whats going on here....

[sagefr0g]

this is a chart for about 12000 hands. what i think it's telling me is that normal hands i'm losing pretty much hands down
on double downs i'm recouping
blacjacks is saving my rear
late surrenders is well losing me money but it probably would've been worse with out it.
conclusion: doublle downs and blackjacks is where you win money?

 

[ChefJJ]

I always thought that was the "unofficial" rule of thumb--you make your money on the double-downs, splits, and blackjacks.

 

[ScottH]

I always thought that was the "unofficial" rule of thumb--you make your money on the double-downs, splits, and blackjacks.

Yes. All BS double down situations are +EV, otherwise you wouldn't be adding more money to the table.

You won't always make money on splits. Sometimes by splitting you are just "losing less" than playing the one hand. You can still have a negative expectation, it just won't be as much as had you not split.

 

[EasyRhino]

conclusion: doublle downs and blackjacks is where you win money?

YES.

I realized this after I thought about the much-quoted factoid about the win/loss/push ratio for blackjack hands. The win rate is only like 43%, so how does the house edge shrink to only .5%? It must be the doubledowns, blackjacks, and splits.

 

[ChefJJ]

You won't always make money on splits. Sometimes by splitting you are just "losing less" than playing the one hand. You can still have a negative expectation, it just won't be as much as had you not split.

Very true...I revise my rule of thumb--double downs & blackjacks.

good luck

 

[Mimosine]

Very true...I revise my rule of thumb--double downs & blackjacks.

good luck

that is correct.

the 3:2 payout is HUGE for the player, just look at how bad 6:5 is, that alone adds over 2% to the house edge. and considering how infrequently you get a BJ this one little rule change has very big implications for your edge.

 

[ihate17]

Losing on late surrender

Of course you are losing money on late surrender if you just judge it as you lose 50% of your bet every time you surrender. I can not recall a single time where I surrendered say $100 and the dealer gave me back $101 or more.

To gage it is like gaging splitting 8's vs 9,10,A. You know you have a loser but you lose less by splitting and either hitting or standing over time (but you might surrender those 8's. At least with surrender you know exactly how much you will lose but what is not easily apparant is how much it saves you compared to hitting or staying. There are computer sim chart in the back of some blackjack books that take every hand possibility and compare your long term results depending if you hit, stay, double, split or whatever on that particular hand vs the dealer's hand. That is where you find out how much you save using surrender correctly compared with your other options.

ihate17

 

[Mimosine]

Of course you are losing money on late surrender if you just judge it as you lose 50% of your bet every time you surrender. I can not recall a single time where I surrendered say $100 and the dealer gave me back $101 or more.

To gage it is like gaging splitting 8's vs 9,10,A. You know you have a loser but you lose less by splitting and either hitting or standing over time (but you might surrender those 8's. At least with surrender you know exactly how much you will lose but what is not easily apparant is how much it saves you compared to hitting or staying. There are computer sim chart in the back of some blackjack books that take every hand possibility and compare your long term results depending if you hit, stay, double, split or whatever on that particular hand vs the dealer's hand. That is where you find out how much you save using surrender correctly compared with your other options.

ihate17

i was looking up this very information in "Blackjack Attack" and where late surrender is called for, you would lose roughly 0.52 - 0.56 of your bet if you hit OR stood, so losing 0.50 is a much better option in my mind and hence the additional edge it gives you when offered.....

on a side note. a BJ dealer friend of mine revealed how little she actually knows about BJ as we were comparing games at local casinos. i was telling her that LS is a really powerful option for players and she just couldn't believe it. her rational - if the casino is offering it then it is only good for the casino. (i guess it is when you think about the number of people who play it wrong, but i digress) some dealers are way more ignorant than you would believe. my god, when we talked about insurance it was even worse- ploppie logic prevailed!

 

[ihate17]

Nearly every dealer says exactly that

i was looking up this very information in "Blackjack Attack" and where late surrender is called for, you would lose roughly 0.52 - 0.56 of your bet if you hit OR stood, so losing 0.50 is a much better option in my mind and hence the additional edge it gives you when offered.....

on a side note. a BJ dealer friend of mine revealed how little she actually knows about BJ as we were comparing games at local casinos. i was telling her that LS is a really powerful option for players and she just couldn't believe it. her rational - if the casino is offering it then it is only good for the casino. (i guess it is when you think about the number of people who play it wrong, but i digress) some dealers are way more ignorant than you would believe. my god, when we talked about insurance it was even worse- ploppie logic prevailed!

