Here are all the comments posted on the site, with the most recent discussions listed first.
To participate in any of these discussions, you can reply on the article page.
The article failed to mention caveats to overall strategy, and objective.
I’ll run a negative progression at times. Never by itself of course. That’s stupid. There are ways to MAKE the Casino THINK you’re running negative progression, and actually hide it in something else (No, I’m not giving away everything here).
Regardless, as with any mathematical game, you have to take into account strategy, and objective. Of course, this is taking into account that the individual is not a degen, and is actually going to “work” when they walk into the casino.
You run counting cards, and the rest of your strategy, and you’re up your target amount, plus a little spill over your target. Here … I’ll give you one for free.
Take that SPILL ONLY (and sometimes, if you want every dealer to be in love with you until the end of time, the tip amount) and run your strategy on a strict Martingale. You’ve already made your money. So just run the spill, down to a predetermined kill arena, but run strict negative progression until you hit the new target, or your kill spot is hit.
You __ MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT STRATEGY SPECIFICS __ before throwing around “never’s” and “Dont event think about” ‘s
Blackjack is actually a simple game to beat, with even a rudimentary understanding of differential mathematics; which in my opinion, they should be teaching to 9 year olds.
The Cromwell has made a big push going the opposite direction. Almost entire retail floor is 3/2 shoe and pitch double deck. $10-$15mins normally from what I’ve seen. Maybe up to $25 on the pitch at times but that’s still better than the rest of the strip. Should check it out.
and extreme question based on W’s info and coroborating info found on the Internet and my simultated
the player is holding a hard 14. If the dealer up-card is a 5, the dealers bust out rate would be 41.841%
inferring the dealers success rate would be 60.590%. By standing we accept the dealers bust rate of 41.841% as our success rate, however, based on the above charts i would hit the 14 a minimum 44.068% of making my hand.
44.068% SUCCESS rate is greater than 41.841% offered by conventional wisdom. Am I missing something
if so what or have we all been successfully conditioned to lose by the man.
i pulled 1, 2 and 3 from the respective websites and 3 came from this forum:KenSmith
my data came from my personal simulator.
i hope the above makes sense
You will also frequently hit and not bust, but still lose to a better dealer hand. Your question appears to assume that if you don’t bust, you’ll win the hand. No, you might win, you might lose, and you might push.
By the way, I’m checking in here less and less frequently since I am no longer associated with the site. I recommend that you take your questions to the forums if you want a better chance of getting a response.
Hmm it seems like your blog ate my first comment (it was extremely long) so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I wrote and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying
your blog. I too am an aspiring blog blogger but I’m still new to the whole thing.
Do you have any tips and hints for newbie blog writers?
I’d definitely appreciate it.
Was flagged at the Borgata almost ten years ago & then Caesars. To this day I have played in most major venues & have not been escorted out. Although there are “lists” all over the country, some casinos are not as “tight” as others. Perfect example would be the Tribal casinos in CT. I spent 9 months in one of them going through the paces & took them for 250K. On top of that their comps at the time were great. I knew there were times when I was being run down, so I just took it easy. Aside from the discipline of tracking, you should always consider unit betting which will help disguise your edge.
no, if the player has over 21 he/she has busted their hand resulting in a loss. The dealer must pick up ones chip if they bust (making over 21). In your case hitting 15 and catching an ace gives you 16 which is not over 21. The goal playing blackjack is to not bust your hand but to get close to 21 as possible. Your odds on busting 16 is greater as you only have 16% chance of catching your cards. This also depends on how many high cards have been played. The more high cards played makes your odds better of making a better. 16 in blackjack in usually a surrender hand but some casinos don’t allow surrender. In this case your better bet is to stay or hit.
Yes! very much agree with this. I was playing and did something against the rules. this one guy mentioned it, and kept mentioning it, a couple of hands later. as if to say that my 1 decision affected his cards 2-3 hands later. but there were many other events that transpired after my choice to not play the rules. I believe in situational advantages and, in general, play by “the rules.” but to say that my not affects multiple events thereafter is delusional.
No. It’s the basic gamblers fallacy in hitting a losing streak (for any number of reasons, which could be they simply did not play basic strategy correctly; Hitting at 15 when the dealer stands at 6 for example. Or it could be a simple mathematical deviation). Regardless … your theory falls apart on your own premise. NO ONE ELSE MUST BE AT THE TABLE, per your own words.
That’s not something the Casino controls, or can control. It’s what we refer to in Mathematics, as Non-Linear Complexity variables.
