Is this something you can sim?

[shadroch]

In a post, last year, I mentioned that I'd met a man who would only bet the hand after a dealers blackjack. At the time, he was betting $10.
I recently ran into him and he is now betting $25. Plus, he now is a fulltime resident where before he was a snow bird only betting two-three months a year. Over the course of playing together several days, I did observe he won or pushed the majority of his hands.
This was on one of the Royal Shuffle machines, where they deal out two thirds of a six deck shoe but the shuffle point is nebulous. Twice I saw him buy in and both times he doubled his buyin at cashout. Twice I joined him at the table and saw him cash out the same amount. His buy-in seems to be $200 and his cashout is $400, but after four hours, he'll cash out if he's even or gets even.
He's retired and doesn't mind sitting at the machine waiting for the dealers BJ.

 

[assume_R]

Not sure about the sim, but if you think about it, perhaps the fact that the dealer got a blackjack is indicative of the fact that there are more 10's and A's left in the deck which could be, on average, correlated with a high count, even though the shuffle point is unknown.

Thoughts?

 

[QFIT]

Not sure about the sim, but if you think about it, perhaps the fact that the dealer got a blackjack is indicative of the fact that there are more 10's and A's left in the deck which could be, on average, correlated with a high count, even though the shuffle point is unknown.

Thoughts?

Nope, the opposite is true. There is one fewer ace and one fewer ten. His strategy is worse than play-all.

 

[assume_R]

Nope, the opposite is true. There is one fewer ace and one fewer ten. His strategy is worse than play-all.

Ah, I see. So even if the count happened to be high when the dealer got a bj, it would have decreased after that hand by using up a 10 and ace.

 

[shadroch]

Nope, the opposite is true. There is one fewer ace and one fewer ten. His strategy is worse than play-all.

I recall reading the player has a small increase in his EV the hand after a dealer win. Not a big enough increase to justify a change in betting pattern, but an increase. So why would betting the hand after a dealer BJ be worse than playing all?

 

[QFIT]

I recall reading the player has a small increase in his EV the hand after a dealer win. Not a big enough increase to justify a change in betting pattern, but an increase. So why would betting the hand after a dealer BJ be worse than playing all?

One is a general case. The other is a specific case. In this specific case, receiving a BJ clearly is less likely.

 

[shadroch]

One is a general case. The other is a specific case. In this specific case, receiving a BJ clearly is less likely.

Okay, I can see where the chances of a player getting a BJ the hand after a BJ was dealt would be less, but why would he be less likely to win?

 

[QFIT]

The same reason 6:5 BJ sucks. Getting a BJ, and the bonus, is a major part of the edge.

 

[daddybo]

The win/loss probability won't change significantly based on the the removal of 2 cards.? Still about a 43.sumthin chance.

 

[Nynefingers]

Forgetting everything else (since we don't know anything else), you are starting the next hand with one less ten and one less ace, but an otherwise unknown shoe. I'm ignoring the few hands where the dealer BJ happens just before the shuffle. Always playing with a average running count of -2 is worse than playing all with an average running count of 0. For a BS player, it does have the advantage (if you want to call it that) of forcing you to only play <5% of all hands, so despite the slightly higher HE when you play, the limited number of hands played will reduce your theoretical loss. But you are still playing a -EV game.