Mimosine:
I can not remember how many times I have heard the exact, word for word statement from dealers on surrender. I must be taught at especially every single casino that does not have surrender as an excuse for not having it. You know, "we are the good guys, we do not want to hurt you by putting in that bogus rule". And the dealers will sell it because the dealers know no better.
I let it slide and let them think I am just a cowardly idiot who surrenders too often but once I just calmly asked the dealer:
The casino offers, doubling down, splitting, doubling after splitting, and the fly in the ointment (not caught by the dealer) even money, so are they all things we as player should never do because they can not be good since it is offered by the casino.
The dealer responded with some BS that surrender is different.

Actually, in that respect the dealer is right but for the wrong reasons. Surrender is different and unless one learns the easy BS for surrender, it will cost the player money. Of course, so is doubling, especially soft doubles where ploppies butcher the BS on these so badly that it becomes a poor option for the poor player. Since I keep seeing people splitting 7's vs 10 and other incorrect splits, if your splits are that poor, it also becomes a poor option.
Now after typing all of this stuff, I have come to a conclusion. Playing blackjack is an extremely poor option for the extremely poor player!

ihate17

 

[EasyRhino]

Also, the dealer's instinct was good. Any new rule "innovation" should be viewed as suspect by a player. It's just that surrender isn't particularly new or innovative.

 

[Mimosine]

Now after typing all of this stuff, I have come to a conclusion. Playing blackjack is an extremely poor option for the extremely poor player!

ihate17

HAHAHAHA!

what is also interesting about said dealer is that she works where there IS LS. also at said casino, never - not one single time when asked - has a dealer ever helped a player in the 16 vs Dealer T situation by saying that Surrender is the correct option, every single time it is "The book says to hit." I will digress again, the questions "What does the book say?" has to be my least favorite ploppy statement. What book? What damn book are you talking about? Maybe that is why most BJ players don't take the time to learn BS, because it would require reading the book!. (as opposed to the CHART)

back to my point:
i wonder if they are taught never to suggest surrender since the casino makes more off that play, or if there is a collective ignorance of all the dealers where i play that they really have no clue about the math.

or crap, what if the casino told its employees that LS is BAD for the player and never to recommend it! maybe this post should go to the zen zone™

 

[bj bob]

Real vs. Theorhetical

I think the point being discussed here is that every new rule that the house introduces is a two-edged sword . In theory the insurance bet is +EV for the house, so is LL etc., but most of us feed off these gimmicks because of our depth of knowledge. Conversely, added extras which, in theory are -EV to the house-viz.LS, DOA, DAS etc. are in reality +EV since these rules are grossly misused by the ordinary nit-wit. Casinos should provide all these variations since, on the whole, they will most likely come out winners(except for us!)

 

[ihate17]

great point

I think the point being discussed here is that every new rule that the house introduces is a two-edged sword . In theory the insurance bet is +EV for the house, so is LL etc., but most of us feed off these gimmicks because of our depth of knowledge. Conversely, added extras which, in theory are -EV to the house-viz.LS, DOA, DAS etc. are in reality +EV since these rules are grossly misused by the ordinary nit-wit. Casinos should provide all these variations since, on the whole, they will most likely come out winners(except for us!)

Look at all those games, especially pitch games, that limit doubles to 9,10,11 or just 10 and 11. Now think about how many times you see people do things like double A,3 vs 2 or 3 or something similar. I definately think that the less than 1% of players, who know the BS chart perfectly for soft doubles, would profit much less on these games than the casino would profit by letting the over 99% group double to their hearts content.

ihate17

 

[bj bob]

So, you are saying...

We're in agreement?

 

[sagefr0g]

never realized just how important those blackjacks and double downs were.... uhmm actually they are apparently crucial factors for a winning game.
from my chart which is only for circa 12000 hands it appears that hard double downs succeed more often than soft double downs.
i think it's obvious that blackjacks are more likely to come your way when the count is positive. it's not so evident to me why double downs would be more successful at positive counts. it must be that ten value cards are key for most basic strategy double downs to pan out for the best i guess. then they would pay well when successful as you would have more money on the table during a positive count.
is the dealers bust rate higher when the count is positive?