Per your own statement, if anyone else walks up to the table during the above statement, the entire necessity of the Casino “arranging the cards” (which in actuality, they’d be allowed to do) falls apart.
Regardless, Blackjack is so stupidly simple to beat if you have the correct math … even using negative progression as part of your overall strategy (and where the above article falls apart … is the author doesn’t account for other strategy specifics … see the comment below)
You’re still not getting it. I’m not saying that his taking a card will help you 50% of the time and hurt you 50% of the time. Not at all.
Indeed, in your example with 7 cards that will make the dealer bust and 6 cards that will make the dealer not bust, he is more likely to hurt your chances. But keep thinking…
With your example, if Johnny doesn’t take a card, the dealer has a 7 in 13 chance of busting.
If Johnny does take a card, there are two possibilities:
He takes a dealer bust card (7/13 chance). He has indeed hurt you. The dealer now has a smaller chance of busting (6 of the remaining 12 cards.)
He takes a non-bust card (6/13 chance). He has now helped you (and the key is he helped you MORE than when he hurt you.) Now the dealer has an even bigger chance of busting than when we started. (7 of the remaining 12 cards.)
The two effects EXACTLY offset each other, and they will in every possible situation you could describe.
If you can follow the math needed, it is easy to prove.
If Johnny stands, the dealer busts (7/13) = 53.846%
If Johnny hits, we need to add the two possible outcomes together, weighted by Johnny’s chance of each kind of card he may draw.
Case 1: Johnny hurts us (7/13), times the dealer’s now-reduced chance of busting (6/12): (7/13) * (6/12) = 26.923% (Yowee, he killed us, right? The dealer is only half as likely to bust compared to if he hadn’t taken that card!)
Case 2: Johnny helps us (6/13), times the dealer’s now-INCREASED chance of busting (7/12): (6/13) * (7/12) = 26.923% (Amazing how that worked, eh?)
Add the two cases together: 26.923% + 26.923% = 53.846%
In other words, the EXACT same probability of the dealer busting as when Johnny stood.
I cannot explain it any more clearly. I hope you get it.
Ken, I still disagree with what you’re saying about ZERO effect. We’re not talking about the Clueless player flipping a coin that has a 50/50 percent probability of being either heads or tails. If there are 7 cards that cause the dealer to bust, and only 6 cards where the dealer will not bust (5 definitely no bust, and the ace could lead to a bust or not, depending on the next card dealt) then the odds are his hitting on 16 against 15 is going to hurt you slightly more than it will help you.
I agree we are probably talking about something minimal like 50.1 to 49.9 percent chance of Clueless’s hit helping or hurting, but I don’t think it’s fair to say ZERO effect.
I would love to see someone run a simulator of 1 million hands played and set the rules for the player on third base to always hit on a 16 when the dealer has a 15. I think there would be a difference for the player on first base versus if the player on third played according to basic strategy. I don’t think it would be a life-changing, significant difference, just something greater than zero.
Although, in the real world, we know that Johnny Clueless probably isn’t going to be completely regular with when he does or does not hit on 16 against 15. Probably will sometimes hit and sometimes not, depending on his “gut” and how much money he has on the table and how many drinks he’s had, lol. So when you’re playing with a real human who is just a wildcard on what decisions they will make, I would agree that it’s probably just as likely for their bad play to hurt you as it is to help you, in the long run.
I Agree, though when the True Count hits a minus 2 or 3, it is tempting If I am at a high limit table, over 200 , I would leave with a TC of minus 2, However. On occasion negative counts win,
I think they do. I have witnessed 10 small cards come out in a row and dealers don’t bust. I have also witnessed every player having 20 including the dealer. I think this is due to lack of shuffling. No wonder they allow basic strategy charts. Cards are not coming out random as they should to make the game fair.
The article failed to mention caveats to overall strategy, and objective.
I’ll run a negative progression at times. Never by itself of course. That’s stupid. There are ways to MAKE the Casino THINK you’re running negative progression, and actually hide it in something else (No, I’m not giving away everything here).
Regardless, as with any mathematical game, you have to take into account strategy, and objective. Of course, this is taking into account that the individual is not a degen, and is actually going to “work” when they walk into the casino.
You run counting cards, and the rest of your strategy, and you’re up your target amount, plus a little spill over your target. Here … I’ll give you one for free.
Take that SPILL ONLY (and sometimes, if you want every dealer to be in love with you until the end of time, the tip amount) and run your strategy on a strict Martingale. You’ve already made your money. So just run the spill, down to a predetermined kill arena, but run strict negative progression until you hit the new target, or your kill spot is hit.
