Hello everybody
I posted in "blackjack strategies" and as mentionned I do not master the english langauge like most of you do.
I post this in "betting strategies" because that's what I talk about.
there is a way of beating blackjack through "strategies", yes there are various ways.
but most of us do lose or win that perticular day because it was our destiny to have LUCK tonight or back LUCK that other one.
about none of us can go to a casino for a 10.000 hands game, stricly sticking to one stragegy. for lot of reason.
those who have read my post "First Three Card analysis" know what I mean what I say by a "Ticket of three". for those who don't, in short, I do give a positve value expressed in percentages or negative ones to the first three cards the dealer gives you. I, in short then know the value of my next bet.
I learned like everybody to surrender 16 against 10 and to hit a 13 against 10.
it selfs explains to those of you who once had the braun's book in their hand
16 againt 10 happens to be something like 54% against you and you are better off paying 50% of your bet that maintain the entire bet in that 54% against you situation.
13 against 10 should be played because it si something like -45% less than 50
Well but what if that particular period of time I bust all these bets, paying the house 100% of my bets
let's suppose we are with very precise analytical tools and we separate all these 13-10
14-10
14-9
15-9
16-9
15-10
16-10
16-8 don't insist on that one
at the end of our playing period we focus on these particular situations and their results
if we take them as one, We can roughly say that the odds of the situations summed up and then divided accordingly have an "average" of 42% against you.
let's suppose for a while that one guy never surrenders (except of course for those above 50%
an onother guy surrender them all
the guy who surrendered them all has in fact increased the house edge to his disadvantage. in fact he payed a liitle 8% tax to the house to have the right not to gamble his whole bet and buy the dealer OUT
the guy who player them all has played the edge to their best but what IS DEFINITELLY more at the disposal of his majesty "VARIATION".
what if things went good for the first guy. well he doesn't notice that thing have been good today. since he always surrenders, he doesn't notice that that particular family of situation are good
if thing were good to him for a particular number of hands, well he will notice because he is lucky tonight. he will laught at that stupid player who doesn't seem to know it's blackjack basics.
what is things went bad "BUST? BUST? BUST-we all know that this happens
and the guy "always trying his luck" goes losing "IN REAL FACT" let's say -80% instead of what the charts says . 42% in my example
who laughing know?
and remember that things are never difficult to handle when things go well
But I've seen lots and lots of gamblers who tend to go "nervous" when things go bad
this is a question not a statement
isn't the guy who surrendered (paying 8% taxes for it) modifying IT'S VARIATION front of her majesty "LUCK"
Since he can't control it variation on the good situations (20 against 6 does loses now and again) I don't thing the surrenderer is doing so bad . PROVIDED he can take these 8% taxes payed back.
and gain control of it's variation in bad situations.
best regards
ben
I posted in "blackjack strategies" and as mentionned I do not master the english langauge like most of you do.
I post this in "betting strategies" because that's what I talk about.
there is a way of beating blackjack through "strategies", yes there are various ways.
but most of us do lose or win that perticular day because it was our destiny to have LUCK tonight or back LUCK that other one.
about none of us can go to a casino for a 10.000 hands game, stricly sticking to one stragegy. for lot of reason.
those who have read my post "First Three Card analysis" know what I mean what I say by a "Ticket of three". for those who don't, in short, I do give a positve value expressed in percentages or negative ones to the first three cards the dealer gives you. I, in short then know the value of my next bet.
I learned like everybody to surrender 16 against 10 and to hit a 13 against 10.
it selfs explains to those of you who once had the braun's book in their hand
16 againt 10 happens to be something like 54% against you and you are better off paying 50% of your bet that maintain the entire bet in that 54% against you situation.
13 against 10 should be played because it si something like -45% less than 50
Well but what if that particular period of time I bust all these bets, paying the house 100% of my bets
let's suppose we are with very precise analytical tools and we separate all these 13-10
14-10
14-9
15-9
16-9
15-10
16-10
16-8 don't insist on that one
at the end of our playing period we focus on these particular situations and their results
if we take them as one, We can roughly say that the odds of the situations summed up and then divided accordingly have an "average" of 42% against you.
let's suppose for a while that one guy never surrenders (except of course for those above 50%
an onother guy surrender them all
the guy who surrendered them all has in fact increased the house edge to his disadvantage. in fact he payed a liitle 8% tax to the house to have the right not to gamble his whole bet and buy the dealer OUT
the guy who player them all has played the edge to their best but what IS DEFINITELLY more at the disposal of his majesty "VARIATION".
what if things went good for the first guy. well he doesn't notice that thing have been good today. since he always surrenders, he doesn't notice that that particular family of situation are good
if thing were good to him for a particular number of hands, well he will notice because he is lucky tonight. he will laught at that stupid player who doesn't seem to know it's blackjack basics.
what is things went bad "BUST? BUST? BUST-we all know that this happens
and the guy "always trying his luck" goes losing "IN REAL FACT" let's say -80% instead of what the charts says . 42% in my example
who laughing know?
and remember that things are never difficult to handle when things go well
But I've seen lots and lots of gamblers who tend to go "nervous" when things go bad
this is a question not a statement
isn't the guy who surrendered (paying 8% taxes for it) modifying IT'S VARIATION front of her majesty "LUCK"
Since he can't control it variation on the good situations (20 against 6 does loses now and again) I don't thing the surrenderer is doing so bad . PROVIDED he can take these 8% taxes payed back.
and gain control of it's variation in bad situations.
best regards
ben
