hand dealt results

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
Does anyone know where I could get hand dealt results. I would like to enter them into a spreadsheet. I understand there are many software programs available but I would like the actual individual results. If so , what were the rules and # of decks?
W1 L1 L1 L2 W2 BJ W2 W1 W1 L2 L1 L1 L1 L1 L1 L1
Thanks in advance !!!
 

UK-21

Well-Known Member
#2
I'm afraid that you haven't been very clear about what you want.

I've a table I pulled from BjMaths that gives the mathematical expectation on every single hand combination for a 6 deck game off the top of a new shoe. This is useful for looking at individual border line hands so you can make a judgement as to when to set the deviation from basic strategy. I'm sure there is a similar table there for single and double deck (alas we don't have any in the UK).

Don Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack (lastest is third edition) is highly recommended and has a pile of useful tables in it for a wide range of games - the most useful one I have found is the incidence of the different hands per 100,000 hands dealt.

Trust this is of some help.
 
#3
Results

I was not clear obviously. Has anyone evEr dealt out hundreds or thousands of hands and kept track of the results. Or have the results ever been published anywhere ?
Example:
W1 L1 L1 L2 W2 BJ W2 W1 W1 L2 L1 L1 L1 L1 L1 L1
 

Canceler

Well-Known Member
#6
Could be streaks, or...

aslan said:
Wouldn't a random generator provide comparable results?
Maybe he is one of those who thinks there is going to be a difference in results between human-shuffled cards vs. computer-shuffled cards. :confused:
 

NightStalker

Well-Known Member
#7
He is probably not sure simulator

Simulator's result will be same as hand dealt result.. Thats what my simulator is doing.. Why in the world someone will hand dealt billions of hands to himself to test some system..
 
#8
Individual hand results

I don't think that computer generated results will be different than hand held results. What I am looking for are the individual hand results not the totals or the result of a tested system.
Once again does anyone know of any publised results of individual hands. The game I am most interested in is :
6d or 8d DAS DA2 S17 LS
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#9
Chris2005 said:
I don't think that computer generated results will be different than hand held results. What I am looking for are the individual hand results not the totals or the result of a tested system.
Once again does anyone know of any publised results of individual hands. The game I am most interested in is :
6d or 8d DAS DA2 S17 LS

Forum members:

Some of you have written, or possess, programs that capture, or can be altered to capture, individual hand by hand results on several thousand hands of blackjack. If you PM Chris2005, I'm sure he would be greatly appreciative.
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#11
Chris2005 said:
I just recently joined forum and my understanding is PM are not allowed for new members. Thanks for trying
I thought you might get a better response by PM. But anyway, Forum members may contact you by public post, or if you choose, via an email account of your own, if you choose to post it.

I don't think anyone's awake at this ungodly hour (2:10 pm EDT). j/k, sort of :laugh:
 
#13
Just results

I'm just looking for the end result of the hand.
Win, Loss, Loss double BJ.
Results similiar to what I posted in Original post.
Thanks
 
#16
Trying to make it clear

Aslan,
Thanks for clarifying.
If individual game resuls do not exist in large numbers how can everyone say that ALL progressions do not work? Please help me understand.
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#17
Chris2005 said:
Aslan,
Thanks for clarifying.
If individual game resuls do not exist in large numbers how can everyone say that ALL progressions do not work? Please help me understand.
It's easy. Each and every bet that you make is against the house advantage. Therefore, you are favored to lose each and every bet. If the house wins 48% of its bets and the player wins 43% of his bets (the rest are pushes), then those times when you raise your bet you will only win 43% of the time, and those times when you lower your bet, you will still only win 43% of the time. So your progression strategies of lowering and raising your bet are subject to the same house edge at all times, whether you are raising or lowering, makes no difference. You might as well just flat bet all the time, because all is subject to the house advantage. By flat betting, you won't get caught losing when you raise your bet, so you have a better chance of surviving longer.