You __ MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT STRATEGY SPECIFICS __ before throwing around “never’s” and “Dont event think about” ‘s
Blackjack is actually a simple game to beat, with even a rudimentary understanding of differential mathematics; which in my opinion, they should be teaching to 9 year olds.
The Cromwell has made a big push going the opposite direction. Almost entire retail floor is 3/2 shoe and pitch double deck. $10-$15mins normally from what I’ve seen. Maybe up to $25 on the pitch at times but that’s still better than the rest of the strip. Should check it out.
kind of on topic
player 12 through to 16 refer to my chart
6 Decks Dealer Stands on Soft 17 Excerpt From
DEALER’S W* of O*’s DEALER’S FINAL TOTAL MY SIMULATOR
UP CARD BUST SUCCESS BUST SUCCESS
2 35.350% 64.650% 38.095% 61.905%
3 37.419% 62.581% 38.849% 61.151%
4 39.410% 60.590% 39.410% 60.590%
5 41.841% 58.159% 40.183% 59.817%
6 42.284% 57.716% 45.152% 54.848%
PLAYER’S BUST SUCCESS BUST SUCCESS BUST SUCCESS
12 31.000% 1 69.000% 52.755% 47.245% 46.200% 3 53.800%
13 39.000% 1 61.000% 53.822% 46.178% 50.900% 3 49.100%
14 47.000% 1 53.000% 55.932% 44.068% 55.000% 3 45.000%
15 58.000% 2 42.000% 59.772% 40.228% 58.600% 3 41.400%
16 62.000% 2 38.000% 59.834% 40.166% 61.500% 3 38.500%
Hit or Stand 1
lolblackjack 2
blackjackinfo 3
and extreme question based on W’s info and coroborating info found on the Internet and my simultated
the player is holding a hard 14. If the dealer up-card is a 5, the dealers bust out rate would be 41.841%
inferring the dealers success rate would be 60.590%. By standing we accept the dealers bust rate of 41.841% as our success rate, however, based on the above charts i would hit the 14 a minimum 44.068% of making my hand.
44.068% SUCCESS rate is greater than 41.841% offered by conventional wisdom. Am I missing something
if so what or have we all been successfully conditioned to lose by the man.
i pulled 1, 2 and 3 from the respective websites and 3 came from this forum:KenSmith
my data came from my personal simulator.
i hope the above makes sense
sorry it was formatted properly when i posted it.
You will also frequently hit and not bust, but still lose to a better dealer hand. Your question appears to assume that if you don’t bust, you’ll win the hand. No, you might win, you might lose, and you might push.
By the way, I’m checking in here less and less frequently since I am no longer associated with the site. I recommend that you take your questions to the forums if you want a better chance of getting a response.
actually my MINE includes the
Wins, Ties, Losses on a made hand, and busting out
i just used the results of the other websites to make
the point
thanks
Hmm it seems like your blog ate my first comment (it was extremely long) so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I wrote and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying
your blog. I too am an aspiring blog blogger but I’m still new to the whole thing.
Do you have any tips and hints for newbie blog writers?
I’d definitely appreciate it.
The “quit ” button is not working.
Thhis is a topic that is close to my heart… Thank you!
Where aｒe ʏour contact details thoսgh?
Is a Black Jack and a red Queen a Blackjack?
Was flagged at the Borgata almost ten years ago & then Caesars. To this day I have played in most major venues & have not been escorted out. Although there are “lists” all over the country, some casinos are not as “tight” as others. Perfect example would be the Tribal casinos in CT. I spent 9 months in one of them going through the paces & took them for 250K. On top of that their comps at the time were great. I knew there were times when I was being run down, so I just took it easy. Aside from the discipline of tracking, you should always consider unit betting which will help disguise your edge.
no, if the player has over 21 he/she has busted their hand resulting in a loss. The dealer must pick up ones chip if they bust (making over 21). In your case hitting 15 and catching an ace gives you 16 which is not over 21. The goal playing blackjack is to not bust your hand but to get close to 21 as possible. Your odds on busting 16 is greater as you only have 16% chance of catching your cards. This also depends on how many high cards have been played. The more high cards played makes your odds better of making a better. 16 in blackjack in usually a surrender hand but some casinos don’t allow surrender. In this case your better bet is to stay or hit.
