Bad play... why do we give a darn?

[SuperSmash]

Hi, I'm new here, and wanted to say hi!

But mostly, I wanted to inquire... most of the people (I think) at this site are at least BS players. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but when other players at a given table play badly, it does NOT affect the odds surrounding our play at all, correct?That is, of course, other than whatever change happens to the RC as a result of his/her play. But the point is, I see a lot of people here complaining about "This other player didn't use BS and it totally messed up my double" (or other things to that effect), and I'm just left thinking... "Hasn't his bad play SAVED you just as many times as it has screwed you up?" I dunno... I'm no math wizard (seriously), but I can't wrap my mind around another player's play affecting your odds... whatsoever. I'm not incorrect in thinking that my odds (just the odds--we're disregarding play-speed, etc.) are the exact same when playing alongside a complete dummy as when playing alongside a perfect BS player, right? :-\

 

[fwb]

You are correct, it doesn't really affect you at all.

But the point is, I see a lot of people here complaining about "This other player didn't use BS and it totally messed up my double" (or other things to that effect)

This really doesn't represent anything close to the majority here. Maybe those types just tend to be more vocal about it.

Most of us appreciate bad strategy because it funds our play.

 

[DMMx3]

I sometimes hate bad strategy. Take this hand from the other day:

Late in a 6D shoe. RC was something insane like 25 and TC was well over 10. Player at first base gets 77 and dealer gets a 10. he splits, gets another 7, and splits again. ends up eating up like 5 extra cards, and the cut card gets exposed as the next card to be dealt after the dealer finishes the round.

His poor decision probably cost me $65 in EV.

 

[assume_R]

His poor decision probably cost me $65 in EV.

But how many other players' plays have inadvertently gained your EV by $65? The point is, you don't know. That one instance is an example of a low sample size.

 

[Sucker]

That is the BIGGEST myth in blackjack; that somehow a bad player hurts other players. Even dealers and pit bosses somehow believe this myth. All I can say is; "Go figure".

If ANYTHING, bad players tend to HELP, because of the reason given by fwb; and also because of the fact that the more they hit, the more cards you get to see; which can be incorporated into the count.

 

[Tarzan]

Standard bill of fare

It's true that a "bad player" has just as much chance of helping the other players as they do to hurt them, something that has been discussed on here and in general known as "selective memory". If someone is playing stupid... LET THEM. I have heard that also from the pit and the dealers, particularly when a "bad player" leaves the table they say,"Yes, their bads calls caused the whole TABLE to lose", which is totally false.

What is the purpose for such a statement? Do they really believe this or are they simply implying to the players (to humor them when the chips are down) that since the "bad player" has left, things will OBVIOUSLY swing around and you guys will start winning now! Keep playing you fools! The truth is that it went bad because it went bad, simple as that... there is a house edge and it's to be expected.

What amazes me is just how many people don't even know basic strategy. I watch a lot of playing going on as I roam about and I see so few people that actually even know basic strategy... tossing a LOT of money out there even. Sometimes it's painful to even watch but hey what the f*ck, SOMEONE has to pay the electric bill.

Thoughts on this? Anyone know if it's a case of dealers and pit people actually BELIEVING what they are saying about the "bad player" messing up the "sacred flow of the cards" making the whole table lose or is it simply a matter of what I mentioned, humoring the players not doing so well by telling them a line of BS (and I don't mean "basic strategy" in this abbreviation).

 

[Blue Efficacy]

I sometimes hate bad strategy. Take this hand from the other day:

Late in a 6D shoe. RC was something insane like 25 and TC was well over 10. Player at first base gets 77 and dealer gets a 10. he splits, gets another 7, and splits again. ends up eating up like 5 extra cards, and the cut card gets exposed as the next card to be dealt after the dealer finishes the round.

His poor decision probably cost me $65 in EV.

Would you have wanted one of those sevens at a TC that high in the next round?
If he ate up that many cards it is doubtful they were all 10s, and especially when the count is as it was you do not want to get any card lower than a 9 to start out with.

 

[johndoe]

But how many other players' plays have inadvertently gained your EV by $65? The point is, you don't know. That one instance is an example of a low sample size.