Enter counting. Counting works because it can use information that has gone before in determining the size of your bet. Since lots of tens and aces are in the remaining cards, you know that the the advantage has temporarily switched to the player. Only counting lets you know when the player temporarily has the advantage.

With a progression, the information that went before, how many wins or losses, gives no meaningful data as to what the size of the bet should be, or who has the advantage, you or the house. That is because without counting all you know is that the player has the exact same chance of winning each hand on average no matter what preceded. Because ten wins preceded your current bet does not mean that a loss is imminent. No, the chances based on known information remains the same for each and every bet. For all you know, the count has remained at zero the entire time. That would mean you have only your average 43% chance of winning. The count may also have gone negative, giving you an even greater chance of losing, and it can remain that way the entire shoe. Just as in craps, the cards have no memory of what went before, that is, if you are not counting.

The concept is so simple that it is sometimes difficult to see. When you finally do see it, you wonder how you could have been so stupid. But don't feel bad; it's like an optical illusion. It naturally appears one way, when in reality it's the other.

Always remember. With dice, the chances are always the same each and every time you throw them (short of any manipulation on your part). That's why they say the dice have no memory. No matter how you bet your money at dice, the chances never change. Fifty sevens in a row does not mean a thing (except you're getting rich, lol), because each time you throw the dice you have the same chance of rolling a seven. With cards it's the same thing, except for card counting where you use what went before to shape your future strategy. Nothing else can work against the house advantage. 43% of the time you win, 48% of the time you lose, and 9% of the time you push. All of this is on average. It's knowing when you have the best chance to be in the 43% that pays off with card counting. Nothing else can do it.
 

Canceler

Well-Known Member
#18
Post of the Month, at least...

Chris2005 said:
...how can everyone say that ALL progressions do not work?
I, too, used to wonder how we could summarily dismiss as worthless every progression that came along without even trying it. The answer is that they all fail for the same reason. Aslan has nailed the explanation perfectly in his EXCELLENT post above.
 

JJR

New Member
#19
There's just one problem with what you stated. The D'alembert with a straight 50/50 game of chance would actually win. By your logic, the D'Alembert should just break even on a 50/50 game of chance, since every increased bet is just subject to the same 50% chance of winning. The end result then, should be that the game breaks even. But, that's not the case. The D'Alembert would show a profit on a straight 50/50 game of chance, instead of just breaking even. So, obviously, there's a flaw in the logic.
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#20
JJR said:
There's just one problem with what you stated. The D'alembert with a straight 50/50 game of chance would actually win. By your logic, the D'Alembert should just break even on a 50/50 game of chance, since every increased bet is just subject to the same 50% chance of winning. The end result then, should be that the game breaks even. But, that's not the case. The D'Alembert would show a profit on a straight 50/50 game of chance, instead of just breaking even. So, obviously, there's a flaw in the logic.
No, the D'Alembert assumes that in a 50-50 proposition if you lose you have a greater chance of winning on the next attempt (law of equilibrium). This is false, since each and every roll of the dice is an independent event and you have the exact same chance of losing each and every time. What makes it appear like the dice should break even is that in a billion rolls it seems like the overall percentage is break even, or equilibrium. The fact is, the dice may be a hundred thousand wins or losses apart, but a hundred thousand is not that much when you are contemplating a billion--it's a percentage thing.

Now, to bring you back to reality, in actual application the dice are not "fighting" to return to even. They may just as easily diverge and never return to exact even, based on the fact that each roll is an independent event not having any relationship to the preceding event. Raising your bet a unit on each loss may result in greater and greater losses ad infinitum. The icing on the cake is that the blackjack is NOT a break even game, so besides worrying about whether you will ever return to break even, you have the fact that the house advantage is slowing but inexorably chipping away at your bankroll. True, you don't have the house limit to worry about as much in such a system, but the fact that you are slowing down the risk of quickly busting means also that you are giving the house the time it needs to work it's even greater advantage than the progression could ever hope to obtain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top