Aquí están todos los comentarios publicados en el sitio, con los debates más recientes en primer lugar.
Para participar en cualquiera de estos debates, puede responder en la página del artículo.
For free, our own Strategy Trainer will coach you for basic strategy.
If you’re looking for something to play offline, Casino Verite includes basically every feature you can imagine for practicing blackjack and card counting. It sells for $90 and runs on Windows PCs.
Hola Ken,
Recientemente, durante una visita al Casino Genting de Malasia, descubrí que ya no ofrecen juegos de Blackjack a los jugadores normales como yo.El personal me dijo que sólo se ofrece a los jugadores de apuestas altas en las salas VIP.En su lugar, ofrecen juegos de pontoon y otras variantes de Blackjack en la Sala principal.
Why do some of your indices differ from Wong’s when using the same benchmark rules? For example you that the index for a hard 8 v a 6 is a double at TC 3, whereas Wong says it is at TC 1. There are quite a few other examples that differ greatly from yours can you explain why.
Index generation is trickier than it sounds, and some indexes are close calls over a range of numbers.
I’m not sure what process the GameMaster used when creating his, but seeing small differences in some numbers is not surprising. He did say that his numbers were risk-adjusted indexes. (My opinion of RA indexes is that for the vast majority of players, they are not appropriate. Almost noone plays close enough to Kelly betting to make them relevant.)
I spent many hours fine-tuning the indexes on my advanced card set, and they are straight indexes, not RA. For this game my index for doubling 8v6 is TC +2, which happens to fall right in between Wong and GameMaster.
The good news is that even a 2-point difference in some numbers will not affect your results much, because the EV in these close call cases varies only slightly from one index to the next. The decisions where the differences are more pronounced are generally going to also be those where everyone agrees within a point plus or minus.
I’ve recently started training with your program very helpful thanks it just seems that on a pair of 4s againsts a 6 i woudve been better off doubling? also i always hit on a12 0r 13 against a 2 and more often than not i woudve been better off standing (based on my own tracking?thans
Splitting 4s vs a dealer 5 or 6 is better only when the rules allow double after split.
If the actual numbers would help, here they are for a 6-deck S17 DAS game:
Splitting 44v6 wins 0.168 of your initial bet on average.
Hitting makes 0.124.
Doubling makes only 0.104, making it the third-best option.
You mention hitting 13v2, which is not correct. You probably meant hitting 12 against a 2 or a 3 up. Again, just trust basic strategy.
With (8,4) vs 2, hitting loses 0.254 of your bet on average. Standing is quite a bit worse, losing 0.291 of your bet on average.
Short-term results can be very misleading. Just trust the math.
Lo que sigue puede ser un poco largo para este formato. Puede publicarlo o no, según prefiera.
Las cinco razones por las que pierdes al blackjack
Este ensayo contiene la notable afirmación de que una de las cinco situaciones posibles puede explicar cualquier pérdida en la mesa de Blackjack, ya sea una sola mano, una sesión o toda una vida de juego. ¡Es exhaustivo!
También está organizado jerárquicamente. Es decir, si la "Razón #1" explica una pérdida, no se necesita ninguna otra razón. Si "Razón#1" se rechaza, es decir, se falsifica, se pasa a "Razón#2" y así sucesivamente.
Razón #1: Dios no quería que ganaras.
Tal vez jugar al Blackjack es pecaminoso y perder una expresión suave de Su ira. Si no puedes aceptar esto como la razón para perder pasa a #2.
Razón #2: Usted jugó en un juego torcido.
Esta es una razón que a menudo se sospecha y a veces se afirma. Seguro que ha ocurrido. Hay muchas formas en las que un crupier puede hacer trampas que son casi indetectables y muchas formas en las que la casa puede hacer trampas sin que ni siquiera el crupier lo sepa. Sin embargo, creo que este tipo de trampas son muy raras en la mayoría de los grandes casinos. El casino puede hacer toneladas de dinero sin hacer trampas y no puede arriesgarse a exponerse y perder clientes en un negocio altamente competitivo. Así que en #3.
Razón #3: Has jugado mal: no has jugado una buena estrategia básica.
La mejor forma de jugar cualquier combinación de cartas es bien conocida y está ampliamente difundida. Un error ocasional es humano, pero un error sistemático te machacará. Una vez jugué en una mesa con un hombre que durante 20 años no se atrevía con ninguna mano que pudiera pasarle. Parecía agotado. El miedo a pasarse no es razón para no aprovechar las mejores oportunidades.
