Ploppy would do whatever I want him to do
- Thread starter BJgenius007
- Start date
So you're saying that if there are three cards left, two tens and a deuce, you will have the same chance of catching the ten that you need if tell the other player to take a card first? I can't see it. He will likely take one of the tens; then you will have one chance out of two instead of two chances out of three. Is a card really random when there are two chances to get a ten and only one chance to get the deuce? I don't think so. Random means you have no idea what card you will get. Here, you have a higher than random probability of getting a ten.
Maybe I'm missing something, but that's how I see it.
Maybe I'm missing something, but that's how I see it.
Here are the odds.
With three cards left you have a 2/3 chance of getting a ten. If the player hits:
1) 1/3 he gets the low card, you have a 100% chance of getting a ten => 1/3
2) 2/3 he gets a ten, you have a 50% chance of getting a ten => 1/3
Add the two possibilities and you have a 2/3 chance of getting a 10 if he hits. That's the same as if he doesn't hit.
With three cards left you have a 2/3 chance of getting a ten. If the player hits:
1) 1/3 he gets the low card, you have a 100% chance of getting a ten => 1/3
2) 2/3 he gets a ten, you have a 50% chance of getting a ten => 1/3
Add the two possibilities and you have a 2/3 chance of getting a 10 if he hits. That's the same as if he doesn't hit.
Not exactly. If he gets a ten, then you don't double down, since you have no advantage. lol It's the combined chances that are the same, not the individual chances. The fly in the ointment is that you don't know that the other card is a deuce; it might even be a ten. But what you do know is that the count has dropped by one before you make a decision.
Thanks for that example - it is a perfect one. I'm happy you came up with it, so there will be no question whether the example is good enough.
So there are two tens, and a deuce left.
What is the probability that I catch the ten, if the player before stands ? Obviously it is 1/3 exactly.
Now what happens if the player double his hand also?
With chance of 2/3, he will catch a ten. Leaving you with T,2 for drawing, from which you draw a ten with 50%.
This is your argumentation. Your mistake is, although this a highly probable scenario, it is not the only scenario you must account for.
Because: With chance of 1/3, the player will catch the deuce!. Then the remaining cards are T,T. For which drawing a ten happens with chance of 100%.
Since we don't know which card the player will draw, we need to average over all possible scenarios, with the probability of them happening. Then you immediatly get:
2/3 * 50% + 1/3 * 100% = 2/3. That is exactly the chance of drawing a ten, if the other player had stood on his hand.
There is another way to verify this, by deck composition. Say, one of the Ten is in hearts, while the other ten is in diamonds. Of course suits doesn't matter, but it helps if we can distinguish all three cards.
Then those three cards arrange to exactly 3!=6 possible deck arrangements:
2ThTd, 2TdTh, Th2Td, ThTd2, Td2Th, TdTh2. (first card is top card on the pile)
What happens if the other player stands, or doubles ?
2ThTd: You get a 2 (if he stands), or 10 (if he doubles)
2TdTh: 2 (stand), 10 (double)
Th2Td: 10 (stand), 2 (double)
ThTd2: 10 (stand), 10 (double)
Td2Th: 10 (stand), 2 (double)
TdTh2: 10 (stand), 10 (double)
The important thing to remember is: A pile of cards is randomly shuffled, when each arrangement of cards has equal probability. Since there are 6 different arrangements, each arrangement has the probability of 1/6.
We now see from the table above, we get a 10 in 4 out of 6 arrangements if the player stands, that is 4/6 = 2/3.
We also see that if the player doubles, we still a 10 in 4 out of 6 arrangements, that is still 4/6 = 2/3.
Whatever the other player does (the only exception is, if he depletes the pile, then the PB will reshuffle), it does not affect the probability of you getting a ten.
Those are 3 proofs. Do you need another one ?
If the argument above where true, you could never influence the probabilities of what other player would draw. Since the dealer is nothing different, you cannot influence the probabilities of the dealer drawing any card.
In fact, you cannot even influence what his downcard is. This is obvious (as it is drawn before your action). However, an undrawn card and the downcard is completely identical in terms of probability (unless the dealer has peeked, and since he did not turn up his hand you know it is not a BJ hand).
As you cannot influence the probability of the downcard, you cannot influence the probability of the card he will draw.
That makes it proof #4.
So there are two tens, and a deuce left.
What is the probability that I catch the ten, if the player before stands ? Obviously it is 1/3 exactly.
Now what happens if the player double his hand also?