 

[ihate17]

Hard and soft double logic

never realized just how important those blackjacks and double downs were.... uhmm actually they are apparently crucial factors for a winning game.
from my chart which is only for circa 12000 hands it appears that hard double downs succeed more often than soft double downs.
i think it's obvious that blackjacks are more likely to come your way when the count is positive. it's not so evident to me why double downs would be more successful at positive counts. it must be that ten value cards are key for most basic strategy double downs to pan out for the best i guess. then they would pay well when successful as you would have more money on the table during a positive count.
is the dealers bust rate higher when the count is positive?

To answer your last question, the dealer when showing a bust card will bust at a higher rate in a positive count.
Hard doubles are hands where you have a good opportunity of winning, even if the dealer does not bust. You are looking to hit a 10 or Ace to make your hand, so in a positive count there is a better chance of you doing this (there is always that evil ace on 11 though). So, hard doubles can easily still be winners when the dealer has 17-20.
Soft doubles are hands where the dealer's chance of a bust are the prime reason we double. You double A,2-7 not because you have an excellent chance of improving your hand, but the combination of a small chance of improvement combined with a decent chance of a bust. So, high counts will improve the chance of the dealer busting on these doubles but make your chance of improving your hand less.
So your soft double win rate is lower than your hard double win rate.

ihate17

 

[ChefJJ]

i was looking up this very information in "Blackjack Attack" and where late surrender is called for, you would lose roughly 0.52 - 0.56 of your bet if you hit OR stood, so losing 0.50 is a much better option in my mind and hence the additional edge it gives you when offered.....

on a side note. a BJ dealer friend of mine revealed how little she actually knows about BJ as we were comparing games at local casinos. i was telling her that LS is a really powerful option for players and she just couldn't believe it. her rational - if the casino is offering it then it is only good for the casino. (i guess it is when you think about the number of people who play it wrong, but i digress) some dealers are way more ignorant than you would believe. my god, when we talked about insurance it was even worse- ploppie logic prevailed!

Why would you expect a dealer to be an expert? They deal the cards with no decision making required. It's like assuming that the bus driver knows how to fix the engine.

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

Why would you expect a dealer to be an expert? They deal the cards with no decision making required. It's like assuming that the bus driver knows how to fix the engine.

bad example, but NOBODY in the casino knows anything, including players, dealers, MANAGERS! etc.. they are all retards and if u ever plan on going a long distance to a casino, but u first want to call up several casinos and ask what their blackjack rules are or an extremely complex question (to them) that they wont be able to answer, like "do u have full pay jacks or better, and if so, what is the lowest demonation?", dont expect an accurate answer at all.. from experience i have learned that casino personal have never gambled, and dont know anything about gambling, and all their knowledge is via ploppys, as i have had arguments with ploppys cuz they think im "ruining the cards" or some crap, and the dealers usually agree with them..

 

[ChefJJ]

bad example, but NOBODY in the casino knows anything, including players, dealers, MANAGERS! etc.. they are all retards and if u ever plan on going a long distance to a casino, but u first want to call up several casinos and ask what their blackjack rules are or an extremely complex question (to them) that they wont be able to answer, like "do u have full pay jacks or better, and if so, what is the lowest demonation?", dont expect an accurate answer at all.. from experience i have learned that casino personal have never gambled, and dont know anything about gambling, and all their knowledge is via ploppys, as i have had arguments with ploppys cuz they think im "ruining the cards" or some crap, and the dealers usually agree with them..

A good amount of casino personnel will say that they don't or no longer gamble because they see people losing their money. So, no, it's not surprising that many don't have a clue about the "guts" of the game that mean a lot to us.

 

[Mimosine]

Why would you expect a dealer to be an expert? They deal the cards with no decision making required. It's like assuming that the bus driver knows how to fix the engine.

well maybe i'm different, but in doing a job or whatever occupation i'm currently engaged in, i try to at the very least understand the different aspects of said job.

if i was dealing but not playing blackjack, i would personally want to understand why you double on a 9 vs. 3, but not 2. there has to be a reason. and i'd want to know it. but like i said, maybe i'm different.