playing 1 vs 1 better than playing with idiot?

Hi guys i am from sydney australia, and when i go to the casino to play blackjacks on a table of 5, about 3 out of 5 people on that table seem to not know any idea about the basic strategie. Are these people disadvantaging me?

am i better off playing on a emepty table than playing with these people?

No, the others at the table don't cause you any disadvantage. There are players who are superstitious about playing with what they preceive to be "bad players". They feel that their bad decisions foul up the flow of the cards. This, however, is just nonsense and ignorance. Other people's decisions, good or bad, will help you as often as they hurt you, on average. So in and of itself, playing with idiots doesn't hurt your chances of winning.

On the other hand, if it gets under your skin somehow, or throws off your attitude or concentration to be with the other players, then you might be better off playing by yourself. That has nothing to do with their decisions. It has to do with your reaction to their decisions.

One other factor to consider is the speed of the game. If you have more people at the table, especially idiots, the game will be slower. Some people prefer the game slower, others faster.

But you should decide where to play based on your own comfort with the other players and the speed of the game, not based on the other players causing a disadvantage for you with bad play.

Thanks Bama for posting what I was gonna say. Just put me down as seconding everything he said. Of the things previoulsy mentioned, the biggest danger is what people playing in an unorthodox manner will do to YOUR mental outlook. If you can watch them splitting their tens and stay secure in your knowledge that they will help you as often as they hurt you, it should not be any problem. If seeing that or even a less obvious departure from basic strategy gets you more worried about how they are going to play their cards instead of how you are going to play your own cards, you might be more effective trying toplay one-on-one or at least with more conventional players.

One other point that is worth making is that I have heard lots of people blame the other players at the table for their own losses; but rarely have I heard anyone credit the other players at the table with their wins. If the bad tablemates could cause you to lose, it stands to reason that good tablemates would cause you to win. But since nobody is advocating the ability to win just by sitting at the same table as certain other players, neither should we accept that sitting with certain players can cause us to lose.

What about comps?

Here's my question on this topic: if you're playing at a table with others vs. playing one-on-one against the dealer you're playing fewer hands per hour, so is it better for your player rating as far as comps go to play with others at the table? Or do pit bosses take that into consideration when they figure out how much you deserve in comps?

For the most part, there is no consideration given to the number of players at the table. It would be a logistical nightmare trying to keep up with that. It is always better for your comps vs money-put-at-risk ratio to play on a table with more players. All those payouts, decisions, and chit-chat result in less hands per hour played. That results in your getting credit for more hands played than you actually did, which in turn lowers the amount of money you actually put at risk for the comps that you receive. That is one of the reasons I like to play out on the main floor instead of the higher limit areas even when I am betting enough to play the higher limit tables. Plus, people on the main floor are looser in spirit and seem to have more fun.

On this same topic, I have sometimes wondered if they might make a differentation in their rating formula based on what variation of BJ you are playing. For instance, if you are playing at a BJ table with a side game on it such as Lucky Ladies or Super 7's, would they bump the estimated hands per hour down a little in recogition of the slow-downs caused by the side game payouts. Probably not but I have wondered if they were that astute.

The slow-down because of the side bets is probably made up for by the higher vig on the side bets.

One time at the Barbary Coast in Vegas, I was playing third base and a guy was in 1st base, doing pretty well. The count was high, and I put some chips out, but this guy put his whole lot out there. It was a huge stack of chips. The dealer called out "max bet." The cards were dealt, I lost the hand but the big stack guy won the hand. He tossed me a $100 chip and said thank you for correct play.

I absolutely refused to take it and handed it back to him but he insisted. It was nice, but not necessary.

I'm sure we all have stories like this. BUT THEY ARE RARE. I agree.

I think I would have taken the chip without hesitation but would have asked him if I had to pay it back if I made what "He" considered a wrong play <LOL>