Razón #4: Has tenido una racha de mala suerte: no has ganado tantas manos como la media.
Obsérvese que se trata de la misma hipótesis que Reason#1, pero no invoca la intervención de un Poder Superior. Es puramente matemático, una variación normal de la media. Sabiendo esto, sigue siendo sorprendente la variación que se puede experimentar de serie a serie en una partida de Blackjack. Ahora, la última razón. Todo el mundo lo sabe, pero presume de estar exento.
Razón #5: Incluso con suerte media, la casa tiene una pequeña ventaja.
Esta ventaja parece aumentar en una larga serie de manos. No obstante, aún hay esperanza. Existe la posibilidad de tener más suerte que la media, es decir, de ganar. La probabilidad de ganar se reduce cuanto más se juega, pero nunca llega a cero. Algunos sugieren que las ofertas de viajes, el juego gratis y las generosas recompensas pueden producir una ganancia para el jugador que disfruta del juego y del entorno de juego. Así pues, disfrute y buena suerte.
Marcas de rueda
P.D.: Seguro que muchos protestarán porque he incluido todas las razones para perder. He oído (demasiadas veces): "Cogiste mi carta. Has cogido la carta perdida del crupier. No pediste carta y dejaste que el crupier tuviera una carta ganadora. Has jugado mal y ahora toda la mano está fuera de juego. Llegaste a mitad de la mano y acabaste con mi racha ganadora". Estas creencias, y sus innumerables variaciones, se describen mejor como supersticiones. No hay apoyo matemático para ninguna de ellas. Yo no te he hecho perder, así que deja de enfadarte y disfruta del juego, o al menos cállate y déjame disfrutar del juego.
Determining the best play is not just about looking at the winning percentage. Instead, you must look at the average return of the hand considering wins, losses, and pushes. Basic strategy uses whichever play yields the highest average return.
It may be that a particular double-down wins more than 50% of the time, but there is still a better way to play the hand. (Ace,Ace) vs 5 is a good example. Doubling that hand does win more than 50% of the time, but splitting is better yet.
Thanks for the detailed answer Ken its appreciated. I always thought counters played more aggressively than the kelly due the fact that extremely high counts are rare. It was my understanding then that it is best to get your max bet out at TC 4 or 5. Don Schlesinger for example plays an extremely aggressive spread where his units go up to two as the TC increases slightly. Is this not a normal betting spread for a counter? Do you recommend playing a half Kelly? Or is this all personal preference depending on how high you want your ROR to be.
The Schlesinger spread you mention would be pretty normal. Optimal spreads will usually get your top bet on the table at +5. How you get there does influence your results, but really not all that much. Any ramp that gets you from your small bet at <+1 to your top bet at +5 is going to perform pretty well.
My comments about RA indices and Kelly are based on the fact that almost all players undercount their bankroll, considering only the cash they have on hand at the moment for gambling. In truth, their effective bankroll is much bigger; they can replenish funds from other income sources, and they probably also have other assets that could be counted. Once you get into a large enough bank that these factors don't overwhelm the accounting, you can probably safely afford to bet more than you can easily get away with anyway.
If you still are in a place where these calculations have value for you, then yes, betting half Kelly is a pretty good target in my opinion. There's still plenty of excitement in that. 🙂
I got into an argument with my dad about progressive loss betting systems. His argument was that in a casino where the minimum was extremely low and the maximum was extremely high the casino could be beat.
For example, say a casino offered a game with a 10 dollar minimum and a 1,310,720 dollar maximum (I know a casino would never offer this game but just assume they did for the purposes of the example). This would give you a 1-18 spread if you were to double your bet after every loss, not including splits and doubles. My dad argues that he could beat this casino because the chances of him losing 18 hands in a row is incredibly rare.
Assuming one plays perfect basic strategy the chances of losing this many hands in a row is approximately 1 in 262144. Is there a better way to explain this then to say that the potential small wins do not account for the possibility, however small it is, of losing 1,310,720 dollars.
Anyone have any ideas how I can convince my dad in an intelligent matter that he’s wrong?
First, your numbers need some work. Basic strategy blackjack is roughly 43% win, 49% lose, 8% push.
If we ignore the pushes, you lose (49/92)% of the time.
Losing 18 in a row happens (49/92)^18 = 1/84072.
