Ecco tutti i commenti pubblicati sul sito, con le discussioni più recenti elencate per prime.
Per partecipare a una qualsiasi di queste discussioni, potete rispondere nella pagina dell'articolo.
Thanks for the detailed answer Ken its appreciated. I always thought counters played more aggressively than the kelly due the fact that extremely high counts are rare. It was my understanding then that it is best to get your max bet out at TC 4 or 5. Don Schlesinger for example plays an extremely aggressive spread where his units go up to two as the TC increases slightly. Is this not a normal betting spread for a counter? Do you recommend playing a half Kelly? Or is this all personal preference depending on how high you want your ROR to be.
The Schlesinger spread you mention would be pretty normal. Optimal spreads will usually get your top bet on the table at +5. How you get there does influence your results, but really not all that much. Any ramp that gets you from your small bet at <+1 to your top bet at +5 is going to perform pretty well.
My comments about RA indices and Kelly are based on the fact that almost all players undercount their bankroll, considering only the cash they have on hand at the moment for gambling. In truth, their effective bankroll is much bigger; they can replenish funds from other income sources, and they probably also have other assets that could be counted. Once you get into a large enough bank that these factors don't overwhelm the accounting, you can probably safely afford to bet more than you can easily get away with anyway.
If you still are in a place where these calculations have value for you, then yes, betting half Kelly is a pretty good target in my opinion. There's still plenty of excitement in that. 🙂
I got into an argument with my dad about progressive loss betting systems. His argument was that in a casino where the minimum was extremely low and the maximum was extremely high the casino could be beat.
For example, say a casino offered a game with a 10 dollar minimum and a 1,310,720 dollar maximum (I know a casino would never offer this game but just assume they did for the purposes of the example). This would give you a 1-18 spread if you were to double your bet after every loss, not including splits and doubles. My dad argues that he could beat this casino because the chances of him losing 18 hands in a row is incredibly rare.
Assuming one plays perfect basic strategy the chances of losing this many hands in a row is approximately 1 in 262144. Is there a better way to explain this then to say that the potential small wins do not account for the possibility, however small it is, of losing 1,310,720 dollars.
Anyone have any ideas how I can convince my dad in an intelligent matter that he’s wrong?
First, your numbers need some work. Basic strategy blackjack is roughly 43% win, 49% lose, 8% push.
If we ignore the pushes, you lose (49/92)% of the time.
Losing 18 in a row happens (49/92)^18 = 1/84072.
So, you walk in to the casino with ridiculous bet limits with $2,621,430 in your pocket, and make your first $10 bet.
On average, by doubling after every loss you will lose your entire bankroll once every 84,072 tries.
When you do not lose 18 in a row, you win $10. 84,072 * $10 is only $840,720.
And actually you’ll do worse than this, because you are refusing to split even when it helps your win percentage on some hands. (Not doubling is awful too, but doubling never increases the win percentage, but it sure makes you a lot of money over that kind of action!)
Thanks Ken. I’m just a poor student so I account for every dollar, as such I have a set amount set in stone as my bankroll. Thanks for the comments they are very helpful
Ken, grazie per gli eccellenti consigli per il gioco in torneo. Ho una domanda in riferimento al tuo penultimo paragrafo. Lei consiglia di andare all-in ($400) anche se $350 sarebbe in vantaggio? Questo non è contrario al suo consiglio sul rischio e sulla ricompensa? Inoltre, voglio sempre risparmiare abbastanza denaro per battere i miei avversari se il banco vince l'ultimo giro e a tutti gli altri non rimane nulla.
Grazie ancora, spero di non doverti affrontare in finale - Walter
Questo paragrafo parla di un'eccezione comune al consiglio precedente. L'idea è che se si perde $350 del proprio banco da $400, il restante $50 non è probabilmente sufficiente per organizzare una rimonta nelle mani rimanenti. In questo caso, andate invece all-in.