I'd go further than this - it's not that you don't know, we *do* know that, on average, those bad plays are just as likely to help as hurt. There's no question of this.

This is a clear case of selective memory, or confirmation bias.

If anything, at high counts, ploppies should be encouraged to hit less (or leave the table due to their "horrible plays"), and at low counts they should hit more. Even this won't matter a whole lot.

 

[DMMx3]

I'd go further than this - it's not that you don't know, we *do* know that, on average, those bad plays are just as likely to help as hurt. There's no question of this.

This is a clear case of selective memory, or confirmation bias.

If anything, at high counts, ploppies should be encouraged to hit less (or leave the table due to their "horrible plays"), and at low counts they should hit more. Even this won't matter a whole lot.

You all seem to have neglected to note the word "sometimes" in my original post. When the count is negative or neutral, I enjoy watching bad plays that eat up cards.

And encouraging ploppies to take or not take cards depending on the count is something a lot of us do I am guessing. You are right it doesn't matter "a whole lot" but I'm there at the table and it takes no effort to do it, so why not?" When a player asks me if he should split his 2s against a 4 at TC of -1, I will usually say something like "sure, go for it?"

As you say these things don't add up to much, but why not gain every edge you can? This game is tough enough as is.

 

[DMMx3]

Would you have wanted one of those sevens at a TC that high in the next round?
If he ate up that many cards it is doubtful they were all 10s, and especially when the count is as it was you do not want to get any card lower than a 9 to start out with.

The 7 would have been his for 21 (that part I remember distinctly), but as for how the rest of the hand would have played out, I have no idea. I was playing the last two spots, so I probably would not have gotten any of those cards in question anyway. I'm sure somehow I still would have lost 70 units or something splitting and doubling.

 

[Canceler]

...I see a lot of people here complaining about "This other player didn't use BS and it totally messed up my double" (or other things to that effect...

As has been said, this does not reflect the majority, but there are a few posters who persist in making these kinds of comments. Most of us have given up trying to enlighten them, and just roll our eyes and say nothing. The same way we do when people use the term “EV” when they’re really referring to actual results.

 

[21gunsalute]

Bad players do screw things up. Period. Sure sometimes bad play helps you but I'd say it's about to 3:1 that a bad play/player is going to screw it up for you rather than to help you, and when the count is high and I have a lot of money on the table it's a lot closer to 100% as far as screwing things up for me. That's been my experience anyway. I keep hearing here that it all balances out over time, but I haven't seen any factual data to support this. When I play at a table where everyone is playing correctly it seems to go much better than a table where a clod or 2 or 5 haven't got a clue. You may disagree if you wish but this has been my experience.

 

[assume_R]

I keep hearing here that it all balances out over time, but I haven't seen any factual data to support this. When I play at a table where everyone is playing correctly it seems to go much better than a table where a clod or 2 or 5 haven't got a clue. You may disagree if you wish but this has been my experience.

Well, in all fairness, do you have factual data to support your claim that bad plays hurt you? You cite "your experience" but that is probably a small sample size compared to the sims. In CVData, for example, you can click on how you want other plays to play, and see how if affects your results. The "3:1" in how it affects you is not supported by the CVData sims.

When I have some free time (or maybe some1 has the results saved), I'll re-run the sims which have been a while since I've done.

 

[Renzey]

Bad players do screw things up. Period. I keep hearing here that it all balances out over time, but I haven't seen any factual data to support this. .

From page 41 of Blackjack Bluebook II:
"In my home with my own six deck shoe, I dealt 500 rounds of blackjack with me sitting at 1st base and the mythical "player from hell" sitting at 3rd. I played all 500 of my hands according to basic strategy while 3rd base misplayed every one of his hands -- bar none! If he was dealt 16 against a 5, he hit it. If he had 7 against a face-card, he stood pat. He always split a pair of 5's or 10's, and always doubled down with blackjack, etc, etc. Now there's a bad player for you!

After each round was complete, I wrote a "W", "L" or "P" for the results of my hand only, ignoring 3rd base's results completely. Then I backed up the cards to see how I'd have made out had 3rd base played his hand correctly, and wrote my "woulda been" results in an adjacent column.

