Point is your not going to hit a stiff against a bust card when the count is high.21gunsalute said:So what's your point? Are you actually saying you should always stay on soft hands against a dealer stiff because you might take the bust card and not make a hand? Some of us like to live a little more dangerously.
Tales from the felt
- Thread starter creeping panther
- Start date
Forget counting, trying to become an A.P. or even using a decent amount of basic strat. If you really don't can't see the logic of hitting a 6,just because you're assuming something like there is a 10 coming up, then we're talking about going back to basic math. (maybe 4th grade)Chipper said:
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
We're not talking about hitting a stiff hand, we're talking about hitting a soft hand or a single digit hard hand. Try to keep up.Chipper said:
aslan
Well-Known Member
Since when does a stupid play CAUSE others to lose. I think it's been explained enough in this thread that others' stupid plays do not cause bad things to happen. There's just as much chance for good things to happen. Making the "right" play only helps the player making the right play. It is independent of all the other hands. Likewise, making the "wrong" play.21gunsalute said:
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
Aslan, please re-read CPs opening post. A player made a stupid play and did indeed cause the table to lose vasts amounts of money. This is an undeniable fact. Had he played the hand right the table would have won and the dealer would have busted.aslan said:
You can say that bad plays by ploppies help as often as they hurt. I hear that here constantly yet I've never seen any proof given for such statements. I know without a doubt such bad plays have personally cost me tens of thousands of dollars in just the last few months.
Even if it were true that the # bad plays by ploppies help as often as they hurt, I believe they still cost APs money. Let's look at the most common ploppy error; taking a hit that could bust their hand against a dealer stiff. In negative counts when you have a minimum bet out, such an ill advised hit has a better chance of taking a small card away from the dealer, or taking away a small card I need to make my double down. Conversely, in a high count such a bad play has a better chance of taking a 10 away from the dealer or a ten I need to make my double down. I know, there's a lot of tens still left and no one knows how the cards are going to be ordered, but in such a scenario every unnecessary hit that draws a ten away from making your hand or from busting the dealer is going hurt more than it's going to help. So even if the actual number of such hits helps as often as it hurts (which I also dispute) it's going to cost me (and all other AP) money because I'm going to lose more big bets. Not to mention they're also eating up more cards which could result in fewer rounds when we should have an advantage.
So would you rather play at a table full of first time ploppies or a table where everyone at least plays good Basic Strategy? I'll take the BS players every time, unless the ploppy table is full of hot coeds and I can play teacher.
And I see absolutely no reason not to at least try to correct a player who makes such a bad play. That doesn't mean you have to come get in his face and come to blows, but at least try to show the player why it was a bad play and how it cost everyone at the table money. Then hopefully it won't happen again.
aslan
Well-Known Member
The "play" caused the entire table to lose. The "stupidity" of the play had nothing to do with it. You are thinking like a ploppy. :whip:21gunsalute said:Aslan, please re-read CPs opening post. A player made a stupid play and did indeed cause the table to lose vasts amounts of money. This is an undeniable fact. Had he played the hand right the table would have won and the dealer would have busted.
You can say that bad plays by ploppies help as often as they hurt. I hear that here constantly yet I've never seen any proof given for such statements. I know without a doubt such bad plays have personally cost me tens of thousands of dollars in just the last few months.
Even if it were true that the # bad plays by ploppies help as often as they hurt, I believe they still cost APs money. Let's look at the most common ploppy error; taking a hit that could bust their hand against a dealer stiff. In negative counts when you have a minimum bet out, such an ill advised hit has a better chance of taking a small card away from the dealer, or taking away a small card I need to make my double down. Conversely, in a high count such a bad play has a better chance of taking a 10 away from the dealer or a ten I need to make my double down. I know, there's a lot of tens still left and no one knows how the cards are going to be ordered, but in such a scenario every unnecessary hit that draws a ten away from making your hand or from busting the dealer is going hurt more than it's going to help. So even if the actual number of such hits helps as often as it hurts (which I also dispute) it's going to cost me (and all other AP) money because I'm going to lose more big bets. Not to mention they're also eating up more cards which could result in fewer rounds when we should have an advantage.
So would you rather play at a table full of first time ploppies or a table where everyone at least plays good Basic Strategy? I'll take the BS players every time, unless the ploppy table is full of hot coeds and I can play teacher.
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
No, I think my analysis is quite logical. Could such a stupid play have helped? Certainly, but it didn't in this particular case and is unlikely to do so in the long run.aslan said:The "play" caused the entire table to lose. The "stupidity" of the play had nothing to do with it. You are thinking like a ploppy. :whip:
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but that is in no way, shape or form a proof. I wonder if this can be simmed. That could prove quite interesting.Shoofly said:
aslan
Well-Known Member
If you can show proof that the "stupidty" of the play and not the play itself caused the entire table to lose, I will take you off my ploppy list. It is you, not I, who contends that "stupid plays" cause tables to lose, as opposed to simply "plays". Any AP knows that the stupidity of the other players at the table does not affect his game, other than maybe being a distraction.21gunsalute said:
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
Easy. As you just stated, the play itself caused the table to lose. The play was stupid. Therefore the stupid play caused the table to lose.aslan said:If you can show proof that the "stupidty" of the play and not the play itself caused the entire table to lose, I will take you off my ploppy list. It is you, not I, who contends that "stupid plays" cause tables to lose, as opposed to simply "plays".
