Aquí están todos los comentarios publicados en el sitio, con los debates más recientes en primer lugar.
Para participar en cualquiera de estos debates, puede responder en la página del artículo.
Como has dicho, los malos jugadores son la única razón por la que los casinos pueden ofrecer el juego, aunque me pregunto cuántos malos jugadores hay en las mesas de apuestas ultra altas y cómo lo soporta la casa. En realidad, es divertido ver a los malos jugadores siempre que se comporten bien. Los peores jugadores son los que tiran las cartas, maldicen o sobreactúan cuando pierden, y los borrachos. Parece que hay un cierto punto hasta el cual el casino tolera ese comportamiento, probablemente dependiendo del jefe de la mesa, de cuánto dinero esté ganando con el infractor o de si las cartas están siendo dobladas.
Sounds like the games there are not really playable unless you already happen to be in Cancun on vacation perhaps. Definitely not worth a trip though, unless you’re going for those fine Mexican hotties you mentioned
Yes, in one deck, the effect of removal is quite substantial. Consider what card you would most like to draw if you hit this hand. A seven. And you already have two of the four available sevens in your hand. So stand with (7,7) vs Ten is correct. ONLY in single deck.
Well written, but you display either an extremely limited knowledge of how card counting works or are deliberately attempting to mislead less knowledgeable players. I noticed that you mention playing online several times and provided a direct link to one particular online casino.
It’s true that, with index play, you have more information available for playing the 2nd hand and beyond. However the benefit of the extra information is not even close to enough to overcome the house edge, and you certainly should not be doubling your bet on each subsequent hand. This is a recipe for disaster.
Hi Gronbog, thanks for the kind words and critique. My purpose wasn’t to teach counting, simply to relate a self-taught system fraught with errors and the inevitable results. All I did back then was count Ten cards and Aces so I had a feel for how many were left – like using 1/3 of the simplest possible strategy and I didn’t assign a value to the Tens or any other cards. I think it was a case of knowing just enough to get in trouble. It worked okay as long as the deck got smaller with every deal, not so much when reshuffled between hands. Sorry I wasn’t more clear.
3-5 seats playing single deck: Well, maybe you’ve given me that little prod I needed to do the maths to determine EV for hands 1 through 5 playing single deck. With those numbers, I’ll be able to establish a range of optimal bet increase for each hand, based on known cards.
I can see I wasn’t super clear on “I simply bet ‘more’, usually doubling the wager on each hand.” There is no potential disaster in betting $10 on #1, $20 on #2, $40 on #3, etc.
Agreed, those numbers aren’t in line with the odds, of course, each successive seat isn’t x2 as likely to win as the last, but as long as the highest bet is within bankroll limits there’s no harm – Not optimal to be sure, but it’s never brought me ruin. Anything you can do to chip away at the HE is a good thing!
I encourage you to do the math. A simulation is actually what is required. You will find that none of the spots you are betting on will ever have a positive edge, even if you were to apply full indices while playing. So the optimal bet for each is zero. Having a less negative edge on each successive spot is not a reason to increase your bet.
If the principle of your strategy was sound, then you would be better off finding a full table and simply flat betting the last spot. Your would have the maximum amount of information available to you and would never have to bet on a spot with a negative edge. This is, of course, not a valid approach. If it were, we would all be literally fighting one another for that last spot.
With respect to the potential disaster of doubling your bet on each spot, going from $10 to potentially $640 on the final spot, the harm is that will, over time, lose the house edge multiplied by the total of your bets. Betting more on the later spots will only increase the rate at which this will happen. It’s not clear what you mean by “brought to ruin”. For most, it means having lost enough that you quit playing for good. Perhaps you have a large bankroll, or perhaps you replenish it from another source, such as a job. If you have been playing for as long as you imply however, then it is extremely unlikely that you’re in the black.
Perhaps I’m still missing the point of your blog post. I’m hoping that the next post will say that this was one of your biggest early mistakes. But it feels like you’re leading up to a claim that this is a winning, long term strategy.