Yes! very much agree with this. I was playing and did something against the rules. this one guy mentioned it, and kept mentioning it, a couple of hands later. as if to say that my 1 decision affected his cards 2-3 hands later. but there were many other events that transpired after my choice to not play the rules. I believe in situational advantages and, in general, play by “the rules.” but to say that my not affects multiple events thereafter is delusional.
No. It’s the basic gamblers fallacy in hitting a losing streak (for any number of reasons, which could be they simply did not play basic strategy correctly; Hitting at 15 when the dealer stands at 6 for example. Or it could be a simple mathematical deviation). Regardless … your theory falls apart on your own premise. NO ONE ELSE MUST BE AT THE TABLE, per your own words.
That’s not something the Casino controls, or can control. It’s what we refer to in Mathematics, as Non-Linear Complexity variables.
Per your own statement, if anyone else walks up to the table during the above statement, the entire necessity of the Casino “arranging the cards” (which in actuality, they’d be allowed to do) falls apart.
Regardless, Blackjack is so stupidly simple to beat if you have the correct math … even using negative progression as part of your overall strategy (and where the above article falls apart … is the author doesn’t account for other strategy specifics … see the comment below)
Is one thousand hands long enough?
Really stupid to split a 20…ever. Sometimes may get lucky in the end lose your money
You’re still not getting it. I’m not saying that his taking a card will help you 50% of the time and hurt you 50% of the time. Not at all.
Indeed, in your example with 7 cards that will make the dealer bust and 6 cards that will make the dealer not bust, he is more likely to hurt your chances. But keep thinking…
With your example, if Johnny doesn’t take a card, the dealer has a 7 in 13 chance of busting.
If Johnny does take a card, there are two possibilities:
He takes a dealer bust card (7/13 chance). He has indeed hurt you. The dealer now has a smaller chance of busting (6 of the remaining 12 cards.)
He takes a non-bust card (6/13 chance). He has now helped you (and the key is he helped you MORE than when he hurt you.) Now the dealer has an even bigger chance of busting than when we started. (7 of the remaining 12 cards.)
The two effects EXACTLY offset each other, and they will in every possible situation you could describe.
If you can follow the math needed, it is easy to prove.
If Johnny stands, the dealer busts (7/13) = 53.846%
If Johnny hits, we need to add the two possible outcomes together, weighted by Johnny’s chance of each kind of card he may draw.
Case 1: Johnny hurts us (7/13), times the dealer’s now-reduced chance of busting (6/12): (7/13) * (6/12) = 26.923% (Yowee, he killed us, right? The dealer is only half as likely to bust compared to if he hadn’t taken that card!)
Case 2: Johnny helps us (6/13), times the dealer’s now-INCREASED chance of busting (7/12): (6/13) * (7/12) = 26.923% (Amazing how that worked, eh?)
Add the two cases together: 26.923% + 26.923% = 53.846%
In other words, the EXACT same probability of the dealer busting as when Johnny stood.
I cannot explain it any more clearly. I hope you get it.
Ken, I still disagree with what you’re saying about ZERO effect. We’re not talking about the Clueless player flipping a coin that has a 50/50 percent probability of being either heads or tails. If there are 7 cards that cause the dealer to bust, and only 6 cards where the dealer will not bust (5 definitely no bust, and the ace could lead to a bust or not, depending on the next card dealt) then the odds are his hitting on 16 against 15 is going to hurt you slightly more than it will help you.
I agree we are probably talking about something minimal like 50.1 to 49.9 percent chance of Clueless’s hit helping or hurting, but I don’t think it’s fair to say ZERO effect.
I would love to see someone run a simulator of 1 million hands played and set the rules for the player on third base to always hit on a 16 when the dealer has a 15. I think there would be a difference for the player on first base versus if the player on third played according to basic strategy. I don’t think it would be a life-changing, significant difference, just something greater than zero.
Although, in the real world, we know that Johnny Clueless probably isn’t going to be completely regular with when he does or does not hit on 16 against 15. Probably will sometimes hit and sometimes not, depending on his “gut” and how much money he has on the table and how many drinks he’s had, lol. So when you’re playing with a real human who is just a wildcard on what decisions they will make, I would agree that it’s probably just as likely for their bad play to hurt you as it is to help you, in the long run.
I Agree, though when the True Count hits a minus 2 or 3, it is tempting If I am at a high limit table, over 200 , I would leave with a TC of minus 2, However. On occasion negative counts win,
I think they do. I have witnessed 10 small cards come out in a row and dealers don’t bust. I have also witnessed every player having 20 including the dealer. I think this is due to lack of shuffling. No wonder they allow basic strategy charts. Cards are not coming out random as they should to make the game fair.