With chance of 2/3, he will catch a ten. Leaving you with T,2 for drawing, from which you draw a ten with 50%.
This is your argumentation. Your mistake is, although this a highly probable scenario, it is not the only scenario you must account for.
Because: With chance of 1/3, the player will catch the deuce!. Then the remaining cards are T,T. For which drawing a ten happens with chance of 100%.
Since we don't know which card the player will draw, we need to average over all possible scenarios, with the probability of them happening. Then you immediatly get:
2/3 * 50% + 1/3 * 100% = 2/3. That is exactly the chance of drawing a ten, if the other player had stood on his hand.
There is another way to verify this, by deck composition. Say, one of the Ten is in hearts, while the other ten is in diamonds. Of course suits doesn't matter, but it helps if we can distinguish all three cards.
Then those three cards arrange to exactly 3!=6 possible deck arrangements:
2ThTd, 2TdTh, Th2Td, ThTd2, Td2Th, TdTh2. (first card is top card on the pile)
What happens if the other player stands, or doubles ?
2ThTd: You get a 2 (if he stands), or 10 (if he doubles)
2TdTh: 2 (stand), 10 (double)
Th2Td: 10 (stand), 2 (double)
ThTd2: 10 (stand), 10 (double)
Td2Th: 10 (stand), 2 (double)
TdTh2: 10 (stand), 10 (double)
The important thing to remember is: A pile of cards is randomly shuffled, when each arrangement of cards has equal probability. Since there are 6 different arrangements, each arrangement has the probability of 1/6.
We now see from the table above, we get a 10 in 4 out of 6 arrangements if the player stands, that is 4/6 = 2/3.
We also see that if the player doubles, we still a 10 in 4 out of 6 arrangements, that is still 4/6 = 2/3.
Whatever the other player does (the only exception is, if he depletes the pile, then the PB will reshuffle), it does not affect the probability of you getting a ten.
Those are 3 proofs. Do you need another one ?
If the argument above where true, you could never influence the probabilities of what other player would draw. Since the dealer is nothing different, you cannot influence the probabilities of the dealer drawing any card.
In fact, you cannot even influence what his downcard is. This is obvious (as it is drawn before your action). However, an undrawn card and the downcard is completely identical in terms of probability (unless the dealer has peeked, and since he did not turn up his hand you know it is not a BJ hand).
As you cannot influence the probability of the downcard, you cannot influence the probability of the card he will draw.
That makes it proof #4.
YES. That's why you actually WANT him to draw his card. Because then you can make better decision on doubling your hand. This is additional information, which ALWAYS helps you in the efficiency of your actions.
If additional information does not improve your position, you do something wrong.
Again, the impression that him drawing a card ruins your doubling is superstitious. You can still double and you will perform exactly the same as he would have stand. But you will perform BETTER if you would just hit when the other player draws a ten. In other words: if the other player gets a card, it actually helps you! That is the exact statement in #12:
If additional information does not improve your position, you do something wrong.
Again, the impression that him drawing a card ruins your doubling is superstitious. You can still double and you will perform exactly the same as he would have stand. But you will perform BETTER if you would just hit when the other player draws a ten. In other words: if the other player gets a card, it actually helps you! That is the exact statement in #12:
Wow clairvoyant Aslan knows the next card is a ten. What is your next trick.
The way I look at it is you either get the next card or the one after that. When he makes his decision the odds are exactly the same for both cards being anything. After he hits (or not) you see if he saved your butt by taking a bad card for you increasing your likelihood of getting a ten a bit. Then you get to see if that made any difference. The same is true if he got your card only there are lots out there. If you remove one from the smaller group of cards it has a much bigger change in your favor than taking one from the larger number of cards in the other group has against you. Classic you took the dealer bust card logic.
If you have 2 decks left 23 low cards and 37 ten value cards. TC +7:
A 61.67% chance of a ten value card for either of the 2 cards
1) He gets a ten value card 36/59 = 61.02% chance of a ten value card
2) He gets a low card 37/59 = 62.71% of a ten value card
His taking a high card has a much smaller change in your outcome (about 1% of the original percentage) the low card's removal increases your chances much more (about 1.5% of the original percentage).
What if he draws an ace or a 9 or a 7 or an 8? The ace is bad for you and the others are good but not perfect. If your count is ace neutral the ace doesn't affect the count. If you use HILO aces may be way over represented. The aces removal increases your odds of getting a ten value card but decreases the count. Hilo would tell the ploppy excellent info on his double of soft 18 but the information on doubling 11 is sketchy and depends on ace density since the ace is a low card for your 11 but you have been counting it as a high card. If you were side counting aces you would know the odds of drawing a ten. Hopefully you realized the merit of knowing whether your count was better than HIOPT I for your decision (doubling soft 18) or way worse because one fifth of you high cards are really low cards (doubling 11) by side counting aces.
