Ecco tutti i commenti pubblicati sul sito, con le discussioni più recenti elencate per prime.
Per partecipare a una qualsiasi di queste discussioni, potete rispondere nella pagina dell'articolo.
I see that the majority of this thread is very old, and it’s been slightly hijacked, but it does help segway into a thought I’ve been having.
If you put everything else aside and look at only the order of the cards coming out of the deck, it seems there should be a point at which you should deviate from basic strategy regardless of the true count. the reason for this thought is basic probability.
Lets start with a dice example: rolling a single dice one time, the odds of getting a 6 are 1 in 6, or .1666. roll a single dice again, the odds of getting a 6 are still one in 6 cause the first roll has no effect (or no memory). that’s a basic statistic, but when you look at the odds of getting two consecutive 6’s, now it’s a PROBABILITY problem. the odds are .02777, which is a massive difference.
now translating this to blackjack, I’m thinking that at the basic level we’re looking at the card count. we’d drawing positive, negative, and neutrals. in a deck, we have 20, 20, and 12 respectively. so drawing a positive card is a 5 in 13 chance, or .38% a second positive is a .37%, then .36% and so on. Unlike the dice, there’s a memory, so each card drawn effects the odds of the second card. The tricky part is when we look at the probability of drawing 3 consecutive positives, which is a .05 chance.
So the pattern that we see is that each single card changes the numbers for the next draw by about .01% chance, which is pretty small and about inconsequential in comparison to the effect of the probability of an individual sequence. So how does this effect the game when we put everything into account and try to use this information in a game.
First off the running or true count would have an inconsequential effect at the beginning of each hand for the purposes of the probability of drawing a positive or negative card. As we saw, each single card removed will only change the probably by about .01% and we can expect that percentage to be roughly the same regardless of the number of decks. so if we use a hand as an example with 4 players where you’re on the end with a 12 against the dealers 10, then basic strategy says “hit till 17 or better” and there’s no variation on that in the I18 fab4 or otherwise. but what if the other 3 players before you all hit at least once and get a positive count card every time? To me that says that your odds of busting are extroadinarily high, since you only 3 faces that will require a 2nd hit, and if you DO draw one of those, that’s going to be the 4th positive card in a row, and makes a 5th positive card a .006% chance. on that 2nd hit, your odds of drawing a card that won’t cause a bust is even less than that cause that math doesn’t even account for getting a 4 followed by a 6 on the first and second hit respectively. I’ve probably already talked too much math to keep anybodies attention and haven’t even mentioned odds of getting a first hit card that would make you stay/bust but I think I’ve made the point that while basic strategy just says “hit till 17 or better” if you look at the flow of the cards, it would appear that a stay would be a better play.
so the point of the long story is a question: Am I wrong about something here? my thought is that this type of probability is ignored when counting cause there hasn’t been an easy way to boil it down into something easy to remember/implement at the tables. Am I anywhere close to right?
There is another explanation from Wizard of odds,FAQ , about myth of poor player made you lose money in BJ.
This author simulates 1.5 b hands of plays. One player always played basic strategy ( A), and the other player (B) always played a different strategy, different from the basic. The end result were the A player lost 0. 28% and the b player lost 11.% after 1.5 B hands. It’s doesn’t Mather how the other play, the result is the same in the long run.
that makes sense, I guess I should have pointed out that my point wasn’t that a poor player will make you lose, but that other players at the table receiving cards will give insight it to what could potentially be coming out of the deck.
I was persuing another avenue of thought from all of the poor player myths such as taking the dealers bust card and whatnot. Just simply the effect that multiple players can have on your play in terms of opportunities and insight vs one on one with the dealer.
Grazie per il sito e per i consigli gratuiti. Ho notato che in alcuni punti ti contraddici e che la tua scheda strategica di base non è in linea con quanto predichi nelle lezioni. Puoi ricontrollare e riallineare?
Grazie
Just like in any number of decks. You divide the running count by the number of unseen decks.
Let’s say you are playing a deeply dealt double deck game, and 1.5 decks have been used already.
If your running count is +3, you divide that by the number of unseen decks, which is 0.5.
+3 / 0.5 = +6.
Your true count is +6.
Sucks that this is the trend in Vegas. I stopped playing at the Venetian in LV about a year ago because of all the bs 6:5 games. Recently, I saw the NY NY just started doing this on their shoe games. I hope all blackjack players boycott these games so the greedy casinos are forced to go back to 3:2!
