questioning a statement made by Renzey

In his book, Fred Renzey states and attempts to prove that the way in which other players at the table play their hands will have no effect on whether you win or lose. He states that this is true because the order in which the cards come out of the shoe is still random... so if the player before you was going to hit when basic strategy says to stand, the card you receive after his hit is just as random regardless of whether he hits or not...

I'm not sure I buy into this 100%.

In my mind, basic strategy only holds true when EVERYONE follows it. The more frequently is is strayed from (whether by 1 person several times, several people a few times, several people all the time, etc), the less accurate the strategy becomes.

For example, if the player at 1st base is dealt a King/4, I am dealt a 9/2 and the dealer is showing a 6...

Basic strategy tells the player at 1st base to stay. But let's suppose he hit. This gives him a greater chance of busting or making a hand that is less than the dealer's, right? So let's say he pulls a J and busts.

My turn. Basic strategy says that I have the best chance of beating the dealer by hitting (doubling actually). But that aspect of basic strategy had to have been calculated based on the fact that there are X number of face cards, Y number of 9s, Z number of Aces etc. So when the guy at 1st base "consumes" a card that basic strategy says he shouldn't have, then my chances of winning go down because 1 card (the card received by the player at 1st base) that technically "should" still be in the shoe is gone?

I know on a single hand, the difference, if any, would be negligible. But I imagine that over time, other players not playing by basic strategy will decrease your odds of winning by sticking to basic strategy.

Am I missing something? confused? dead wrong? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

BTW - does any software exist where someone could test this sort of thing?

You are right that the ploppy should not hit his hand, according to BS, if he cared about his own money. And of course, if he "took the dealer's bust card" and the dealer drew to a good hand, then everyone would be sad.

Few different levels you can look at this:

Quick and dirty: The ploppy play is just as likely to help as hurt. He might take a 10 that would bust the dealer, but he also might take a 5 that would lead the dealer to have a pat hand. Since you don't know the dealer's hole card or the next card out, it doesn't matter.

This is the level of explanation usually useful when trying to explain this to civilians (like my rocket scientist friend last weekend).

Now, add in knowing the count: Let's say the count is very positive. There are more high value cards in the shoe. High cards are more likely to come out. Players and dealer are more likely to bust. Now, when the guy draws a hand, two bad things happen:
1) His play decision is even worse, with regards to his own results.
2) He's more likely to draw a high card. "Wasting" it on his stupid play, when you'd rather save that to dump hopefully bust, or keep it for yourself for next round.

In this scenario (a high count), a ploppy who hits too much is indeed a disruptive factor, and you are allowed to swear under your breath.

However, possible ploppy plays are infinite in their diversity. You might also have a ploppy who stands too much, which would be great in a plus count. Or one who hits too much in a negative count, which would also be great (not as great as the plus count, since the bets are smaller).

At the extreme example, in a high count, you wouldn't want a BS player next to you, but a player who stood on everything, under all conditions.

Of course, it's not fair to expect civilians to know the count.

So, another player's play doesn't really affect others in any predictable way.

Basic strategy assumes only knowledge of player's hand and dealer's up card. You are right that every card played influences the probabilities, but basic strategy doesn't take any other information into account. Look at it this way. First play your hand according to basic strategy. After that flip up any of the other unseen cards. In the long run, do the flipped up cards change the probabilites? Answer = no.

If you are counting cards though, index plays very loosely take into account cards that have been removed from play.

The (Dead link: http://www.bjstrat.net/cdca_demo_download.htm) _demo_ of my program can compute what you want for single deck. It's not a hard program to use, but you may have some initial questions. You can send an email or PM me if you do.

k_c

This is the Advanced Strategies forum. Your question belongs in either Gen. BJ or Voodoo!. zg

Im just curious, if for example, that when the dealear draws isn't it true that a face card will dramatically increase his chances for a bust. So therefore wouldnt we want plooppy's to stand as often as possible in positive counts, because the less hits thier is, the less chance the count has to return to normal balance of 0. Conversley,wouldnt we want ploopy's to hit as often as possible in negative counts, in hopes of the dealer drawing a card from a neutral count. Since the count will remain at a constant balance most of the time.

This is true, but ONLY because it might mean another round or two may be dealt at the end of the shoe. Perhaps that's what EasyRhino meant by this post, but I think it's worthwhile to be very clear here.

Drawing an "extra" card out of a high-count deck doesn't affect the average resulting true count in any way.

Here's an illustration:
You're playing the final hand of a single-deck game before the shuffle, and the dealer inadvertently exposes his hole card. He has a ten in the hole and a six up, for a hard sixteen.

You stood stiff. Now, Joe Clueless at third base has a hard 12.

Let's say you also happen to know the exact remaining deck composition. The deck consists of 5 tens and 1 five.

So, if third base stands, you have a 5/6 chance of winning this hand.
But, what if he hits and "takes the dealer's bust card"!

5/6 of the time, he hurts your chances by busting. You then have a 4/5 chance of winning your hand by the dealer busting.

However, 1/6 of the time, he takes away the last five in the deck, and you're guaranteed to win the hand.

So, we multiply the probabilities...

(5/6) * (4/5) + (1/6) * (5/5)
= 20/30 + 5/30
= 25/30
= 5/6

We have exactly the same probability of winning if third base hits as if they stood.

No fluke, it works every time.