This Trainer is a waste of time. Poor design and features. Never in my life have I seen so many 21’s on the dealer side and automatically once you start to win your completely wiped out. Ridiculous programmer stupid trainer for idiots. The advice give is mostly wrong.
6 deck, S17, das, early surrender, peek
Is all the surrenders something new? Just haven’t seen this before, surrender on hard 5, 6, 7 vs dealer A etc.
Gracias
Sorry you don’t enjoy it. I like it and beat it a lot. I like how it mimics a deck without replacement. I wish it allowed multiple players and allowed the possibility of playing multiple spots. I love it.
Sincerely,
The Milk Man
Does anyone have an answer. I have gotten from 32 to 512. I feel the answer is 128. Does anyone have the right answer. This has been going back and fort with a few people for several days and can’t believe the answers I’m getting. Please respond. Thanks
Si no ves patrones en cómo salen las cartas de la baraja, entonces no estás prestando suficiente atención. Y si no conoces la razón matemática precisa de las valoraciones asignadas por los autores de este juego a la J,Q,K, entonces no puedes hablar con inteligencia sobre este juego en particular.
Si no ves patrones en las cartas que salen de esta baraja, es que no estás prestando suficiente atención. Va en ambos sentidos, si estás predispuesto (¿condicionado?) a descartar cualquier posibilidad más allá del azar. entonces supongo que las habilidades de reconocimiento no necesitan aplicarse - sonríe. Y si no puedes decir correctamente por qué los autores de este juego designaron los valores de la J,Q,K como 10, matemáticamente hablando, es difícil ver cómo se puede hablar inteligentemente de este juego. Pero así soy yo.
Como has dicho, los malos jugadores son la única razón por la que los casinos pueden ofrecer el juego, aunque me pregunto cuántos malos jugadores hay en las mesas de apuestas ultra altas y cómo lo soporta la casa. En realidad, es divertido ver a los malos jugadores siempre que se comporten bien. Los peores jugadores son los que tiran las cartas, maldicen o sobreactúan cuando pierden, y los borrachos. Parece que hay un cierto punto hasta el cual el casino tolera ese comportamiento, probablemente dependiendo del jefe de la mesa, de cuánto dinero esté ganando con el infractor o de si las cartas están siendo dobladas.
Sounds like the games there are not really playable unless you already happen to be in Cancun on vacation perhaps. Definitely not worth a trip though, unless you’re going for those fine Mexican hotties you mentioned
Borrar todo - Elimina todas las apuestas anteriores de la mesa.
1 deck, S17, DAS, No Surrender, Peek
Chart is instructing playing to stand on 7,7 vs the dealers 10???? I don’t see how this can be correct? Is it?
Yes, in one deck, the effect of removal is quite substantial. Consider what card you would most like to draw if you hit this hand. A seven. And you already have two of the four available sevens in your hand. So stand with (7,7) vs Ten is correct. ONLY in single deck.
Well written, but you display either an extremely limited knowledge of how card counting works or are deliberately attempting to mislead less knowledgeable players. I noticed that you mention playing online several times and provided a direct link to one particular online casino.
It’s true that, with index play, you have more information available for playing the 2nd hand and beyond. However the benefit of the extra information is not even close to enough to overcome the house edge, and you certainly should not be doubling your bet on each subsequent hand. This is a recipe for disaster.
Hi Gronbog, thanks for the kind words and critique. My purpose wasn’t to teach counting, simply to relate a self-taught system fraught with errors and the inevitable results. All I did back then was count Ten cards and Aces so I had a feel for how many were left – like using 1/3 of the simplest possible strategy and I didn’t assign a value to the Tens or any other cards. I think it was a case of knowing just enough to get in trouble. It worked okay as long as the deck got smaller with every deal, not so much when reshuffled between hands. Sorry I wasn’t more clear.
