Streaks both for and against the dealer are a natural part of random processes. They happen, but you can't predict when they will happen or how long they will last. You just happened to experience one that went against you. The streak could continue or end at any time whether you switch tables or not. However, if switching tables makes you feel better then go for it.Clint Rench said:I don't count cards I'm not that advanced yet. I'm still learning the system. I had a table that was just unbeatable to me. It was just unreal. Is it time to walk when that happens?
If by the book, you mean Basic Strategy then you can rest assured that it is correct and has been independently verified over and over again by combinatorial software and simulations over the past 5 decades or so. You need to realize that, even playing perfect Basic Strategy, you will still lose in the long run. If you want to turn the tables, as a rookie, learn the HiLo counting system and practice using software (CV Blackjack) until you can play flawlessly for hours before you bet another dollar in the casino.Clint Rench said:I was playing by the book and I was losing more hands than I would have if I followed my instincts. I'm starting to think the book way is crap. Any advice for a rookie?
If you're not playing a winning game (and right now you aren't), then you want to play as slowly as possible. You can simply ask the dealer to slow down. You can slow the game down yourself by taking as much time as you like to make your decisions. If all else fails, switch tables.Clint Rench said:I was also wondering how to slow down the dealer if you get a real fast one or is it best to play fast.
Anyone who tells you that they always win is lying.Useyourodds said:I have sat at many tables and always walked away with more than I started
Give it some time to build back up.bejammin075 said:The forum isn't what it used to be.
Let the accretion begin! I was glad and surprised my old login worked.LVBear584 said:Give it some time to build back up.
Please elaborate.Useyourodds said:making your odds at least as good as counting
accretion, now there's an interesting phenomenon. all sorts of stuff does that, in negative and positive ways, dust building up in a home, snow in the mountains that later feeds rivers, traffic on the interstate, pennies in a cookie jar, solar systems, ..., bank rolls maybe?bejammin075 said:Let the accretion begin! I was glad and surprised my old login worked.
Okay okay. Using that logic, turn the rules around. The player must hit 16 and stand on 17 then the player gets an edge of 3.91%. Always win means a bet system as well. Increase your bet until you win than drop back to your initial bet. Win just one hand in three and you walk away with THEIR money. You will win more hands than you lose if you do not play "22" and that is a fact. I'll bow out of this and let the guessers, counters, and strategists have their forum. Nevertheless, good luck to all of you.gronbog said:Useyourodds, are you advocating use of the "never bust" strategy. i.e. stand on all stiffs? I sure hope not. See this link:
http://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/basics/#toc-BadStrategies
"This "never bust" strategy results in a house edge of 3.91%." which compares very badly to the roughly 0.3% to 0.7% you get with basic strategy (depending on the rules).
Clint, don't pay any attention to this nonsense. If you're not counting, stick to basic strategy. My first clue that Useyourodds is spouting nonsense was when he said in his first post
Anyone who tells you that they always win is lying.
But you have to decide your turn before the dealer. If you bust first, you lose you bet even if the dealer busts after you. That's the essence of the house advantage.Useyourodds said:Okay okay. Using that logic, turn the rules around. The player must hit 16 and stand on 17 then the player gets an edge of 3.91%. Always win means a bet system as well. Increase your bet until you win than drop back to your initial bet. Win just one hand in three and you walk away with THEIR money. You will win more hands than you lose if you do not play "22" and that is a fact. I'll bow out of this and let the guessers, counters, and strategists have their forum. Nevertheless, good luck to all of you.
I think it often proves counterproductive. The very act of entering into a dialogue/argument can lend apparent credibility, whereas a response of universal, stony silence speaks volumes.gronbog said:Agreed. I can't believe I'm the only one here challenging this stuff.
correct'omando imho,Spyros Acebos said:Unfortunately, I suspect that only real AP accretion is one that runs upslope as the casinos experience the accretion to their bottom line of sucker's (oops, ploppies') gambling losses at 6:5, H17, D10, NDAS, NRA, NS, CSM, 8D, non-hole card games.
Or are the ploppies excreting losses?
This would be true if you turned all the rules around, not just this one specific rule. If dealer has to play their hand first under your scenario, the edge would be even higher for the player if player were still paid 3:2 BJ. Since player plays first, if both the dealer and the player bust, the dealer wins.Useyourodds said:Okay okay. Using that logic, turn the rules around. The player must hit 16 and stand on 17 then the player gets an edge of 3.91%. Always win means a bet system as well. Increase your bet until you win than drop back to your initial bet. Win just one hand in three and you walk away with THEIR money. You will win more hands than you lose if you do not play "22" and that is a fact. I'll bow out of this and let the guessers, counters, and strategists have their forum. Nevertheless, good luck to all of you.