The way I look at it is you either get the next card or the one after that. When he makes his decision the odds are exactly the same for both cards being anything. After he hits (or not) you see if he saved your butt by taking a bad card for you increasing your likelihood of getting a ten a bit. Then you get to see if that made any difference. The same is true if he got your card only there are lots out there. If you remove one from the smaller group of cards it has a much bigger change in your favor than taking one from the larger number of cards in the other group has against you. Classic you took the dealer bust card logic.
If you have 2 decks left 23 low cards and 37 ten value cards. TC +7:
A 61.67% chance of a ten value card for either of the 2 cards
1) He gets a ten value card 36/59 = 61.02% chance of a ten value card
2) He gets a low card 37/59 = 62.71% of a ten value card
His taking a high card has a much smaller change in your outcome (about 1% of the original percentage) the low card's removal increases your chances much more (about 1.5% of the original percentage).
What if he draws an ace or a 9 or a 7 or an 8? The ace is bad for you and the others are good but not perfect. If your count is ace neutral the ace doesn't affect the count. If you use HILO aces may be way over represented. The aces removal increases your odds of getting a ten value card but decreases the count. Hilo would tell the ploppy excellent info on his double of soft 18 but the information on doubling 11 is sketchy and depends on ace density since the ace is a low card for your 11 but you have been counting it as a high card. If you were side counting aces you would know the odds of drawing a ten. Hopefully you realized the merit of knowing whether your count was better than HIOPT I for your decision (doubling soft 18) or way worse because one fifth of you high cards are really low cards (doubling 11) by side counting aces.
I might not being here around all that long, but I don't need help on that topic, it is crystal clear to me (and others).
If you can spot an effect (within this game) that makes the other player's stand more favourable to you than his double (unless he plays with your money) - I will take any bet within the Kelly fraction (1.0, this should give you a hint) this effect does not exist.
Simple question: If you would be allowed to peek on the bottom card of the shoe before deciding if you want to double, would you do it ? Why ?
If it showed a ten, would you blame yourself that you had better not peeked at that card, because now you cannot double your hand ?
Second question: Would you still peek at the bottom card of the shoe, if the dealer would give the card (regardless of the result) to the other players hand ?
If it showed a ten, would you blame yourself that you had better not peeked at that card, because now you cannot double your hand ?
Second question: Would you still peek at the bottom card of the shoe, if the dealer would give the card (regardless of the result) to the other players hand ?
I fail to see how this is superstitious. In a high count you'd want the other player to stand for the same reason you'd want every player to get up and leave the table. His hitting could make a difference especially if you're using a simple method like the ko count. Granted I would tell the player to do whatever he wants, it's not my preference to tell people how to play their hand. What I gathered from Asian's post was he was simply stating in a high count you don't want other players eating up cards.
Yes- taking the break or make card is superstitious I agree. I think we concluded different things from Asian's post. I took it as he'd rather the other player stand due to the count being high, the liklihood of this other player pulling a high card, lowering the count and in turn hurting his chances on the doubledown (which to me ties in with not wanting other players eating cards during high counts). Now obviously the player to your right could pull a small card anyway and actually make the count even better.
What aslan is getting at is essentially right, you don't want anyone eating cards at high count.
What Mangoj is getting at is a finer point and technically correctly, the RC goes gravitates towards 0, but TC will remain the same on average.
If you have a +8 RC, + 4 TC with 2 decks remaining, just think of it as a shoe of cards with extra high cards, on average 4 extra high cards per deck.
Another effect besides eating up cards and increasing the likelihood of getting to the end of the shoe, is "volatility". In equities, bonds and commodities, generally investors do not like volatility as we don't like variance. However in options trading, volatility is a good thing. If you buy an option to buy something for $11 in the future that is worth $10 now, you desire volatility in price for this asset.
Similarly, at a low count, you want volatility, namely more card eating and more moving through the deck for different counts (and high count less volatility). At a low or neutral count, you'll take being anywhere else but here, and the opposite is true at a high count. For all intents and purposes the tendency of RC gravitating towards 0 is a small effect, often greatly outweighed by the random effect of moving through the deck and going through various counts.
What Mangoj is getting at is a finer point and technically correctly, the RC goes gravitates towards 0, but TC will remain the same on average.
