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 following may be a bit longish for this format. You may publish it or not as you choose.
The Five Reasons You Lose at Blackjack
This essay contains the remarkable claim that one of five possible situations can explain any loss at the Blackjack table, whether a single hand, a session or a life-time of play. It is comprehensive!
It is also arranged as a hierarchy. That is, if “Reason #1” explains a loss, no further reason is needed. If “Reason#1” is rejected, i.e. falsified, then proceed to “Reason#2” and so on.
Reason #1: God did not want you to win. Don’t ask me why; I have no especial insight into God’s mind.Perhaps playing Blackjack is sinful and losing a gentle expression of His/Her wrath. If you can’t accept this as the reason for losing go on to #2.
Reason #2: You played in a crooked game. This is a reason often suspected and sometimes claimed. For sure it has happened. There are many ways a dealer can cheat that are almost undetectable and many ways the house can cheat without even the dealer’s knowledge. However, I think such cheating is very rare in most large casinos. The casino can make tons of money without cheating and can not risk exposure and customer loss in a highly competative business. So on to #3.
Reason #3: You played poorly: you didn’t play a good basic strategy. The best way to play any card combination is well known and widely distributed. An occasional misplay is only human, but a systematic error will grind you down. I once played a table with a man who for 20 years would not hit any hand that might bust. He looked ground down. Fear of a bust is no reason to not take the best odds.
Reason #4: You had a string of bad luck: you didn’t win as many hands as average. Note that this is the same scenario as Reason#1, but does not invoke the intervention of a Higher Power. It’s purely mathematical, a normal variation from the mean. Knowing this, it is still amazing the variance you may experience from series to series in a Blackjack game. Now, the last reason. Everyone knows it, but presumes they are exempt.
Reason #5: Even with average luck, the house has a small edge. This edge seems to magnify in a long series of hands. Nevertheless, there is still hope. The possibility of better than average luck, i.e. a win, does exist. The probability of a win is reduced the longer you play, but never reaches zero. Some suggest that offers of travel, free play and generous comps can produce a win for the player that enjoys the game and the gaming environment. So, enjoy and good luck.
Wheelmarks
P.S.: I’m sure many will protest that i have included all the reasons for losing. I have heard (too many times): “You took my card. You took the dealer’s bust card. You didn’t hit and let the dealer have a winning card. You misplayed and now the whole shoe is out of order. You came in mid-shoe and ended my winning streak.” These beliefs, and innumerable variations are best described as superstitious mumbo-jumbo. There is no mathematical support for any of them. I did not cause you to lose, so stop getting angry and enjoy the game, or at least keep quiet and let me enjoy the game.
Determining the best play is not just about looking at the winning percentage. Instead, you must look at the average return of the hand considering wins, losses, and pushes. Basic strategy uses whichever play yields the highest average return.
It may be that a particular double-down wins more than 50% of the time, but there is still a better way to play the hand. (Ace,Ace) vs 5 is a good example. Doubling that hand does win more than 50% of the time, but splitting is better yet.
Thanks a lot for your very logic and understandable explanation. If you help me to find any chart that shows the percentages of win, push, or lose of “all deferent possibilities” after dealt two cards for player, exactly base on basic strategy, either stay, hit, double or split (the same as your chart, but not just for doubling down), I really appreciate it.
Thanks for the detailed answer Ken its appreciated. I always thought counters played more aggressively than the kelly due the fact that extremely high counts are rare. It was my understanding then that it is best to get your max bet out at TC 4 or 5. Don Schlesinger for example plays an extremely aggressive spread where his units go up to two as the TC increases slightly. Is this not a normal betting spread for a counter? Do you recommend playing a half Kelly? Or is this all personal preference depending on how high you want your ROR to be.
The Schlesinger spread you mention would be pretty normal. Optimal spreads will usually get your top bet on the table at +5. How you get there does influence your results, but really not all that much. Any ramp that gets you from your small bet at <+1 to your top bet at +5 is going to perform pretty well. My comments about RA indices and Kelly are based on the fact that almost all players undercount their bankroll, considering only the cash they have on hand at the moment for gambling. In truth, their effective bankroll is much bigger; they can replenish funds from other income sources, and they probably also have other assets that could be counted. Once you get into a large enough bank that these factors don't overwhelm the accounting, you can probably safely afford to bet more than you can easily get away with anyway. If you still are in a place where these calculations have value for you, then yes, betting half Kelly is a pretty good target in my opinion. There's still plenty of excitement in that. 🙂
I got into an argument with my dad about progressive loss betting systems. His argument was that in a casino where the minimum was extremely low and the maximum was extremely high the casino could be beat.