3-5 seats playing single deck: Well, maybe you’ve given me that little prod I needed to do the maths to determine EV for hands 1 through 5 playing single deck. With those numbers, I’ll be able to establish a range of optimal bet increase for each hand, based on known cards.
I can see I wasn’t super clear on “I simply bet ‘more’, usually doubling the wager on each hand.” There is no potential disaster in betting $10 on #1, $20 on #2, $40 on #3, etc.
Agreed, those numbers aren’t in line with the odds, of course, each successive seat isn’t x2 as likely to win as the last, but as long as the highest bet is within bankroll limits there’s no harm – Not optimal to be sure, but it’s never brought me ruin. Anything you can do to chip away at the HE is a good thing!
I encourage you to do the math. A simulation is actually what is required. You will find that none of the spots you are betting on will ever have a positive edge, even if you were to apply full indices while playing. So the optimal bet for each is zero. Having a less negative edge on each successive spot is not a reason to increase your bet.
If the principle of your strategy was sound, then you would be better off finding a full table and simply flat betting the last spot. Your would have the maximum amount of information available to you and would never have to bet on a spot with a negative edge. This is, of course, not a valid approach. If it were, we would all be literally fighting one another for that last spot.
With respect to the potential disaster of doubling your bet on each spot, going from $10 to potentially $640 on the final spot, the harm is that will, over time, lose the house edge multiplied by the total of your bets. Betting more on the later spots will only increase the rate at which this will happen. It’s not clear what you mean by “brought to ruin”. For most, it means having lost enough that you quit playing for good. Perhaps you have a large bankroll, or perhaps you replenish it from another source, such as a job. If you have been playing for as long as you imply however, then it is extremely unlikely that you’re in the black.
Perhaps I’m still missing the point of your blog post. I’m hoping that the next post will say that this was one of your biggest early mistakes. But it feels like you’re leading up to a claim that this is a winning, long term strategy.
It is not.
Well Gronbog, it turns out that any benefit in betting more with each seat is very slight. Hardly worth doing the maths. Thanks for your comments!
Perfect work you have done, this web site is really cool
with superb info.
This Trainer is a waste of time. Poor design and features. Never in my life have I seen so many 21’s on the dealer side and automatically once you start to win your completely wiped out. Ridiculous programmer stupid trainer for idiots. The advice give is mostly wrong.
6 deck, S17, das, early surrender, peek
Is all the surrenders something new? Just haven’t seen this before, surrender on hard 5, 6, 7 vs dealer A etc.
Gracias
What’s the difference between early and late surrender?
Early surrender is vs a dealer T or A *before* they check for blackjack — extremely valuable.
Late surrender is *after* they check.
This trainer is a joke.
Sorry you don’t enjoy it. I like it and beat it a lot. I like how it mimics a deck without replacement. I wish it allowed multiple players and allowed the possibility of playing multiple spots. I love it.
Sincerely,
The Milk Man
I have been asking this question. How many blackjacks can be made in an 8 deck shoe?
Does anyone have an answer. I have gotten from 32 to 512. I feel the answer is 128. Does anyone have the right answer. This has been going back and fort with a few people for several days and can’t believe the answers I’m getting. Please respond. Thanks
Si no ves patrones en cómo salen las cartas de la baraja, entonces no estás prestando suficiente atención. Y si no conoces la razón matemática precisa de las valoraciones asignadas por los autores de este juego a la J,Q,K, entonces no puedes hablar con inteligencia sobre este juego en particular.
Si no ves patrones en las cartas que salen de esta baraja, es que no estás prestando suficiente atención. Va en ambos sentidos, si estás predispuesto (¿condicionado?) a descartar cualquier posibilidad más allá del azar. entonces supongo que las habilidades de reconocimiento no necesitan aplicarse - sonríe. Y si no puedes decir correctamente por qué los autores de este juego designaron los valores de la J,Q,K como 10, matemáticamente hablando, es difícil ver cómo se puede hablar inteligentemente de este juego. Pero así soy yo.