Per quanto riguarda il trattenere una piccola somma nel caso in cui tutti gli altri perdano tutte le loro fiches nella mano finale, si tratta di un piano utile in alcuni casi e può essere un motivo per trattenere una somma apparentemente inutile. Tuttavia, questa tattica funziona molto meno spesso al giorno d'oggi, dato che i giocatori sono diventati più esperti. Se qualcuno vede che state sfruttando un piccolo bankroll sperando di arrivare alla mano finale, di solito si assicurerà di bloccarvi evitando di andare all-in alla fine.
Once the current version of the trainer is loaded and running, it runs locally on your machine. Something has to be causing Flash to run slowly on your machine.
Note that this will work completely differently in the eventual new version, which will be interacting with the server to provide additional features.
I think there are some flaws in your basic strategy regarding early surrender. The game recommended I surrender with 12 vs a dealer ace. That isn’t right, is it? It also recommended I surrender with a 7 vs an ace. That can’t possibly be right!
Yes, those are correct plays for “Early” surrender, where you can surrender before the dealer checks for blackjack.
But you probably don’t want to choose that rule. It’s rare.
Choose Late Surrender and you’ll get the advice you expect.
To learn more, see my article La resa al blackjack spiegata.
In the above drill, “Basic Strategy Drill exercise” You have made up STARTING hands and given the dealers up card. If these are meant to be starting hands, what is the idea behind some of the Three figured player hands?
Good point. I suspect the GameMaster wrote that line and later created the exercise. Regardless, I have edited the description of the exercise to remove the “starting” part of the description. Thanks! The 3-card exercises are of course to be treated just like the others. Make sure you know the correct basic strategy for the 3-card hands.
I’ve noticed that some advantage players hit on A+7 when the dealer has a 2 whereas your strategy here indicates that stand/stay would be the preferred choice with 8 decks, DAS, No surrender, and no peek. Any thoughts on this difference?
It is likely that you saw players doubling A7v2, not just hitting it. (Hitting would simply be a mistake, as it is the third best way to play the hand.)
The choice of whether to stand or double with A7v2 is a close one.
In fact, correct basic strategy for that hand depends on whether the dealer hits or stands on soft 17s.
(The motore strategico takes all this into account when creating an accurate strategy chart for you.)
In S17 games, you should stand.
In H17 games, you should double. (Except in single deck.)
Card counters will often double this hand even in S17 games, because it only takes a true count of +1 or more to make this the correct play.
I’m going to be playing at a casino next week with No surrender, 8 decks, S17, and no peek. Got a couple of questions about strategy in such a situation;
1)Do I DD with a hard 11 on dealer’s 10 or hit?
2)Do I split 8s on dealers 10-A or hit?
3)Do I stand with a soft A/7 on dealer’s 2?
4) Do I split A/A on dealer’s A or hit?
Appreciate your help and any rationale you can provide for choices in these situations given the conditions of the table at which I shall be trying my luck. Thanks..
To answer your questions:
1) Hit 11vT
2) Hit 88vT and 88vA.
3) Stand with A7v2.
4) Hit AAvA.
Just to be clear, these strategies are for a “no peek” game, where the dealer either does not deal a hole card, or does not check it for a blackjack, and all player bets are vulnerable if the dealer ends up with a blackjack. In the US, that’s almost never the case, but it is common outside the US.
Grazie mille per la tua spiegazione molto logica e comprensibile. Se mi aiuti a trovare un grafico che mostri le percentuali di vincita, spinta o perdita di "tutte le possibilità differite" dopo la distribuzione di due carte per il giocatore, esattamente in base alla strategia di base, sia che si tratti di stare, colpire, raddoppiare o dividere (lo stesso del tuo grafico, ma non solo per il raddoppio), te ne sarei davvero grato.