If you have a +8 RC, + 4 TC with 2 decks remaining, just think of it as a shoe of cards with extra high cards, on average 4 extra high cards per deck.
Another effect besides eating up cards and increasing the likelihood of getting to the end of the shoe, is "volatility". In equities, bonds and commodities, generally investors do not like volatility as we don't like variance. However in options trading, volatility is a good thing. If you buy an option to buy something for $11 in the future that is worth $10 now, you desire volatility in price for this asset.
Similarly, at a low count, you want volatility, namely more card eating and more moving through the deck for different counts (and high count less volatility). At a low or neutral count, you'll take being anywhere else but here, and the opposite is true at a high count. For all intents and purposes the tendency of RC gravitating towards 0 is a small effect, often greatly outweighed by the random effect of moving through the deck and going through various counts.
It was not superstition at all. Superstition is where you have a non-mathematical or non-factual basis for betting. A miscalculation is a mathematical basis, even though it is an erroneous one. I thought I had a mathematical basis, but had not thought it through. Similarly, if someone thought the index for hitting hard 13 against a dealer 2 were zero for 6-deck, that would not be superstition, that would simply be getting mixed up on the basic strategy for DD and 6-deck.
Also, when my twenty suddenly changed into a blackjack, that was not superstition either-- it may have been sleight of hand, an optical illusion or Divine intervention, but it was clearly not superstition.
:laugh::whip:
Also, if you keep hearing a voice that the next hand you get will be a blackjack and in fact the next hand always is a blackjack, don't be quick to bet your life savings. It just might just be some extraterrestrial having fun with your head. :laugh::laugh:
Three times I have had an extremely strong urge to hit a hard 17. Each time the next card would have made a good hand. If there is anything to it, I attribute it to the subconscious mind tracking every card played and calculating the right time to chance hitting this hand. I have never followed such an urge; I never will; I think that would destroy whatever skill I have built to this point. But it could have a basis in fact, as could all hunches. Once you start acting on such impulses, however, I think you will begin imagining them all the time. Say, Goodbye" to your bankroll. :devil:
Also, when my twenty suddenly changed into a blackjack, that was not superstition either-- it may have been sleight of hand, an optical illusion or Divine intervention, but it was clearly not superstition.
:laugh::whip: Also, if you keep hearing a voice that the next hand you get will be a blackjack and in fact the next hand always is a blackjack, don't be quick to bet your life savings. It just might just be some extraterrestrial having fun with your head. :laugh::laugh:
Three times I have had an extremely strong urge to hit a hard 17. Each time the next card would have made a good hand. If there is anything to it, I attribute it to the subconscious mind tracking every card played and calculating the right time to chance hitting this hand. I have never followed such an urge; I never will; I think that would destroy whatever skill I have built to this point. But it could have a basis in fact, as could all hunches. Once you start acting on such impulses, however, I think you will begin imagining them all the time. Say, Goodbye" to your bankroll. :devil:
Brings to mind an incident I had at the table. Mid 40's asian lady was playing to my right. Dealer showed 10, she ha 17, I had 16. It was a moderately low count. I knew I was in trouble the moment she started to take a long time to deliberate on the hand
The board composition didn't strongly indicate to hit, but she definitely picked up on something "subconsciously" to hit. It might have been she subconsciously remembered all the high cards that came out, but in all likelihood I think she picked up on my subtle body language. I'm certain at a high count I probably display some discomfort when having to hit, e.g., 13 v 10, and at a low count I probably display something in my body language or speech an eagerness to hit, e.g. 16 v 10.
So of course she hit and gets a 3 for a 20. Not feeling too good about this, I hit and get catch a 10 to bust :laugh:
I 100% guarantee she would never have hit that 17 otherwise, she picked up on something. So yeah, in one way or another people to pick up subtle clues at the BJ table.
The board composition didn't strongly indicate to hit, but she definitely picked up on something "subconsciously" to hit. It might have been she subconsciously remembered all the high cards that came out, but in all likelihood I think she picked up on my subtle body language. I'm certain at a high count I probably display some discomfort when having to hit, e.g., 13 v 10, and at a low count I probably display something in my body language or speech an eagerness to hit, e.g. 16 v 10.
So of course she hit and gets a 3 for a 20. Not feeling too good about this, I hit and get catch a 10 to bust :laugh:
I 100% guarantee she would never have hit that 17 otherwise, she picked up on something. So yeah, in one way or another people to pick up subtle clues at the BJ table.