The Biggest Question About Bj?

[BJLoser]

Ok....I'm a degenerate gambler and I'll make no arguments about that, back in the day I used to play black jack with a few monstrous wins over the course of a year. As my addiction grew I moved to poker and over the last 2 years have never been able to duplicate the wins I had at the blackjack table...and in less time I'll add.

But....heres my question since I'm getting back into blackjack. I lose alot more than I win at the casino which uses an 8 deck shoe, I mean I lose often and I play basic strategy flawlessly. It seems everytime I get that 12 and hit against a 2 you know what I always get...that's right a 10. So if the casino wins obviously more than the player than why doesn't the player play just like the dealer?

I mean the casino will win more than the player. It's a fact. Help me out here please but I imagine you'll say something like "you make all your money on double downs and splits." or "...well everyone in the casino doesn't play basic strategy."

What if every played just like the dealer? Everyone. Who wins?

Help.

Sean

 

[zengrifter]

What if every played just like the dealer? Everyone. Who wins?

I see what you mean - even your question sounds degenerate! I mean REALLY - I suspect you ALREADY KNOW the answer to this stupid question. However, IF you do not, here is a comparison:

Basic Strategy = 0.40% House Edge
Mimick Dealer = 5.40% House Edge

Are we clear, soldier? zg

 

[mdlbj]

Ok....I'm a degenerate gambler and I'll make no arguments about that, back in the day I used to play black jack with a few monstrous wins over the course of a year. As my addiction grew I moved to poker and over the last 2 years have never been able to duplicate the wins I had at the blackjack table...and in less time I'll add.

But....heres my question since I'm getting back into blackjack. I lose alot more than I win at the casino which uses an 8 deck shoe, I mean I lose often and I play basic strategy flawlessly. It seems everytime I get that 12 and hit against a 2 you know what I always get...that's right a 10. So if the casino wins obviously more than the player than why doesn't the player play just like the dealer?

I mean the casino will win more than the player. It's a fact. Help me out here please but I imagine you'll say something like "you make all your money on double downs and splits." or "...well everyone in the casino doesn't play basic strategy."

What if every played just like the dealer? Everyone. Who wins?

Help.

Sean

Get some help bro.
http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/

 

[ihate17]

I will be a little gentler than ZG, or perhaps not

You say you have played a bunch of blackjack yet you have failed to recognize the most important rule in blackjack while mentioning much less important things like doubling down and splitting and that is why playing like the dealer is financial disaster.

The rule: If both you and the dealer busts, YOU LOSE!

That's it, take that out and with 3/2 payoff, doubling, splitting etc, the player has a big edge. These rules are only part of the game to make it playable against the huge house edge of rule #1. So if you play like the dealer and hit a stiff every time as a dealer must, just save yourself the time and figure out your bankroll and write them a check for all of it.

ihate17

 

[EasyRhino]

They're right.

Also note that hitting a 12 vs anything (including a dealer 2) would be the same for mimic the dealer or basic strategy.

A more apt question would be, why don't you hit a 14 vs a dealer 2? And the answer would be: because that's stupid.

 

[Claza]

Mimic the dealer

...I lose often and I play basic strategy flawlessly. ... So if the casino wins obviously more than the player than why doesn't the player play just like the dealer?

...
What if every played just like the dealer? Everyone. Who wins?

Help.

Sean

"Mimic the dealer" strategy is not without some merit, but you MUST know when to apply it or you'll end up a 5.40% loser!

If your count tells you that (almost) only low cards are left in the deck, then both you and the dealer have a significantly reduced chance of busting.

Please understand that in the game of Blackjack the dealer's main advantage is that he wins when both the player and dealer bust. At a seriously negative count, the player will tend to not bust a lot, negating the dealer's main weapon. Remember, it's difficult to bust on low cards only.

I am in no way saying that one should bet big when using "Mimic the dealer"! This is strictly a defensive variation to Basic Strategy, to be used only as a means of survival during the negative counts, when you just don't feel like getting up and leaving the table.

"Mimic the dealer" is also useful when a "low card clumping" situation is recognized, if you are a believer in that kind of phenomenon. Either way, if you decided you are in a situation where "Mimic the dealer" makes sense, hit soft 17s even if playing at a S17 table.

 

[sagefr0g]

"Mimic the dealer" strategy is not without some merit, but you MUST know when to apply it or you'll end up a 5.40% loser!

If your count tells you that (almost) only low cards are left in the deck, then both you and the dealer have a significantly reduced chance of busting.