Thanks for the detailed answer Ken its appreciated. I always thought counters played more aggressively than the kelly due the fact that extremely high counts are rare. It was my understanding then that it is best to get your max bet out at TC 4 or 5. Don Schlesinger for example plays an extremely aggressive spread where his units go up to two as the TC increases slightly. Is this not a normal betting spread for a counter? Do you recommend playing a half Kelly? Or is this all personal preference depending on how high you want your ROR to be.
The Schlesinger spread you mention would be pretty normal. Optimal spreads will usually get your top bet on the table at +5. How you get there does influence your results, but really not all that much. Any ramp that gets you from your small bet at <+1 to your top bet at +5 is going to perform pretty well. My comments about RA indices and Kelly are based on the fact that almost all players undercount their bankroll, considering only the cash they have on hand at the moment for gambling. In truth, their effective bankroll is much bigger; they can replenish funds from other income sources, and they probably also have other assets that could be counted. Once you get into a large enough bank that these factors don't overwhelm the accounting, you can probably safely afford to bet more than you can easily get away with anyway. If you still are in a place where these calculations have value for you, then yes, betting half Kelly is a pretty good target in my opinion. There's still plenty of excitement in that. 🙂
I got into an argument with my dad about progressive loss betting systems. His argument was that in a casino where the minimum was extremely low and the maximum was extremely high the casino could be beat.
For example, say a casino offered a game with a 10 dollar minimum and a 1,310,720 dollar maximum (I know a casino would never offer this game but just assume they did for the purposes of the example). This would give you a 1-18 spread if you were to double your bet after every loss, not including splits and doubles. My dad argues that he could beat this casino because the chances of him losing 18 hands in a row is incredibly rare.
Assuming one plays perfect basic strategy the chances of losing this many hands in a row is approximately 1 in 262144. Is there a better way to explain this then to say that the potential small wins do not account for the possibility, however small it is, of losing 1,310,720 dollars.
Anyone have any ideas how I can convince my dad in an intelligent matter that he’s wrong?
First, your numbers need some work. Basic strategy blackjack is roughly 43% win, 49% lose, 8% push.
If we ignore the pushes, you lose (49/92)% of the time.
Losing 18 in a row happens (49/92)^18 = 1/84072.
So, you walk in to the casino with ridiculous bet limits with $2,621,430 in your pocket, and make your first $10 bet.
On average, by doubling after every loss you will lose your entire bankroll once every 84,072 tries.
When you do not lose 18 in a row, you win $10. 84,072 * $10 is only $840,720.
And actually you’ll do worse than this, because you are refusing to split even when it helps your win percentage on some hands. (Not doubling is awful too, but doubling never increases the win percentage, but it sure makes you a lot of money over that kind of action!)
Thanks Ken. I’m just a poor student so I account for every dollar, as such I have a set amount set in stone as my bankroll. Thanks for the comments they are very helpful
Ken, grazie per gli eccellenti consigli per il gioco in torneo. Ho una domanda in riferimento al tuo penultimo paragrafo. Lei consiglia di andare all-in ($400) anche se $350 sarebbe in vantaggio? Questo non è contrario al suo consiglio sul rischio e sulla ricompensa? Inoltre, voglio sempre risparmiare abbastanza denaro per battere i miei avversari se il banco vince l'ultimo giro e a tutti gli altri non rimane nulla.
Grazie ancora, spero di non doverti affrontare in finale - Walter
Questo paragrafo parla di un'eccezione comune al consiglio precedente. L'idea è che se si perde $350 del proprio banco da $400, il restante $50 non è probabilmente sufficiente per organizzare una rimonta nelle mani rimanenti. In questo caso, andate invece all-in.
Per quanto riguarda il trattenere una piccola somma nel caso in cui tutti gli altri perdano tutte le loro fiches nella mano finale, si tratta di un piano utile in alcuni casi e può essere un motivo per trattenere una somma apparentemente inutile. Tuttavia, questa tattica funziona molto meno spesso al giorno d'oggi, dato che i giocatori sono diventati più esperti. Se qualcuno vede che state sfruttando un piccolo bankroll sperando di arrivare alla mano finale, di solito si assicurerà di bloccarvi evitando di andare all-in alla fine.
