Bad play... why do we give a darn?
- Thread starter SuperSmash
- Start date
Bottom line FACT: Bad players have ZERO long-term effect on anyone elses' results. People who believe otherwise are usually just uneducated to this FACT.
People who have been enlightened to this FACT and continue to argue otherwise are what's known as IDIOTS. Trying to reason with an idiot only tends to make US idiots.
Idiots are entitled to their own opinions. They're NOT entitled to their own facts.
NOW can someone please lock this thread before it gets any stupider? Or at LEAST move it to the voodoo section so I don't have to look at it any more?
People who have been enlightened to this FACT and continue to argue otherwise are what's known as IDIOTS. Trying to reason with an idiot only tends to make US idiots.
Idiots are entitled to their own opinions. They're NOT entitled to their own facts.
NOW can someone please lock this thread before it gets any stupider? Or at LEAST move it to the voodoo section so I don't have to look at it any more?
21gunsalute said:
Now I see. It's a fact because you can yell louder than me. Thanks for setting me straight and enlightening me with such articulate documentation of your factual data. 
As for ploppie play. I love it. Prefer it. May even seek it out a bit.
When other players make plays that are deemed unorthadox by the casino and or general public, it makes it easier for me to make my plays like doubling 9vs7, 8vs5, 10vs10, ect. I would do so anyway at the proper time, not caring what anyone else thinks. I am used to getting flack. Doesn't bother me in the slightest, except getting flack from other players could possibly draw attention to your play from the pit that otherwise would have gone unnoticed. So when there are other players playing 'unorthadox', just makes me blend in. lolOther players playing 'wrong' also wil slow down those dealers that like to zoom on by, anticipating your every move.
Sorry, I'm admittedly new to this world of blackjack. I've known basic hi-lo and BS for awhile but honestly never really done much with it or got deeply involved.
I just don't get how that really hurt you. You didn't say the value of the other cards but even if they were tens the affect on RC and TC isn't too great, definitely nothing to raise your blood pressure over. and you could have very well had a losing hand either way. Not trying to start drama just honestly trying to understand the reasoning.
I just don't get how that really hurt you. You didn't say the value of the other cards but even if they were tens the affect on RC and TC isn't too great, definitely nothing to raise your blood pressure over. and you could have very well had a losing hand either way. Not trying to start drama just honestly trying to understand the reasoning.
Sucker,
You and I both see things the same way. But it's not you and I who we're trying to help in this matter. The coin flip analogy is much simpler and easier to understand. There aren't thousands of combinations of card orders involved. To the casual observer, the cards could theoretically remain in some dependent order depending upon how they were played.
Most players have trouble disassociating the effects of their own play from that of other players at the same table.These things muddy the perceptive waters of discernment for many otherwise very intelligent people.
I have done personal seminars for lawyers, judges and even an insurance actuary of all people, who have had huge problems discounting the "bad player" myth. After all the illustration visuals and explanations have failed, I was left with only the manual hand experiment to call the "proof in the pudding".
You and I both see things the same way. But it's not you and I who we're trying to help in this matter. The coin flip analogy is much simpler and easier to understand. There aren't thousands of combinations of card orders involved. To the casual observer, the cards could theoretically remain in some dependent order depending upon how they were played.
Most players have trouble disassociating the effects of their own play from that of other players at the same table.These things muddy the perceptive waters of discernment for many otherwise very intelligent people.
I have done personal seminars for lawyers, judges and even an insurance actuary of all people, who have had huge problems discounting the "bad player" myth. After all the illustration visuals and explanations have failed, I was left with only the manual hand experiment to call the "proof in the pudding".
I don't think my blood pressure changed. I was only pointing out that the misplay by one player resulted in one fewer round being dealt from the shoe/ And that round would have had an EV of something like 5 to 5.5%. Of course I could have gotten crushed (as I pointed out in a later post) on that extra round, or I could have ended up with a bunch of splits and doubles and won them all. Who knows?
The overall point is that, as a general rule, when the count is good I don't want other players taking cards, and when the count is bad, I hope they take as many as possible. As has been noted, it makes a very small difference in each instance, and probably balances out over time.
The overall point is that, as a general rule, when the count is good I don't want other players taking cards, and when the count is bad, I hope they take as many as possible. As has been noted, it makes a very small difference in each instance, and probably balances out over time.
Sorry Fred, on belabouring this matter. But it is the matter of Variance and the size of your sample, 500.
What you are trying to show is that your House Edge for BS play is not affected by other players play. In other words you are trying to show that with 500 hands you can show that the HE remains the same.
Here is what I can show to you about flipping a coin 100 times and getting 50 heads and tail result.
The probability of getting exactly 50 of each is combin(100,50)*(1/2)100 = 7.96%.
In your case your sample is 500 so the probability that you are right in your statement is slightly higher than 7.96%. Not much to cheer about.
Smarter guys than me like Sonny and London Colin would know how to use the formula above to work out what is your exact % of probability of being correct.
Have a good day.
What you are trying to show is that your House Edge for BS play is not affected by other players play. In other words you are trying to show that with 500 hands you can show that the HE remains the same.
Here is what I can show to you about flipping a coin 100 times and getting 50 heads and tail result.
The probability of getting exactly 50 of each is combin(100,50)*(1/2)100 = 7.96%.
In your case your sample is 500 so the probability that you are right in your statement is slightly higher than 7.96%. Not much to cheer about.
Smarter guys than me like Sonny and London Colin would know how to use the formula above to work out what is your exact % of probability of being correct.
Have a good day.