So, you walk in to the casino with ridiculous bet limits with $2,621,430 in your pocket, and make your first $10 bet.
On average, by doubling after every loss you will lose your entire bankroll once every 84,072 tries.
When you do not lose 18 in a row, you win $10. 84,072 * $10 is only $840,720.
And actually you’ll do worse than this, because you are refusing to split even when it helps your win percentage on some hands. (Not doubling is awful too, but doubling never increases the win percentage, but it sure makes you a lot of money over that kind of action!)
Thanks Ken. I’m just a poor student so I account for every dollar, as such I have a set amount set in stone as my bankroll. Thanks for the comments they are very helpful
Ken, gracias por los excelentes consejos para jugar en torneos. Tengo una pregunta con respecto al penúltimo párrafo. ¿Me aconsejas ir all in ($400) aunque $350 lleve la ventaja? ¿No es esto contrario a su consejo de riesgo y recompensa? Además, siempre quiero ahorrar suficiente dinero para ganar a mis oponentes si el crupier gana la última ronda y a todos los demás no les queda nada.
Gracias de nuevo, espero no tener que enfrentarme a ti en la final - Walter
Ese párrafo habla de una excepción común al consejo anterior. La idea es que si pierdes $350 de tu banca de $400, los $50 restantes probablemente no sean suficientes para montar una remontada en las manos restantes. En este caso, ve all-in en su lugar.
En cuanto a retener una pequeña cantidad en caso de que todos los demás pierdan todas sus fichas en la mano final, es un plan útil en algunos casos, y puede ser una razón para retener una cantidad aparentemente inútil. Sin embargo, esa táctica funciona con mucha menos frecuencia hoy en día, ya que los jugadores se han vuelto más experimentados. Si alguien ve que te quedas con un bankroll minúsculo con la esperanza de llegar a la mano final, normalmente se asegurará de bloquearte no yendo all-in al final.
Starting out, you are likely better off playing at a “shoe game”, where all the cards are dealt face up. Just make sure blackjack pays 3:2.
After you gain some experience, look for good rules in a 2-deck game, which will usually be dealt face down.
Where you sit at the table matters very little.
Can you recommend a good computer game
For free, our own Strategy Trainer will coach you for basic strategy.
If you’re looking for something to play offline, Casino Verite includes basically every feature you can imagine for practicing blackjack and card counting. It sells for $90 and runs on Windows PCs.
Hola Ken,
Recientemente, durante una visita al Casino Genting de Malasia, descubrí que ya no ofrecen juegos de Blackjack a los jugadores normales como yo.El personal me dijo que sólo se ofrece a los jugadores de apuestas altas en las salas VIP.En su lugar, ofrecen juegos de pontoon y otras variantes de Blackjack en la Sala principal.
Atentamente,
Bill
Why do some of your indices differ from Wong’s when using the same benchmark rules? For example you that the index for a hard 8 v a 6 is a double at TC 3, whereas Wong says it is at TC 1. There are quite a few other examples that differ greatly from yours can you explain why.
Index generation is trickier than it sounds, and some indexes are close calls over a range of numbers.
I’m not sure what process the GameMaster used when creating his, but seeing small differences in some numbers is not surprising. He did say that his numbers were risk-adjusted indexes. (My opinion of RA indexes is that for the vast majority of players, they are not appropriate. Almost noone plays close enough to Kelly betting to make them relevant.)
I spent many hours fine-tuning the indexes on my advanced card set, and they are straight indexes, not RA. For this game my index for doubling 8v6 is TC +2, which happens to fall right in between Wong and GameMaster.
The good news is that even a 2-point difference in some numbers will not affect your results much, because the EV in these close call cases varies only slightly from one index to the next. The decisions where the differences are more pronounced are generally going to also be those where everyone agrees within a point plus or minus.
I’ve recently started training with your program very helpful thanks it just seems that on a pair of 4s againsts a 6 i woudve been better off doubling? also i always hit on a12 0r 13 against a 2 and more often than not i woudve been better off standing (based on my own tracking?thans
Splitting 4s vs a dealer 5 or 6 is better only when the rules allow double after split.
If the actual numbers would help, here they are for a 6-deck S17 DAS game:
Splitting 44v6 wins 0.168 of your initial bet on average.
Hitting makes 0.124.
Doubling makes only 0.104, making it the third-best option.
You mention hitting 13v2, which is not correct. You probably meant hitting 12 against a 2 or a 3 up. Again, just trust basic strategy.
