A Full table is better for most players!

[ColorMeUp]

If someone thinks the game is fun playing for money (not counting), but doesnt think its fun to NOT play for money, then they are only getting a rush out of the gamble. But instead of admitting that they are having fun gambling, they say they are having fun playing the game so they can rationalize gambling.

NO. If the fun was purely from the gamble, then I'd sit home and bet on heads or tails while flipping a quarter. Or play roulette for that matter......

 

[ScottH]

NO. If the fun was purely from the gamble, then I'd sit home and bet on heads or tails while flipping a quarter. Or play roulette for that matter......

I wasn't talking about every single person in one statement.

 

[mdlbj]

Most players play a losing game of blackjack and a full table slows the game down and that players losses so playing at a full table is better for most players. If you are an advantage player playing at a full table is better because it is easier for you to pocket chips and for the dealers and the pit crew have less of an idea of how much you won. A full table also might give you the oportunity for hand interaction plays that give you better advantage.

Only in certain situations you will have an advantage with fewer players at the table i.e. when the shoe is rich in high value cards. There is no reason to pocket chips unless you are playing for comps and want them to think you are loosing more than you really are. As an advantage player, you want to be playing 2 hands as much as possible with a high count.