Hello! I have been reading the forums for quite a while now and sure do appreciate all the solid advice I have picked up from the various threads. In fact, there is so much information in the threads that I have never had to start a new one to answer a question I had. However ...
Last night I was treated to what I consider bad advice from a wandering floor cop at the local indian casino. Understand that I didn't ask for his advice, it was just freely given. First off he recommended I not insure my hand against the dealers ace since the odds of the dealer having the blackjack were 1 in 5. Erm ... hmmmm? As I understand it there are 13 cards in a suit with 4 of those being tens and the other nine being other cards. Doesn't that make the odds 4 to 9 of him having a ten in the hole? Or to simplify it ... 2 to 4.5 ... or 1 to 2.25. The actual advice of not to take insurance is correct, but I find the 1 in 5 odds that he stated to be way off.
The other advice he gave me was in a condescending tone about Basic Strategy and how my hitting the hard 16 against the dealer 7 up card was incorrect play. As I understand it, I am supposed to hit the hard 16 against the dealer 7! The cop suggested I check online for a Basic Strategy chart which will give me some instruction. Erm ... I pulled out my chart and showed it to him. My chart is straight from Knock-Out Blackjack by Olaf Vancura, Ph.D. & Ken Fuchs. K-O is also my counting method ... but I didn't share that with the cop. Here's a quote from Knock-Out Blackjack:
"Some players have trouble adhering to the basic strategy. One rule in particular that many have a hard time understanding is the hitting of stiff hards. For many, it's particularly difficult to hit a hard 16. Since the player has such a great chance of busting, it's easy to balk at taking a hit, especially if the dealer has a 7 showing. The dealer's 7 is not that strong, they reason, so why risk busting. The ulterior motive, of course, is to last longer. "You stay, you play," right?
In fact, this strategy will cause them to play less overall because they increase their loss rate. It turns out that by standing with 16 vs. a 7, the player loses about .48 for every $1 wagered. On the other hand, by hitting, the loss is only .42. Now, a difference of .06 may not seem like much, but it adds up. With a $25 bet out, naking the incorrect play in this situation will cost you an average of $1.50."
Quoted from Knock-Out Blackjack, April 2004 reprint, page 32
So ... bumbling nice guy cop just dispensing invalid advice or something more sinister along the lines of a casino employee padding the evening take with intentional bad advice?
Last night I was treated to what I consider bad advice from a wandering floor cop at the local indian casino. Understand that I didn't ask for his advice, it was just freely given. First off he recommended I not insure my hand against the dealers ace since the odds of the dealer having the blackjack were 1 in 5. Erm ... hmmmm? As I understand it there are 13 cards in a suit with 4 of those being tens and the other nine being other cards. Doesn't that make the odds 4 to 9 of him having a ten in the hole? Or to simplify it ... 2 to 4.5 ... or 1 to 2.25. The actual advice of not to take insurance is correct, but I find the 1 in 5 odds that he stated to be way off.
The other advice he gave me was in a condescending tone about Basic Strategy and how my hitting the hard 16 against the dealer 7 up card was incorrect play. As I understand it, I am supposed to hit the hard 16 against the dealer 7! The cop suggested I check online for a Basic Strategy chart which will give me some instruction. Erm ... I pulled out my chart and showed it to him. My chart is straight from Knock-Out Blackjack by Olaf Vancura, Ph.D. & Ken Fuchs. K-O is also my counting method ... but I didn't share that with the cop. Here's a quote from Knock-Out Blackjack:
"Some players have trouble adhering to the basic strategy. One rule in particular that many have a hard time understanding is the hitting of stiff hards. For many, it's particularly difficult to hit a hard 16. Since the player has such a great chance of busting, it's easy to balk at taking a hit, especially if the dealer has a 7 showing. The dealer's 7 is not that strong, they reason, so why risk busting. The ulterior motive, of course, is to last longer. "You stay, you play," right?
In fact, this strategy will cause them to play less overall because they increase their loss rate. It turns out that by standing with 16 vs. a 7, the player loses about .48 for every $1 wagered. On the other hand, by hitting, the loss is only .42. Now, a difference of .06 may not seem like much, but it adds up. With a $25 bet out, naking the incorrect play in this situation will cost you an average of $1.50."
Quoted from Knock-Out Blackjack, April 2004 reprint, page 32
So ... bumbling nice guy cop just dispensing invalid advice or something more sinister along the lines of a casino employee padding the evening take with intentional bad advice?