With (8,4) vs 2, hitting loses 0.254 of your bet on average. Standing is quite a bit worse, losing 0.291 of your bet on average.
Short-term results can be very misleading. Just trust the math.
Lo que sigue puede ser un poco largo para este formato. Puede publicarlo o no, según prefiera.
Las cinco razones por las que pierdes al blackjack
Este ensayo contiene la notable afirmación de que una de las cinco situaciones posibles puede explicar cualquier pérdida en la mesa de Blackjack, ya sea una sola mano, una sesión o toda una vida de juego. ¡Es exhaustivo!
También está organizado jerárquicamente. Es decir, si la "Razón #1" explica una pérdida, no se necesita ninguna otra razón. Si "Razón#1" se rechaza, es decir, se falsifica, se pasa a "Razón#2" y así sucesivamente.
Razón #1: Dios no quería que ganaras.
Tal vez jugar al Blackjack es pecaminoso y perder una expresión suave de Su ira. Si no puedes aceptar esto como la razón para perder pasa a #2.
Razón #2: Usted jugó en un juego torcido.
Esta es una razón que a menudo se sospecha y a veces se afirma. Seguro que ha ocurrido. Hay muchas formas en las que un crupier puede hacer trampas que son casi indetectables y muchas formas en las que la casa puede hacer trampas sin que ni siquiera el crupier lo sepa. Sin embargo, creo que este tipo de trampas son muy raras en la mayoría de los grandes casinos. El casino puede hacer toneladas de dinero sin hacer trampas y no puede arriesgarse a exponerse y perder clientes en un negocio altamente competitivo. Así que en #3.
Razón #3: Has jugado mal: no has jugado una buena estrategia básica.
La mejor forma de jugar cualquier combinación de cartas es bien conocida y está ampliamente difundida. Un error ocasional es humano, pero un error sistemático te machacará. Una vez jugué en una mesa con un hombre que durante 20 años no se atrevía con ninguna mano que pudiera pasarle. Parecía agotado. El miedo a pasarse no es razón para no aprovechar las mejores oportunidades.
Razón #4: Has tenido una racha de mala suerte: no has ganado tantas manos como la media.
Obsérvese que se trata de la misma hipótesis que Reason#1, pero no invoca la intervención de un Poder Superior. Es puramente matemático, una variación normal de la media. Sabiendo esto, sigue siendo sorprendente la variación que se puede experimentar de serie a serie en una partida de Blackjack. Ahora, la última razón. Todo el mundo lo sabe, pero presume de estar exento.
Razón #5: Incluso con suerte media, la casa tiene una pequeña ventaja.
Esta ventaja parece aumentar en una larga serie de manos. No obstante, aún hay esperanza. Existe la posibilidad de tener más suerte que la media, es decir, de ganar. La probabilidad de ganar se reduce cuanto más se juega, pero nunca llega a cero. Algunos sugieren que las ofertas de viajes, el juego gratis y las generosas recompensas pueden producir una ganancia para el jugador que disfruta del juego y del entorno de juego. Así pues, disfrute y buena suerte.
Marcas de rueda
P.D.: Seguro que muchos protestarán porque he incluido todas las razones para perder. He oído (demasiadas veces): "Cogiste mi carta. Has cogido la carta perdida del crupier. No pediste carta y dejaste que el crupier tuviera una carta ganadora. Has jugado mal y ahora toda la mano está fuera de juego. Llegaste a mitad de la mano y acabaste con mi racha ganadora". Estas creencias, y sus innumerables variaciones, se describen mejor como supersticiones. No hay apoyo matemático para ninguna de ellas. Yo no te he hecho perder, así que deja de enfadarte y disfruta del juego, o al menos cállate y déjame disfrutar del juego.
Why some of your winning possibility are over 50%, but not come to basic strategy chart?
Determining the best play is not just about looking at the winning percentage. Instead, you must look at the average return of the hand considering wins, losses, and pushes. Basic strategy uses whichever play yields the highest average return.
It may be that a particular double-down wins more than 50% of the time, but there is still a better way to play the hand. (Ace,Ace) vs 5 is a good example. Doubling that hand does win more than 50% of the time, but splitting is better yet.
For more discussion of why you can’t just use win-rate to decide how to play a hand, see Por qué dividir las decenas es una mala jugada.