Is it true you guys are still getting shoe boxes dealt? We are from Asia and there is none to be found. It is all Continious Shuffling machines we are playing against. Can never be the same and cannot be counted anymore. Drop me a line if anyone knows how to beat these CSM. poiandrew at yahoo dot com
Was in vegas all week, haven’t been here in ten years. I can’t believe how these strip casinos have changed this to 6:5 so quickly. I ended up going to the Boulder highway casinos a little east of the strip and found they have the old 3:2 games in all of them. I don’t recommend the strip for blackjack at all anymore ….what a joke.
With a $500 bankroll, you will be overbetting your bank regardless of how good a game you can find.
The only realistic approach with that bankroll would be to take a shot, and if you lose your bank, you’ll have to go back to work to gather another bankroll.
If you try this approach, it is extremely important to play the very best games that you can. In fact, if you cannot play a decent 1 or 2 deck game, I wouldn’t bother.
The six-deck games really can’t be tackled without a much larger bankroll.
thanks for the reply,
i’ve another questions if don’t mind ,
if i split the cards and i win just one hand and the bet was 5$ , how much im gonna take for that ?
C'è un piccolo vantaggio nel giocare le mani in ritardo, quindi sedersi vicino alla terza base lo permetterebbe. Il vantaggio è che si possono vedere le carte vincenti degli altri al tavolo prima di dover prendere una decisione sulla propria mano. Questo vantaggio è molto limitato. In genere non mi preoccupo affatto di quale sia il mio posto.
Il mio consiglio è semplice: Sedetevi dove potete vedere comodamente tutte le carte. Per i nuovi giocatori, può essere intimidatorio sedersi in prima base, perché il croupier guarderà a voi per prendere una decisione mentre voi sarete ancora impegnati a contare le carte del resto del tavolo.
Molti giocatori credono erroneamente che lo spot di prima base abbia più probabilità di altri spot di ricevere buone carte nei conteggi elevati. Questo non è affatto vero. In genere, i giocatori che cadono in questo mito non comprendono il "Teorema del conteggio vero". Se siete voi, cercate le spiegazioni qui su BlackjackInfo.
People like Tomi will always blame others for his poor decisions. If the person is to blame for the losses you earn, do yo thai them each time you hit a blackjack or you win? I doubt it. If he caused you to lose, then defacto he changed the card order and caused you to win as well!!
Ho analizzato i numeri della deviazione standard 3 per voi, utilizzando gli stessi criteri della lezione.
I risultati:
3 ore: da +$530 a -$485
12 ore: Da +$1104 a -$924
48 ore: Da +$2388 a -$1668
90 ore: da +$3452 a -$2102
Tuttavia, ho scoperto di recente che i numeri del GameMaster sono stati ricavati in un modo diverso da quello che avevo ipotizzato, e purtroppo ora necessitano di un'avvertenza... Egli ha calcolato la varianza qui utilizzando solo la dimensione media delle scommesse e la formula per la SD. Questo fa sì che i suoi risultati sottostimino la volatilità di questo schema di scommesse, perché c'è più varianza in uno spread di scommesse con una media di $12 che in una scommessa piatta di $12. Di conseguenza, questa pagina ha bisogno di un'accurata rielaborazione. È sulla mia lista.
Per quanto riguarda il trattamento di un periodo di gioco prolungato, se si inizia con un piccolo bankroll raramente si ha la possibilità di ridurre le dimensioni delle proprie scommesse se si sta perdendo, perché il gioco non rimane redditizio con spread più piccoli e probabilmente si è già al limite della propria capacità di spread a causa del piccolo bank. Per la maggior parte dei giocatori principianti, che sarebbero disposti ad aumentare un altro banco se perdono questo, il ridimensionamento non è un'opzione realistica. L'unica vera opzione è quella di continuare a giocare fino a quando possono permettersi lo spread di puntata e coprire in modo sicuro i raddoppi e gli split che si presentano.
(Le cose sono molto diverse se si ha a che fare con bankroll più grandi. In questo caso si ha una certa flessibilità nel ridimensionare i fondi secondo le necessità per ridurre il rischio di rovina).
I see that the majority of this thread is very old, and it’s been slightly hijacked, but it does help segway into a thought I’ve been having.