Please understand that in the game of Blackjack the dealer's main advantage is that he wins when both the player and dealer bust. At a seriously negative count, the player will tend to not bust a lot, negating the dealer's main weapon. Remember, it's difficult to bust on low cards only.

I am in no way saying that one should bet big when using "Mimic the dealer"! This is strictly a defensive variation to Basic Strategy, to be used only as a means of survival during the negative counts, when you just don't feel like getting up and leaving the table.

"Mimic the dealer" is also useful when a "low card clumping" situation is recognized, if you are a believer in that kind of phenomenon. Either way, if you decided you are in a situation where "Mimic the dealer" makes sense, hit soft 17s even if playing at a S17 table.

correct me if i'm wrong but isn't basic strategy supposed to be the best action to take (over mimic the dealer) even in negative counts barring basic strategy departures?

 

[ihate17]

Counting indices inch closer to the mimick at neg counts

correct me if i'm wrong but isn't basic strategy supposed to be the best action to take (over mimic the dealer) even in negative counts barring basic strategy departures?

The more negative the count, the closer you get to the mimick the dealer stage. You never reach the point where you hit your 16 vs 2, but easily get to the point where you might find yourself taking a hit on your 12 vs 6. You never will get to the point where you are just mimicking, but negative indices trend that way.

ihate17

 

[jimpenn]

"...you might find yourself taking a hit on your 12 vs 16." (--shoe) I agree.

You don't read much in books concerning this type of play...why?

 

[ScottH]

"...you might find yourself taking a hit on your 12 vs 16." (--shoe) I agree.

You don't read much in books concerning this type of play...why?

You shouldn't have to worry about negative indexes in multi-deck shoe games because you should be wonging out in negative counts! But if you play all, then by all means use them...

 

[SecurityRisk]

Are you sure there should never be a time?

You shouldn't have to worry about negative indexes in multi-deck shoe games because you should be wonging out in negative counts! But if you play all, then by all means use them...

Let's say there are two other players at the table. There is only one deck left in a six deck show. You're playing third base. The running count is 2. Since there is only one deck left, the true count is also 2. The other two players are each dealt two face cards. You are dealt a 10 and a 2. The dealer has a 4 showing. The running count and true count is now -1. How do you wong out at this point? Wouldn't it be nice to know the index for 12 vs. 4 when the true count is -1?

 

[ScottH]

Let's say there are two other players at the table. There is only one deck left in a six deck show. You're playing third base. The running count is 2. Since there is only one deck left, the true count is also 2. The other two players are each dealt two face cards. You are dealt a 10 and a 2. The dealer has a 4 showing. The running count and true count is now -1. How do you wong out at this point? Wouldn't it be nice to know the index for 12 vs. 4 when the true count is -1?

I like to know them, yes. I'm just saying you shouldn't be using them much...

 

[ihate17]

Has other uses also

Let's say there are two other players at the table. There is only one deck left in a six deck show. You're playing third base. The running count is 2. Since there is only one deck left, the true count is also 2. The other two players are each dealt two face cards. You are dealt a 10 and a 2. The dealer has a 4 showing. The running count and true count is now -1. How do you wong out at this point? Wouldn't it be nice to know the index for 12 vs. 4 when the true count is -1?[/QUOTE

Besides the fact that often you might wong out, the thing about negative indices, besides the good example posted by SecurityRisk, is that their use, misuse, or lack of use can not really cost you much long term because they only come about when you have a minimum bet out.

Perhaps real gain can be made in how they are percieved by the eye, pit, dealers and other players. Often during a negative shoe, especially with a dealer who gives excellent penetration, I will take a restroom break timed to come back on the shuffle but near the end of the shoe I will play all. Hitting 13 vs 3 or 12 vs 4 are pretty common and just might get you labeled as a poor player by everyone reducing both the chance of heat and the number of players at your table.

Most pits, even those with pretty fair knowledge of the game, really do not know all when it comes to counting. They know, good count equals big bet, they might even know to look for the guy who hits 16 vs 10 sometimes and stands on others and same about the guy who suddenly takes insurance after refusing it for a long period. They are trained about spread and negative indices are something that never comes up in relation to spread. So if they catch you hitting your 12 vs 4 they very well could forget about you and just go back to trying to hit up the cocktail waitress. So negative indices can and do serve as a form of cover and for someone who plays a fairly high rates with a big spread, these indices might be worth more in the form of cover than they are worth as a form of strategy with your minimum bet on the table.
Finally, I am especially speaking about the shoe game here because the spreads are so much greater overall.

ihate17