For example, say a casino offered a game with a 10 dollar minimum and a 1,310,720 dollar maximum (I know a casino would never offer this game but just assume they did for the purposes of the example). This would give you a 1-18 spread if you were to double your bet after every loss, not including splits and doubles. My dad argues that he could beat this casino because the chances of him losing 18 hands in a row is incredibly rare.
Assuming one plays perfect basic strategy the chances of losing this many hands in a row is approximately 1 in 262144. Is there a better way to explain this then to say that the potential small wins do not account for the possibility, however small it is, of losing 1,310,720 dollars.
Anyone have any ideas how I can convince my dad in an intelligent matter that he’s wrong?
First, your numbers need some work. Basic strategy blackjack is roughly 43% win, 49% lose, 8% push. If we ignore the pushes, you lose (49/92)% of the time. Losing 18 in a row happens (49/92)^18 = 1/84072.
So, you walk in to the casino with ridiculous bet limits with $2,621,430 in your pocket, and make your first $10 bet. On average, by doubling after every loss you will lose your entire bankroll once every 84,072 tries. When you do not lose 18 in a row, you win $10. 84,072 * $10 is only $840,720.
And actually you’ll do worse than this, because you are refusing to split even when it helps your win percentage on some hands. (Not doubling is awful too, but doubling never increases the win percentage, but it sure makes you a lot of money over that kind of action!)
Thanks Ken. I’m just a poor student so I account for every dollar, as such I have a set amount set in stone as my bankroll. Thanks for the comments they are very helpful
Ken, thank you for the excellent tips for tournament play. I do have a question with reference to your 2nd to last paragraph. You are advising to go all in ($400) even though $350 would take the lead? Isn’t this contrary to your risk and reward advise. Also, I always want to save enough money to beat my opponents if the dealer wins the last round and everyone else has nothing left. Thanks again, hope I don’t have to face you in the finals – Walter
That paragraph is talking about a common exception to the earlier advice. The idea is that if you lose $350 of your $400 bank, the remaining $50 is probably not enough to mount a comeback in the remaining hands. In this case, go all-in instead.
As for holding a small amount back in case everyone else loses all their chips on the final hand, that is a useful plan in some cases, and it can be a reason to hold back a seemingly useless amount. However, that tactic works a lot less frequently these days as players have become more experienced. If someone sees you milking a tiny bankroll hoping to make it to the final hand, they’ll usually make sure they lock you out by not going all-in at the end.
Once the current version of the trainer is loaded and running, it runs locally on your machine. Something has to be causing Flash to run slowly on your machine. Note that this will work completely differently in the eventual new version, which will be interacting with the server to provide additional features.
I think there are some flaws in your basic strategy regarding early surrender. The game recommended I surrender with 12 vs a dealer ace. That isn’t right, is it? It also recommended I surrender with a 7 vs an ace. That can’t possibly be right!
Yes, those are correct plays for “Early” surrender, where you can surrender before the dealer checks for blackjack. But you probably don’t want to choose that rule. It’s rare. Choose Late Surrender and you’ll get the advice you expect. To learn more, see my article Blackjack Surrender Explained.
In the above drill, “Basic Strategy Drill exercise” You have made up STARTING hands and given the dealers up card. If these are meant to be starting hands, what is the idea behind some of the Three figured player hands?
Good point. I suspect the GameMaster wrote that line and later created the exercise. Regardless, I have edited the description of the exercise to remove the “starting” part of the description. Thanks! The 3-card exercises are of course to be treated just like the others. Make sure you know the correct basic strategy for the 3-card hands.
The following may be a bit longish for this format. You may publish it or not as you choose.
The Five Reasons You Lose at Blackjack
This essay contains the remarkable claim that one of five possible situations can explain any loss at the Blackjack table, whether a single hand, a session or a life-time of play. It is comprehensive!