If you put everything else aside and look at only the order of the cards coming out of the deck, it seems there should be a point at which you should deviate from basic strategy regardless of the true count. the reason for this thought is basic probability.
Lets start with a dice example: rolling a single dice one time, the odds of getting a 6 are 1 in 6, or .1666. roll a single dice again, the odds of getting a 6 are still one in 6 cause the first roll has no effect (or no memory). that’s a basic statistic, but when you look at the odds of getting two consecutive 6’s, now it’s a PROBABILITY problem. the odds are .02777, which is a massive difference.
now translating this to blackjack, I’m thinking that at the basic level we’re looking at the card count. we’d drawing positive, negative, and neutrals. in a deck, we have 20, 20, and 12 respectively. so drawing a positive card is a 5 in 13 chance, or .38% a second positive is a .37%, then .36% and so on. Unlike the dice, there’s a memory, so each card drawn effects the odds of the second card. The tricky part is when we look at the probability of drawing 3 consecutive positives, which is a .05 chance.
So the pattern that we see is that each single card changes the numbers for the next draw by about .01% chance, which is pretty small and about inconsequential in comparison to the effect of the probability of an individual sequence. So how does this effect the game when we put everything into account and try to use this information in a game.
First off the running or true count would have an inconsequential effect at the beginning of each hand for the purposes of the probability of drawing a positive or negative card. As we saw, each single card removed will only change the probably by about .01% and we can expect that percentage to be roughly the same regardless of the number of decks. so if we use a hand as an example with 4 players where you’re on the end with a 12 against the dealers 10, then basic strategy says “hit till 17 or better” and there’s no variation on that in the I18 fab4 or otherwise. but what if the other 3 players before you all hit at least once and get a positive count card every time? To me that says that your odds of busting are extroadinarily high, since you only 3 faces that will require a 2nd hit, and if you DO draw one of those, that’s going to be the 4th positive card in a row, and makes a 5th positive card a .006% chance. on that 2nd hit, your odds of drawing a card that won’t cause a bust is even less than that cause that math doesn’t even account for getting a 4 followed by a 6 on the first and second hit respectively. I’ve probably already talked too much math to keep anybodies attention and haven’t even mentioned odds of getting a first hit card that would make you stay/bust but I think I’ve made the point that while basic strategy just says “hit till 17 or better” if you look at the flow of the cards, it would appear that a stay would be a better play.
so the point of the long story is a question: Am I wrong about something here? my thought is that this type of probability is ignored when counting cause there hasn’t been an easy way to boil it down into something easy to remember/implement at the tables. Am I anywhere close to right?
There is another explanation from Wizard of odds,FAQ , about myth of poor player made you lose money in BJ.
This author simulates 1.5 b hands of plays. One player always played basic strategy ( A), and the other player (B) always played a different strategy, different from the basic. The end result were the A player lost 0. 28% and the b player lost 11.% after 1.5 B hands. It’s doesn’t Mather how the other play, the result is the same in the long run.
that makes sense, I guess I should have pointed out that my point wasn’t that a poor player will make you lose, but that other players at the table receiving cards will give insight it to what could potentially be coming out of the deck.
I was persuing another avenue of thought from all of the poor player myths such as taking the dealers bust card and whatnot. Just simply the effect that multiple players can have on your play in terms of opportunities and insight vs one on one with the dealer.
so is this the way you should bet when you are counting cards?
Yes, this lesson shows a good way of calculating an appropriate bet spread for counting.
Grazie per il sito e per i consigli gratuiti. Ho notato che in alcuni punti ti contraddici e che la tua scheda strategica di base non è in linea con quanto predichi nelle lezioni. Puoi ricontrollare e riallineare?
Grazie
Avete un punto specifico in cui pensate ci sia un problema?
how can you calculate DD BJ T/C positive or negative count is only few cards to deal.thanks
Just like in any number of decks. You divide the running count by the number of unseen decks.
Let’s say you are playing a deeply dealt double deck game, and 1.5 decks have been used already.
If your running count is +3, you divide that by the number of unseen decks, which is 0.5.
+3 / 0.5 = +6.
Your true count is +6.
Sucks that this is the trend in Vegas. I stopped playing at the Venetian in LV about a year ago because of all the bs 6:5 games. Recently, I saw the NY NY just started doing this on their shoe games. I hope all blackjack players boycott these games so the greedy casinos are forced to go back to 3:2!
