic strategy and house edge calculator where you can pick the penetration of the cut card, and other more complex options

 

[Kasi]

what is a "basic strategy return"QUOTE]

To me it basically means the play that yields the best expected return of a blended 2-card player total versus a dealer upcard assuming it was all dealt off the top of a freshly shuffled shoe. A card-removal thing.

So, essentially, in my world it assumes no cut card.

Which is why I don't really understand the Wiz's "realistic" return on his calculator. In fact, rarely do I seem to get a "realistic" return that agrees with a HA for the same rules that he states in other places.

What do u think it means?

 

[Bashful C. Stupid-Butt]

"16 is the worst hand you can possibly have"

22 is much, much worse than 16.

The highest hand I doubled down on was a 14 and I drew a 7. I've also snagged a 9 with a 12. Not something I do often, I just remember I hadn't seen many 7's.