Multiple Players and Naturals

[AR Nick]

Hello everyone. Before I ask my question, I'd like to take a sentence or two, this being my first post, to thank everyone for their work on this forum. It's provided me with a wealth of information without which I would have been at least a few steps behind when picking my cards up. I have read a few Blackjack books, but the personal anecdotes and observations sprinkled on this forum function very well as the cement that holds the book information's bricks together. :toast:

There is, however, one thing I haven't managed to find. I've read a good bit about the effect of other players at your table. There's a decrease in hands-per-hour, to be sure, but as far as affecting play is concerned, the consensus seems to be that the effect is non-existent. I understand the logic behind the statement that a player is just as likely to take the dealer's bust card as they are to take a small card that would have killed the table, or that a player is just as likely to take the small card you needed to stay in the game as they are to take the big card that would have busted you.

What I've been wondering is that, given the higher number of players, would naturals not be spread out more? It's understood that they're more advantageous to the player than to the dealer since the latter can't make you pay out 3:2 of your bet, so if there are more players to deal to, would that perhaps hurt your long-term winnings? Or would it even out in the long term since you and the dealer are still getting, on average, the same amount of naturals relative to one another? I admit that mathematics has never been my strong suit, so I have no numbers to back any of this up.


So, in a nutshell, my question is:

Aside from the decrease in hands-per-hour, does the number of players at a table with you change your EV, particularly with regard to the redistribution of naturals?

Thanks in advance.

 

[iCountNTrack]

Aside from the decrease in hands-per-hour, does the number of players at a table with you change your EV, particularly with regard to the redistribution of naturals?

Thanks in advance.

No relationship whatsoever

 

[Shoofly]

Aside from the decrease in hands-per-hour, does the number of players at a table with you change your EV, particularly with regard to the redistribution of naturals?

Redistribution has nothing to do with it. More players simply means fewer hands. During a positive count there will be fewer opportunities for a natural.

 

[iCountNTrack]

Redistribution has nothing to do with it. More players simply means fewer hands. During a positive count there will be fewer opportunities for a natural.

You will make less naturals per hour yes , but the number of naturals per round is still the same about 0.048 natural per round.

 

[FLASH1296]

It is important, as a rookie, that you learn to focus on the mathematics of the game.

Counting Cards is easy. Winning money is hard.

One of the requisite steps that a newbie takes is learning that the mathematics of the game are immutable.

The learning curve is not steep, but it is long.

 

[MangoJ]

As far as drawing cards, other player have no effect to your performance.

Even if you're not good with numbers, you should understand the following:
Just imagine that all other players draw their cards from the bottom of the shoe, while you and the dealer draw from the top. There would be no influence of other players to your game, obviously.
Now you must understand that the shoe is shuffled. It doesn't matter from which point in the shoe anyone draws any cards, as all cards are equally distributed. Hence, if the other player do draw their cards from the top (like in the game you're playing), they make no influence on your performance, or the dealers hand. Taking dealers bust cards are an illusion.

However, you always have the choice of sitting at third base, and get full "control" which cards the dealer will get (but this is also an illusion - for the same reasons). If you believe in bust cards, that's not a major problem. It will not cost you anything. There are a lot more disbelieves which are far more costly than this bust card thing.

 

[Iron Man]

One thing I believe is being overlooked IMHO is the fact that sometimes more players can effect your chances of receiving naturals by restricting your number of hands. If you are playing a full and crowded low limit table and cannot spread to two or three hands then your chances of receiving naturals on one hand would be less than two or three, right? Not that more players increases or decreases one spots chances of receiving a natural, but reduces an APs ability to have more than one spot.

 

[AR Nick]

Many thanks to all of you for the replies.

Flash, regarding your comment about learning the mathematics of the game, I've been saving that for last. I do well with arithmetic, in the form of keeping track of the running count and calculating the true count, for example, but when it gets to more advanced subjects such as probability, my mind tends to drift towards more primal things. I've actually been working on a program that runs simulations based on any set of rules and player strategies that the user inputs, mostly as an aid to working with the mathematics behind Blackjack. It seems like a very roundabout method, I know, but that should give you an idea of how bad I am at this.

To reiterate, I have no illusions about players ruining the "flow" of the cards or anything like that. The example about other players being dealt from the bottom of the shoe does make it far easier to understand, though. I'd never thought of it that way before. As I'm not too adept at mathematics, I've always relied on the word of those who are and taken it on faith from there (part of why I'm here, I suppose). Understanding why something works the way it does goes a long way to helping one improve their game.


So going by what iCount and Iron Man are saying, am I on the right track by assuming that the EV changes based on the ratio of player naturals to dealer naturals? In my original example, the response was unanimous that the EV would not be affected. In other words, if there were a total of three players, simply put, if a natural was to arrive, there'd be a 1 in 4 chance that it would come to the player and a 1 in 4 that it would come to the dealer. If you're playing multiple hands as in Iron Man's example, assuming you spread to two hands, you'd have twice the chance of getting a natural as the dealer would.

Am I on the right track, or have I lost the plot again?