Is it true you guys are still getting shoe boxes dealt? We are from Asia and there is none to be found. It is all Continious Shuffling machines we are playing against. Can never be the same and cannot be counted anymore. Drop me a line if anyone knows how to beat these CSM. poiandrew at yahoo dot com
Was in vegas all week, haven’t been here in ten years. I can’t believe how these strip casinos have changed this to 6:5 so quickly. I ended up going to the Boulder highway casinos a little east of the strip and found they have the old 3:2 games in all of them. I don’t recommend the strip for blackjack at all anymore ….what a joke.
any advise for a bankroll of 500$ ?
With a $500 bankroll, you will be overbetting your bank regardless of how good a game you can find.
The only realistic approach with that bankroll would be to take a shot, and if you lose your bank, you’ll have to go back to work to gather another bankroll.
If you try this approach, it is extremely important to play the very best games that you can. In fact, if you cannot play a decent 1 or 2 deck game, I wouldn’t bother.
The six-deck games really can’t be tackled without a much larger bankroll.
thanks for the reply,
i’ve another questions if don’t mind ,
if i split the cards and i win just one hand and the bet was 5$ , how much im gonna take for that ?
Ciao, mi chiedevo se c'è qualche vantaggio nel giocare in diversi punti del tavolo.
C'è un piccolo vantaggio nel giocare le mani in ritardo, quindi sedersi vicino alla terza base lo permetterebbe. Il vantaggio è che si possono vedere le carte vincenti degli altri al tavolo prima di dover prendere una decisione sulla propria mano. Questo vantaggio è molto limitato. In genere non mi preoccupo affatto di quale sia il mio posto.
Il mio consiglio è semplice: Sedetevi dove potete vedere comodamente tutte le carte. Per i nuovi giocatori, può essere intimidatorio sedersi in prima base, perché il croupier guarderà a voi per prendere una decisione mentre voi sarete ancora impegnati a contare le carte del resto del tavolo.
Molti giocatori credono erroneamente che lo spot di prima base abbia più probabilità di altri spot di ricevere buone carte nei conteggi elevati. Questo non è affatto vero. In genere, i giocatori che cadono in questo mito non comprendono il "Teorema del conteggio vero". Se siete voi, cercate le spiegazioni qui su BlackjackInfo.
People like Tomi will always blame others for his poor decisions. If the person is to blame for the losses you earn, do yo thai them each time you hit a blackjack or you win? I doubt it. If he caused you to lose, then defacto he changed the card order and caused you to win as well!!
I agree with the person before you , I’ve seen many times when a player takes a card while the dealer has a bust card out and screws the whole table
Ho analizzato i numeri della deviazione standard 3 per voi, utilizzando gli stessi criteri della lezione.
I risultati:
3 ore: da +$530 a -$485
12 ore: Da +$1104 a -$924
48 ore: Da +$2388 a -$1668
90 ore: da +$3452 a -$2102
Tuttavia, ho scoperto di recente che i numeri del GameMaster sono stati ricavati in un modo diverso da quello che avevo ipotizzato, e purtroppo ora necessitano di un'avvertenza... Egli ha calcolato la varianza qui utilizzando solo la dimensione media delle scommesse e la formula per la SD. Questo fa sì che i suoi risultati sottostimino la volatilità di questo schema di scommesse, perché c'è più varianza in uno spread di scommesse con una media di $12 che in una scommessa piatta di $12. Di conseguenza, questa pagina ha bisogno di un'accurata rielaborazione. È sulla mia lista.
Per quanto riguarda il trattamento di un periodo di gioco prolungato, se si inizia con un piccolo bankroll raramente si ha la possibilità di ridurre le dimensioni delle proprie scommesse se si sta perdendo, perché il gioco non rimane redditizio con spread più piccoli e probabilmente si è già al limite della propria capacità di spread a causa del piccolo bank. Per la maggior parte dei giocatori principianti, che sarebbero disposti ad aumentare un altro banco se perdono questo, il ridimensionamento non è un'opzione realistica. L'unica vera opzione è quella di continuare a giocare fino a quando possono permettersi lo spread di puntata e coprire in modo sicuro i raddoppi e gli split che si presentano.
(Le cose sono molto diverse se si ha a che fare con bankroll più grandi. In questo caso si ha una certa flessibilità nel ridimensionare i fondi secondo le necessità per ridurre il rischio di rovina).