It is also arranged as a hierarchy. That is, if “Reason #1” explains a loss, no further reason is needed. If “Reason#1” is rejected, i.e. falsified, then proceed to “Reason#2” and so on.
Reason #1: God did not want you to win.
Don’t ask me why; I have no especial insight into God’s mind.Perhaps playing Blackjack is sinful and losing a gentle expression of His/Her wrath. If you can’t accept this as the reason for losing go on to #2.
Reason #2: You played in a crooked game.
This is a reason often suspected and sometimes claimed. For sure it has happened. There are many ways a dealer can cheat that are almost undetectable and many ways the house can cheat without even the dealer’s knowledge. However, I think such cheating is very rare in most large casinos. The casino can make tons of money without cheating and can not risk exposure and customer loss in a highly competative business. So on to #3.
Reason #3: You played poorly: you didn’t play a good basic strategy.
The best way to play any card combination is well known and widely distributed. An occasional misplay is only human, but a systematic error will grind you down. I once played a table with a man who for 20 years would not hit any hand that might bust. He looked ground down. Fear of a bust is no reason to not take the best odds.
Reason #4: You had a string of bad luck: you didn’t win as many hands as average.
Note that this is the same scenario as Reason#1, but does not invoke the intervention of a Higher Power. It’s purely mathematical, a normal variation from the mean. Knowing this, it is still amazing the variance you may experience from series to series in a Blackjack game. Now, the last reason. Everyone knows it, but presumes they are exempt.
Reason #5: Even with average luck, the house has a small edge.
This edge seems to magnify in a long series of hands. Nevertheless, there is still hope. The possibility of better than average luck, i.e. a win, does exist. The probability of a win is reduced the longer you play, but never reaches zero. Some suggest that offers of travel, free play and generous comps can produce a win for the player that enjoys the game and the gaming environment. So, enjoy and good luck.
Wheelmarks
P.S.: I’m sure many will protest that i have included all the reasons for losing. I have heard (too many times): “You took my card. You took the dealer’s bust card. You didn’t hit and let the dealer have a winning card. You misplayed and now the whole shoe is out of order. You came in mid-shoe and ended my winning streak.” These beliefs, and innumerable variations are best described as superstitious mumbo-jumbo. There is no mathematical support for any of them. I did not cause you to lose, so stop getting angry and enjoy the game, or at least keep quiet and let me enjoy the game.
Why some of your winning possibility are over 50%, but not come to basic strategy chart?
Determining the best play is not just about looking at the winning percentage. Instead, you must look at the average return of the hand considering wins, losses, and pushes. Basic strategy uses whichever play yields the highest average return.
It may be that a particular double-down wins more than 50% of the time, but there is still a better way to play the hand. (Ace,Ace) vs 5 is a good example. Doubling that hand does win more than 50% of the time, but splitting is better yet.
For more discussion of why you can’t just use win-rate to decide how to play a hand, see Why Splitting Tens is a Bad Move.
Thanks a lot for your very logic and understandable explanation. If you help me to find any chart that shows the percentages of win, push, or lose of “all deferent possibilities” after dealt two cards for player, exactly base on basic strategy, either stay, hit, double or split (the same as your chart, but not just for doubling down), I really appreciate it.
thanks again
make
Thanks for the detailed answer Ken its appreciated. I always thought counters played more aggressively than the kelly due the fact that extremely high counts are rare. It was my understanding then that it is best to get your max bet out at TC 4 or 5. Don Schlesinger for example plays an extremely aggressive spread where his units go up to two as the TC increases slightly. Is this not a normal betting spread for a counter? Do you recommend playing a half Kelly? Or is this all personal preference depending on how high you want your ROR to be.
The Schlesinger spread you mention would be pretty normal. Optimal spreads will usually get your top bet on the table at +5. How you get there does influence your results, but really not all that much. Any ramp that gets you from your small bet at <+1 to your top bet at +5 is going to perform pretty well. My comments about RA indices and Kelly are based on the fact that almost all players undercount their bankroll, considering only the cash they have on hand at the moment for gambling. In truth, their effective bankroll is much bigger; they can replenish funds from other income sources, and they probably also have other assets that could be counted. Once you get into a large enough bank that these factors don't overwhelm the accounting, you can probably safely afford to bet more than you can easily get away with anyway. If you still are in a place where these calculations have value for you, then yes, betting half Kelly is a pretty good target in my opinion. There's still plenty of excitement in that. 🙂
I got into an argument with my dad about progressive loss betting systems. His argument was that in a casino where the minimum was extremely low and the maximum was extremely high the casino could be beat.