The game has been slow and jerky the last few days. I have a very fast internet connection so I know the problem must be at your end.
Once the current version of the trainer is loaded and running, it runs locally on your machine. Something has to be causing Flash to run slowly on your machine.
Note that this will work completely differently in the eventual new version, which will be interacting with the server to provide additional features.
I think there are some flaws in your basic strategy regarding early surrender. The game recommended I surrender with 12 vs a dealer ace. That isn’t right, is it? It also recommended I surrender with a 7 vs an ace. That can’t possibly be right!
Yes, those are correct plays for “Early” surrender, where you can surrender before the dealer checks for blackjack.
But you probably don’t want to choose that rule. It’s rare.
Choose Late Surrender and you’ll get the advice you expect.
To learn more, see my article La resa al blackjack spiegata.
OK, thanks! I admit I didn’t know the difference between early and late surrender. Thanks for explaining!
No worries. It can be confusing! The next version of the trainer will make more information available about the rule choices.
In the above drill, “Basic Strategy Drill exercise” You have made up STARTING hands and given the dealers up card. If these are meant to be starting hands, what is the idea behind some of the Three figured player hands?
Good point. I suspect the GameMaster wrote that line and later created the exercise. Regardless, I have edited the description of the exercise to remove the “starting” part of the description. Thanks! The 3-card exercises are of course to be treated just like the others. Make sure you know the correct basic strategy for the 3-card hands.
I’ve noticed that some advantage players hit on A+7 when the dealer has a 2 whereas your strategy here indicates that stand/stay would be the preferred choice with 8 decks, DAS, No surrender, and no peek. Any thoughts on this difference?
It is likely that you saw players doubling A7v2, not just hitting it. (Hitting would simply be a mistake, as it is the third best way to play the hand.)
The choice of whether to stand or double with A7v2 is a close one.
In fact, correct basic strategy for that hand depends on whether the dealer hits or stands on soft 17s.
(The motore strategico takes all this into account when creating an accurate strategy chart for you.)
In S17 games, you should stand.
In H17 games, you should double. (Except in single deck.)
Card counters will often double this hand even in S17 games, because it only takes a true count of +1 or more to make this the correct play.
I’m going to be playing at a casino next week with No surrender, 8 decks, S17, and no peek. Got a couple of questions about strategy in such a situation;
1)Do I DD with a hard 11 on dealer’s 10 or hit?
2)Do I split 8s on dealers 10-A or hit?
3)Do I stand with a soft A/7 on dealer’s 2?
4) Do I split A/A on dealer’s A or hit?
Appreciate your help and any rationale you can provide for choices in these situations given the conditions of the table at which I shall be trying my luck. Thanks..
“No peek” does impact the decisions that you asked about.
You can get a complete strategy chart for this exact game here:
https://www.blackjackinfo.com/blackjack-basic-strategy-engine/?numdecks=8&soft17=s17&dbl=all&das=yes&surr=ns&peek=no
To answer your questions:
1) Hit 11vT
2) Hit 88vT and 88vA.
3) Stand with A7v2.
4) Hit AAvA.
Just to be clear, these strategies are for a “no peek” game, where the dealer either does not deal a hole card, or does not check it for a blackjack, and all player bets are vulnerable if the dealer ends up with a blackjack. In the US, that’s almost never the case, but it is common outside the US.
Grazie mille per la tua spiegazione molto logica e comprensibile. Se mi aiuti a trovare un grafico che mostri le percentuali di vincita, spinta o perdita di "tutte le possibilità differite" dopo la distribuzione di due carte per il giocatore, esattamente in base alla strategia di base, sia che si tratti di stare, colpire, raddoppiare o dividere (lo stesso del tuo grafico, ma non solo per il raddoppio), te ne sarei davvero grato.
Grazie ancora
fare