 

[Shoofly]

So going by what iCount and Iron Man are saying, am I on the right track by assuming that the EV changes based on the ratio of player naturals to dealer naturals? In my original example, the response was unanimous that the EV would not be affected. In other words, if there were a total of three players, simply put, if a natural was to arrive, there'd be a 1 in 4 chance that it would come to the player and a 1 in 4 that it would come to the dealer. If you're playing multiple hands as in Iron Man's example, assuming you spread to two hands, you'd have twice the chance of getting a natural as the dealer would.

Am I on the right track, or have I lost the plot again?

The chance of receiving a natural has nothing to do with the number of players at the table. The only effect more players has is that there will be fewer hands dealt before the end of the shoe.

 

[AR Nick]

The chance of receiving a natural has nothing to do with the number of players at the table.

Got it. But playing multiple hands yourself, regardless of the presence or absence of any other players at the table, would increase your chance of getting a natural and thereby increasing your EV (if the count permits), right?

 

[zengrifter]

If you are playing a full and crowded low limit table and cannot spread to two or three hands then your chances of receiving naturals on one hand would be less than two or three, right?

Is that statement, semi-voodoo or full voodoo? zg

 

[Iron Man]

How is that voodoo? You will receive more blackjacks the more times you play the game, especially in positive situations. Playing two or three hands increases the amount of hands you play per hour. Doesn't seem to difficult to follow...

 

[FLASH1296]

[COLOR="Navy"

]For each betting spot that [COLOR="Red"]you[/COLOR] play your chances of getting a Blackjack is approx. 1 in 22.

The chances do change somewhat - depending on the density of Aces and Tens, but by less than you may imagine.

The presence or absence of others has no effect.

So … if you play 2 hands your chances double, and 3 hands your chances triple.

That is only because you have more hands bet. Each hand's chances do not change.

The cumulative chances do, but that is of no consequence.

 

[shadroch]

Playing heads up with the dealer, he will get around 50% of the Naturals dealt. Playing with two other players, he will get around 25% of them.
At a full table, He'll get less than 20% of them.
Totally factual, but utterly meaningless.

 

[MangoJ]

Nick, you should really consider stepping back from the game, take a deep breath, and get some very basic concepts settled before playing. If you cannot make your own mind - simply following what other people tell you - you are not ready for this. Advantage play is all about EV and variance. If you don't understand probability calculus, you will never grasp EV (not to speak of variance, correlation) and are doomed to fall in every trap the casinos sets up for you.

As it has been already stated, each spot (including dealer) is independent when it comes to drawing cards. From that, it immediately follows that the probability of receiving a blackjack on a certain spot is independent of the cards and numbers of all other spots, including dealer.

Further, the cards do not "know anything", especially who plays which spot. So if you play multiple spots (say 3), the probability that YOU get a blackjack triples. Simply because you play 3 spots, and each of them are independent.
But you cannot shift the EV of a game by that. All do is increasing your total bet on the table. By spreading the only advantage you get is lower variance (compared to a single combined bet), which may (or may not) allow you to further increase your bet.

 

[AR Nick]

Nick, you should really consider stepping back from the game, take a deep breath, and get some very basic concepts settled before playing.

Agreed. In my list of things to do before putting money down on a table, I'd saved mathematics for last, predicting it to be my greatest hurdle (and rightfully so, it turns out). I think I'm beginning to grasp the concepts discussed in this thread, though, but it's clear nonetheless that I need to spend some more time on the mathematics chapters of the books. Many thanks to all for the responses. You've been a great help.

 

[FLASH1296]

hurdles and life.

One of the ways to succeed in life's many challenges is to conquer your anxieties so that you leap the highest hurdles FIRST. Then the rest of the journey is downhill, without shouldering the burden of what you find daunting.

 

[Sage]

I know that the math says that the number of players at the table does not effect your outcome or your cards. I count Hi Lo play 6D S17, 1 Deck cut.

The last few times I played, at third base, the count went up & called for my max bet. [2 hands] But by the time the dealer dealt my 2nd cards, the count had gone down so much that the bet was incorrect. The group of hi cards had been spit among so many players they were useless. Had only two of us been playing, I would have had two hands of 20. [but got stiffs & lost both hands]

What am I missing in this number of players discussion?

 

[MangoJ]

The last few times I played, at third base, the count went up & called for my max bet. [2 hands] But by the time the dealer dealt my 2nd cards, the count had gone down so much that the bet was incorrect. The group of hi cards had been spit among so many players they were useless. Had only two of us been playing, I would have had two hands of 20. [but got stiffs & lost both hands]

What am I missing in this number of players discussion?

Your bet was still correct, and at the time you made the bet you had the advantage, and it is correct to take it.

Would you call your bet wrong if you simply had lost the hand ? Of course in retrospective would be "wrong" (who wants to lose money). However you do not have the luxury looking into future - and counting is not about knowing the future, it is about advantage. You had the advantage and did the bet, it was the correct play - even if you would have lost the hand afterwards.

The drop of count during the round after your bet is nothing different. The bet was correct, as you did had the advantage. The correct way to play the hand would then be to apply the updated count for index play (whether it dropped or it increased.) If you fear a dropping count during the round, you can choose to play on first base. However if you did follow the logic above, you give up part of your EV playing first base. What you want is the most accurate estimate of the remaining deck when you do strategy decisions - This you get on third base, regardless what your bet is.

The most basic rule of thumb is: Additional information will never harm you (as long as you know the rules by which you gained that information).