T,
To show what the house edge is, or to measure the performances of various count systems, or to evaluate any measure that deals in hundredths of a percent does indeed require several million hands.
But to get a good idea whether the outcome of a chance event should fall at 50% or rather at say, 60% requires far less. Suppose someone were to claim that 3rd base's bad play will cause the other players to lose say, even 60% of the time. Then here's what a 500 hand sample will tell you if that sample actually produced only 50% losers (in dollars wagered),as this one did.
The standard error of the sample was 12.6 wins.
The number of actual losses was 264.
Losing 60% of the decisions (in dollars wagered) would require 320 losses.
That's 56 losses, or 4.4 standard deviations from the actual result.
My statistical "Z" score table says it's over 5000-to-1 that these 264 losses were lower than their true probability by at least 56 losses. My handling of the pushes may or may not be quite correct here, but either way, I'm pretty sure the indication will be just about the same. Perhaps Norm can comment on the effect of bad players down to the tenth of a percent.
To show what the house edge is, or to measure the performances of various count systems, or to evaluate any measure that deals in hundredths of a percent does indeed require several million hands.
But to get a good idea whether the outcome of a chance event should fall at 50% or rather at say, 60% requires far less. Suppose someone were to claim that 3rd base's bad play will cause the other players to lose say, even 60% of the time. Then here's what a 500 hand sample will tell you if that sample actually produced only 50% losers (in dollars wagered),as this one did.
The standard error of the sample was 12.6 wins.
The number of actual losses was 264.
Losing 60% of the decisions (in dollars wagered) would require 320 losses.
That's 56 losses, or 4.4 standard deviations from the actual result.
My statistical "Z" score table says it's over 5000-to-1 that these 264 losses were lower than their true probability by at least 56 losses. My handling of the pushes may or may not be quite correct here, but either way, I'm pretty sure the indication will be just about the same. Perhaps Norm can comment on the effect of bad players down to the tenth of a percent.
Last edited:
Questions unanswered
I asked about anyone's thoughts on whether the dealers or pit wholeheartedly believe it when they talk about the "bad player upsetting the sacred flow of the cards" or if they are merely saying this to humor the players, knowing it is completely false way back in the beginning of this. No one answered this question or has any thoughts on it and the thread continues on into oblivion back and forth as to any validity of the "bad player" theory instead!
Does anyone out there have anything on this question and something besides, "Yeah! Why... just last week the player ahead of me did THIS and it messed me up so THEREFORE...".
I asked about anyone's thoughts on whether the dealers or pit wholeheartedly believe it when they talk about the "bad player upsetting the sacred flow of the cards" or if they are merely saying this to humor the players, knowing it is completely false way back in the beginning of this. No one answered this question or has any thoughts on it and the thread continues on into oblivion back and forth as to any validity of the "bad player" theory instead!
Does anyone out there have anything on this question and something besides, "Yeah! Why... just last week the player ahead of me did THIS and it messed me up so THEREFORE...".
Remember it works both ways
The guy who misplays and takes an extra card or two out of a positive shoe is just as likely to misplay and not hit hands he should during the next positive shoe. Same with the hits and non hits during the negative shoes.
Recently played with a guy who would stay on soft 17 (of all hands) vs dealer stiffs and 7's. Seemed like during negative counts the next card, mine, was always a 3 or 4 which sometimes I needed and often did not but when he did the same thing on positive counts it turned out very helpful.
The guy who misplays and takes an extra card or two out of a positive shoe is just as likely to misplay and not hit hands he should during the next positive shoe. Same with the hits and non hits during the negative shoes.
Recently played with a guy who would stay on soft 17 (of all hands) vs dealer stiffs and 7's. Seemed like during negative counts the next card, mine, was always a 3 or 4 which sometimes I needed and often did not but when he did the same thing on positive counts it turned out very helpful.
Vast majority
I think we here do not give blackjack superstition enough credit. I firmly believe that the vast majority of both dealers and pits believe that poor play hurts the players, while most would score low on a test of just what poor play actually is. Other things like someone coming in during a "good shoe" or someone going from one hand to two and back to one again is also a well accepted superstition. They are firmly within the realm of believers in the Almighty Flow of the Sacred Cards!
This belief is very important for dealers and is also used by those few dealers who do not believe that weak players hurt others. The world of the dealer is full of ploppies who are always looking for someone to blame for their poor play. A blamed dealer makes little in tokes even if things turn around for the losing players. Having a scapegoat, such as a player recognized by the other players as being bad, insulates the dealer from the wrath of the ploppies.
As an advantage player, I know and will often quote every superstition known to blackjack as verbal cover and just to look like one of the crowd. If I was a pit, it would be to my benefit to do the same thing.
ihate17
I think we here do not give blackjack superstition enough credit. I firmly believe that the vast majority of both dealers and pits believe that poor play hurts the players, while most would score low on a test of just what poor play actually is. Other things like someone coming in during a "good shoe" or someone going from one hand to two and back to one again is also a well accepted superstition. They are firmly within the realm of believers in the Almighty Flow of the Sacred Cards!
This belief is very important for dealers and is also used by those few dealers who do not believe that weak players hurt others. The world of the dealer is full of ploppies who are always looking for someone to blame for their poor play. A blamed dealer makes little in tokes even if things turn around for the losing players. Having a scapegoat, such as a player recognized by the other players as being bad, insulates the dealer from the wrath of the ploppies.
As an advantage player, I know and will often quote every superstition known to blackjack as verbal cover and just to look like one of the crowd. If I was a pit, it would be to my benefit to do the same thing.
ihate17