Or are you going to to dispute that the play was stupid? :laugh:
Your last statement is quite a misrepresentation of what I said actually.
Ok here is a PROOF. It is quite simple, and unlike many other mathematical proofs easy to follow. It's short, and without any formulas. Please ask any question you like.21gunsalute said:
First of all, we modify the game slightly. When the dealer will draw his cards, he will draw his cards from the bottom of the shoe (instead of drawing from the top). In case there is a cut-card in the shoe, he will draw the cards right in front of the cut card. (But that doesn't really matter - let's ignore any cut card).
Is this the SAME game as before ? Yes, in EVERY aspect. As the shoe is shuffled before, it doesn't matter if he draws from the top, the bottom, or from the middle of an random shoe.
Now, does the decision of a player (say, on third base) hitting his hand or standing alter the way the dealer will make his hand ?.
No it doesn't, because the dealer will draw his cards from the bottom of the shoe, while the player takes the cards from the top of the shoe.
Since the dealer-bottom-drawing and dealer-top-drawing games are identically, the strategy decision of the player at 3rd base does not influence the dealers chance of busting/standing on any number in a normal game.
I leave it for your homework to proof that the dealers chance of busting/standing is also not influenced by the strategy decisions of players at 1st base, and any other base. Tip: expand the argument of bottom-drawing to dealer and all but one player.
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
You call that proof? All you did was change the rules of the game!MangoJ said:
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
We F### Ourselves All the Time
Ever make an indice play and lose that hand and get crushed for the shoe? So we should not make indice plays? Of course not.
With our civilian holding his 6, if the count was positive we would want him to stand so more cards are available for following rounds.
If our civilian was holding a 17 vs dealers 6 and the count was negative we would want him to hit to use up cards.
If a civilian is hesitant on what to do, if count is negative encourage him to use cards if count is positive encourage them to use less cards. It's about all we can do. This is where a civilian can hurt us, if they do the opposite of the above.
If getting aggressive towards a civilian draws pit attention, it's probably not a good thing. Now, one can mutter about flow of cards etc. as camo.
Probably great anger can lead to a loss of control, not good since AP play is cerebral.
good cards
:joker::whip:
Ever make an indice play and lose that hand and get crushed for the shoe? So we should not make indice plays? Of course not.
With our civilian holding his 6, if the count was positive we would want him to stand so more cards are available for following rounds.
If our civilian was holding a 17 vs dealers 6 and the count was negative we would want him to hit to use up cards.
If a civilian is hesitant on what to do, if count is negative encourage him to use cards if count is positive encourage them to use less cards. It's about all we can do. This is where a civilian can hurt us, if they do the opposite of the above.
If getting aggressive towards a civilian draws pit attention, it's probably not a good thing. Now, one can mutter about flow of cards etc. as camo.
Probably great anger can lead to a loss of control, not good since AP play is cerebral.
good cards
:joker::whip:
If B=0, and A=B, then A=0. It's as simple as that.21gunsalute said:
B is the modified game. In B the player decisions have no influence on the dealers hand. A is the original game. However A and B are identical.
Therefore in the original game, player decisions have no influence on the dealers hand.
I know you are reasonable, so please spend a few more minutes about this issue.
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
Gong!MangoJ said:
Please take a course in logic. A and B are not identical games. You simply misstated that they are. That doesn't make it so. In game A player decisions can influence the dealers hand, in game B they cannot. A does not equal B.
Blue Efficacy
Well-Known Member
They absolutely are the same game. They are both taking random cards from a pack containing an identical amount of cards. If you think that will change any long term outcomes you are a ploppy.21gunsalute said:
Again, in a shuffled pile of cards, it doesn't matter which card you take - because they are shuffled.
Okay, lets step back a bit. Consider a coin flip in two variations.
First game:
You name a side - head and tailes. I then flip the coin and hide the outcome. Then I reveal the outcome (without manipulation).
Second game:
I flip the coin and hide the outcome. You then name a side - head or tailes. I reveal the outcome (without manipulation).
Please answer honestly: Which game is better for you ? Which game is better for me ?
Both games are exactly the same. In the second game, you simply cannot let me take the "bust side of the coin" without knowing the outcome.
I may even know the outcome of the flip before revealing - that would not change the game either.
Okay, lets step back a bit. Consider a coin flip in two variations.
First game:
You name a side - head and tailes. I then flip the coin and hide the outcome. Then I reveal the outcome (without manipulation).
Second game:
I flip the coin and hide the outcome. You then name a side - head or tailes. I reveal the outcome (without manipulation).
Please answer honestly: Which game is better for you ? Which game is better for me ?
Both games are exactly the same. In the second game, you simply cannot let me take the "bust side of the coin" without knowing the outcome.
I may even know the outcome of the flip before revealing - that would not change the game either.