It's the other way around actually. There is a difference for one hand or just a few hands due to variance, but in the long run it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter what the count is, bad play still has no effect on your outcome in the long run.

Key phrase being...."in the long run".

It is quite possible that a player at a table will constantly misplay BS and the end result will be you losing instead of winning.
I find it easier to blame these losses on the bad service I got at dinner the night before.We need to blame someone for our failures,so why not blame someone who isn't around,instead of a guy you are sitting next to.

this is something i just really started appreciating this week. and last weeks play at a good heads up game put it all in the proper perspective too.

the count is great, and lookie here, all those nice tens a wasted!!!

regarding the thread's topic. even in hugely negative counts I have seen 10 after 10 pour out of the shoe. without tracking or steering you have no predictive value what so ever what the absolute next card will be. if you're counting you can only determine a probability of what the next card will be (high or low). you'll never be able to control what other people do at a table anyway, but to your original point, a lot of the hands that ploppies mess up, the net result will be 50:50 in your favor or against.

personally, i'm more concerned about people eating up good cards....my good cards!

I could have left that part out. If bad play doesn't affect you in the long run then it doesn't affect you in the short run either. The long run is just a summation of many short runs. It's not the bad play that is affecting you in the short run, it's variance.

Let's Keep this Simple

You're playing at the end of an extremely high count shoe -- the highest you've ever seen. You've stood with 12 against a 5. Third base has 12 also. Which card would you prefer the dealer to get -- the next one out of the shoe, or the one after it? Figure that out, and you'll know whether you'd rather have third base stand or hit.

Right, I read that part in the book. So here is where my mind was at when I first posted the question:

I stand with 12 against a 5 because basic strategy dictates that by hitting, the odds are greater that I will either bust or draw to a losing hand than if I stand and let the dealer bust.

Basic Strategy was derived based on the composition of cards in the shoe, correct? So wouldn't it make sense that the results of playing by basic strategy would be skewed by anyone not playing by it?

For example:

I double with a soft 17 against the dealer's 5 because basic strategy states that there are better odds of me pulling a high enough card to win and/or the dealer having a combination of a cards totaling high enough to bust him. But suppose the player at first base hit his 14 against the dealer's 5 and busts with a King. Haven't the odds of both me pulling a winning hand and the dealer busting changed with that King out of the shoe?

I know the answer to that will be that I have no way of telling what card 1st base was going to get - could have been a 2 instead, which would have altered the odds in my favor... BUT wasn't there a greater probability that he would get an 8 or higher? If there wasn't, basic strategy would have told him to hit.

If first base violates basic strategy and hits his 14 vs. 5, that hurts his own chances, but not yours! Which of these two groups of cards is he more likely to catch when he hits -- 10, Jack, Queen, King -- or 6, 7, 8, 9? If he catches the first group, he's hurt your hand and if he catches the second, he helps you. Yet six of those eight cards hurt him.

I know that's not a complete example. But what is it that makes you think you're likely to catch your best card on your double by getting the very next card if first base is supposed to stand -- and by getting the second card if he's supposed to hit?

Not quite. Basic strategy is derived considering only your cards, and the dealers up-card, when drawn from a new deck or decks in play.

Basic strategy was not designed to take into account the best possible way to play individual hands, "as a team," against the dealer.

You are correct in thinking that the odds change as others play their hands, but over a period of time the players decisions will help you just as often as they hurt you.

First of all, I just want to say thanks for taking the time to help me get my head around this concept. I'm not trying to be thick-skulled or argumentative. I just want to be sure I completely understand these concepts (not just believe them) before moving on to more advanced play.

According to basic strategy, the 1st group (plus the 8 and 9), right?

So since he has a greater chance of catching the 1st group, there is a greater chance of my hand being negatively affected by his bad play...

I guess I'm not thinking of it in terms of knowing exactly what the next 2 cards out of the shoe will be. Rather I'm thinking of it in terms of the probability that the card that comes out of the shoe when it's my turn to hit will be a card that helps me. In my scenario, the probability of getting a card that hurts is greater for the guy at first base. When he hits anyway, and does in fact get a card that hurts (as "probability" said he would), it changes the probability of me getting a card that helps.

I see this as being similar to the adjustments to basic strategy one must make when using the A/10 front count. At certain counts, because the shoe is richer in 10s, you would stand on a 16 against a dealer's 10 where basic strategy says to hit it. Isn't this comparable? Because the guy at 1st base caused the shoe to have a different composition of cards that basic strategy accounts for, the odds shift...

But at the time he makes his decision, the odds for the rest of the deck remains the same. The first card have exactly the same odds to be a 10 as the second one and the second card which also have the same odds to be a 10 as the third one. It won't change anything whether he hits or stand in the long run. Would you have the advantage if he took the 2nd card every times he hit and the dealer took the first card every times he hits? The card would still stay the same no matter what!

Dave -- No, No! He'd be just as likely to catch a 6, 7, 8, 9 as a 10, J, Q, K since there are the same number of each in the shoe. I think this might be where you're going astray.

Basic strategy says he should stand with his 14 vs. 5 simply because most of the cards in the shoe will hurt him. Since the card he takes when he hits and usually hurts his hand is random, you really don't know whether you want him to take it or not.

If the dealer took the bottom card of the shoe instead of taking the top card, the odds would not change and the way other play would not affect anything since the card on the bottom of the shoe would never change. Since the odds are the same no matter where the dealer takes his card, it doesn't change anything whether other players misplay their hands.