For example, say a casino offered a game with a 10 dollar minimum and a 1,310,720 dollar maximum (I know a casino would never offer this game but just assume they did for the purposes of the example). This would give you a 1-18 spread if you were to double your bet after every loss, not including splits and doubles. My dad argues that he could beat this casino because the chances of him losing 18 hands in a row is incredibly rare.
Assuming one plays perfect basic strategy the chances of losing this many hands in a row is approximately 1 in 262144. Is there a better way to explain this then to say that the potential small wins do not account for the possibility, however small it is, of losing 1,310,720 dollars.
Anyone have any ideas how I can convince my dad in an intelligent matter that he’s wrong?
First, your numbers need some work. Basic strategy blackjack is roughly 43% win, 49% lose, 8% push.
If we ignore the pushes, you lose (49/92)% of the time.
Losing 18 in a row happens (49/92)^18 = 1/84072.
So, you walk in to the casino with ridiculous bet limits with $2,621,430 in your pocket, and make your first $10 bet.
On average, by doubling after every loss you will lose your entire bankroll once every 84,072 tries.
When you do not lose 18 in a row, you win $10. 84,072 * $10 is only $840,720.
And actually you’ll do worse than this, because you are refusing to split even when it helps your win percentage on some hands. (Not doubling is awful too, but doubling never increases the win percentage, but it sure makes you a lot of money over that kind of action!)
Thanks Ken. I’m just a poor student so I account for every dollar, as such I have a set amount set in stone as my bankroll. Thanks for the comments they are very helpful
Ken, thank you for the excellent tips for tournament play. I do have a question with reference to your 2nd to last paragraph. You are advising to go all in ($400) even though $350 would take the lead? Isn’t this contrary to your risk and reward advise. Also, I always want to save enough money to beat my opponents if the dealer wins the last round and everyone else has nothing left.
Thanks again, hope I don’t have to face you in the finals – Walter
That paragraph is talking about a common exception to the earlier advice. The idea is that if you lose $350 of your $400 bank, the remaining $50 is probably not enough to mount a comeback in the remaining hands. In this case, go all-in instead.
As for holding a small amount back in case everyone else loses all their chips on the final hand, that is a useful plan in some cases, and it can be a reason to hold back a seemingly useless amount. However, that tactic works a lot less frequently these days as players have become more experienced. If someone sees you milking a tiny bankroll hoping to make it to the final hand, they’ll usually make sure they lock you out by not going all-in at the end.
The game has been slow and jerky the last few days. I have a very fast internet connection so I know the problem must be at your end.
Once the current version of the trainer is loaded and running, it runs locally on your machine. Something has to be causing Flash to run slowly on your machine.
Note that this will work completely differently in the eventual new version, which will be interacting with the server to provide additional features.
I think there are some flaws in your basic strategy regarding early surrender. The game recommended I surrender with 12 vs a dealer ace. That isn’t right, is it? It also recommended I surrender with a 7 vs an ace. That can’t possibly be right!
Yes, those are correct plays for “Early” surrender, where you can surrender before the dealer checks for blackjack.
But you probably don’t want to choose that rule. It’s rare.
Choose Late Surrender and you’ll get the advice you expect.
To learn more, see my article Blackjack Surrender Explained.
OK, thanks! I admit I didn’t know the difference between early and late surrender. Thanks for explaining!
No worries. It can be confusing! The next version of the trainer will make more information available about the rule choices.
In the above drill, “Basic Strategy Drill exercise” You have made up STARTING hands and given the dealers up card. If these are meant to be starting hands, what is the idea behind some of the Three figured player hands?
Good point. I suspect the GameMaster wrote that line and later created the exercise. Regardless, I have edited the description of the exercise to remove the “starting” part of the description. Thanks! The 3-card exercises are of course to be treated just like the others. Make sure you know the correct basic strategy for the 3-card hands.
If you could somehow put it into operation, this portal would be even more awesome than it is now.