questioning a statement made by Renzey

[daveh0]

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?

[EasyRhino]

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.

[k_c]

Originally Posted by daveh0

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...

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.

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.

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

The 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

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by daveh0

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?

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

[jack,jackson]

Originally Posted by EasyRhino

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.

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.

[KenSmith]

Originally Posted by EasyRhino

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.

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.

[ScottH]

Originally Posted by daveh0

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.

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.

Originally Posted by EasyRhino

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.

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

[shadroch]

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.

[Mimosine]

Originally Posted by EasyRhino

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.

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!

[ScottH]

Originally Posted by shadroch

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

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.