How did it all come out? I'd like be able to tell you that it went exactly 50-50, but then 500 hands isn't a lifetime of blackjack either. Here are the actual raw scores from that experiment:

..............w/3rd base playing correctly.......w/3rd base misplaying every hand
I won.......................257.5.....................................263.5
I lost........................266........................................264
I pushed................... 40...........................................36

Not a huge sample size, but I trust it's more dependible than your perceived recollection of your own past hands.

 

[Mr. T]

Fred, we are in the computer age now if you haven't notice. QFIT can do a sim for you for a zillion hands. And compare the results playing with a BS player and against some one who always make the wrong move like hit instead of stand, double everything, etc.

Just to deveate QFIT owes me the trainer for the ENHC game and I am still waiting.

 

[tribute]

Fred, we are in the computer age now if you haven't notice. QFIT can do a sim for you for a zillion hands. And compare the results playing with a BS player and against some one who always make the wrong move like hit instead of stand, double everything, etc.

Just to deveate QFIT owes me the trainer for the ENHC game and I am still waiting.

Mr. T,
With all due respect, I'm sure Fred knows what "age" we are in. And fully understanding Fred is much more knowledgeable than I about blackjack, (and most other subjects as, well) and also fully able to defend himself, I only ask you to convey some respect to one of the most admired authors, and member, who graced this board.

By the way, if you haven't already, pick up a copy of his book, "Blackjack Bluebook II".

 

[Mr. T]

Mr. T,
With all due respect, I'm sure Fred knows what "age" we are in. And fully understanding Fred is much more knowledgeable than I about blackjack, (and most other subjects as, well) and also fully able to defend himself, I only ask you to convey some respect to one of the most admired authors, and member, who graced this board.

By the way, if you haven't already, pick up a copy of his book, "Blackjack Bluebook II".

I couldn't agree with you more that

"Fred is much more knowledgeable than I about blackjack, (and most other subjects as, well) and also fully able to defend himself, I only ask you to convey some respect to one of the most admired authors, and member, who graced this board."

I am only refering to Computer Knowledge which QFIT is the acknowledge Guru here. I have never shown any disrespect for Fred if you have read all of my converation with him here and he doesn't need anybody to defend himself.

Now if you have any substance to add to the correctness of my opinion I would like to hear it.

 

[Renzey]

Now if you have any substance to add to the correctness of my opinion I would like to hear it.

Some people, usually the disbelievers, still feel more comfortable seeing what happens with real, hand shuffled pasteboard cards. The manual experiment, though short by computer standards, was intended to serve that purpose.

 

[21gunsalute]

Well, in all fairness, do you have factual data to support your claim that bad plays hurt you? You cite "your experience" but that is probably a small sample size compared to the sims. In CVData, for example, you can click on how you want other plays to play, and see how if affects your results. The "3:1" in how it affects you is not supported by the CVData sims.

When I have some free time (or maybe some1 has the results saved), I'll re-run the sims which have been a while since I've done.

No, obviously I don't have any factual data...how could I? Sims are irrelevant. They are just that, sims, and not real life experiences and whether or not CVData supports my claim is irrelevant. That is my experience. Sims may be able to tell you what should happen but that does not mean that that is what does happen or what has happened. Bad play involves so many variables I seriously doubt any sims program could be properly designed to incorporate all the bad plays and how the outcomes affect the rest of the players at the table.

 

[assume_R]

No, obviously I don't have any factual data...how could I? Sims are irrelevant. They are just that, sims, and not real life experiences and whether or not CVData supports my claim is irrelevant. That is my experience. Sims may be able to tell you what should happen but that does not mean that that is what does happen or what has happened. Bad play involves so many variables I seriously doubt any sims program could be properly designed to incorporate all the bad plays and how the outcomes affect the rest of the players at the table.

Okay, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise because I can see now how this will end up - a silly argument on an anonymous internet forum, with neither of us changing our opinion on the validity of sims. I base my play off sims' results and use them as a basis for my opinions, you certainly don't have to.