Thanks for the detailed answer Ken its appreciated. I always thought counters played more aggressively than the kelly due the fact that extremely high counts are rare. It was my understanding then that it is best to get your max bet out at TC 4 or 5. Don Schlesinger for example plays an extremely aggressive spread where his units go up to two as the TC increases slightly. Is this not a normal betting spread for a counter? Do you recommend playing a half Kelly? Or is this all personal preference depending on how high you want your ROR to be.
The Schlesinger spread you mention would be pretty normal. Optimal spreads will usually get your top bet on the table at +5. How you get there does influence your results, but really not all that much. Any ramp that gets you from your small bet at <+1 to your top bet at +5 is going to perform pretty well. My comments about RA indices and Kelly are based on the fact that almost all players undercount their bankroll, considering only the cash they have on hand at the moment for gambling. In truth, their effective bankroll is much bigger; they can replenish funds from other income sources, and they probably also have other assets that could be counted. Once you get into a large enough bank that these factors don't overwhelm the accounting, you can probably safely afford to bet more than you can easily get away with anyway. If you still are in a place where these calculations have value for you, then yes, betting half Kelly is a pretty good target in my opinion. There's still plenty of excitement in that. 🙂
I got into an argument with my dad about progressive loss betting systems. His argument was that in a casino where the minimum was extremely low and the maximum was extremely high the casino could be beat.
For example, say a casino offered a game with a 10 dollar minimum and a 1,310,720 dollar maximum (I know a casino would never offer this game but just assume they did for the purposes of the example). This would give you a 1-18 spread if you were to double your bet after every loss, not including splits and doubles. My dad argues that he could beat this casino because the chances of him losing 18 hands in a row is incredibly rare.
Assuming one plays perfect basic strategy the chances of losing this many hands in a row is approximately 1 in 262144. Is there a better way to explain this then to say that the potential small wins do not account for the possibility, however small it is, of losing 1,310,720 dollars.
Anyone have any ideas how I can convince my dad in an intelligent matter that he’s wrong?
First, your numbers need some work. Basic strategy blackjack is roughly 43% win, 49% lose, 8% push.
If we ignore the pushes, you lose (49/92)% of the time.
Losing 18 in a row happens (49/92)^18 = 1/84072.
So, you walk in to the casino with ridiculous bet limits with $2,621,430 in your pocket, and make your first $10 bet.
On average, by doubling after every loss you will lose your entire bankroll once every 84,072 tries.
When you do not lose 18 in a row, you win $10. 84,072 * $10 is only $840,720.
And actually you’ll do worse than this, because you are refusing to split even when it helps your win percentage on some hands. (Not doubling is awful too, but doubling never increases the win percentage, but it sure makes you a lot of money over that kind of action!)
Thanks Ken. I’m just a poor student so I account for every dollar, as such I have a set amount set in stone as my bankroll. Thanks for the comments they are very helpful
Ken, gracias por los excelentes consejos para jugar en torneos. Tengo una pregunta con respecto al penúltimo párrafo. ¿Me aconsejas ir all in ($400) aunque $350 lleve la ventaja? ¿No es esto contrario a su consejo de riesgo y recompensa? Además, siempre quiero ahorrar suficiente dinero para ganar a mis oponentes si el crupier gana la última ronda y a todos los demás no les queda nada.
Gracias de nuevo, espero no tener que enfrentarme a ti en la final - Walter
Ese párrafo habla de una excepción común al consejo anterior. La idea es que si pierdes $350 de tu banca de $400, los $50 restantes probablemente no sean suficientes para montar una remontada en las manos restantes. En este caso, ve all-in en su lugar.
En cuanto a retener una pequeña cantidad en caso de que todos los demás pierdan todas sus fichas en la mano final, es un plan útil en algunos casos, y puede ser una razón para retener una cantidad aparentemente inútil. Sin embargo, esa táctica funciona con mucha menos frecuencia hoy en día, ya que los jugadores se han vuelto más experimentados. Si alguien ve que te quedas con un bankroll minúsculo con la esperanza de llegar a la mano final, normalmente se asegurará de bloquearte no yendo all-in al final.
The game has been slow and jerky the last few days. I have a very fast internet connection so I know the problem must be at your end.
If you could somehow put it into operation, this portal would be even more awesome than it is now.
Starting out, you are likely better off playing at a “shoe game”, where all the cards are dealt face up. Just make sure blackjack pays 3:2.
After you gain some experience, look for good rules in a 2-deck game, which will usually be dealt face down.
Where you sit at the table matters very little.