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.
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.
Ciao Ken,
Recentemente, durante una visita al Casinò Genting in Malesia, ho scoperto che non offrono più il gioco del Blackjack ai giocatori comuni come me. Il personale mi ha detto che viene offerto solo ai giocatori con puntate elevate nelle sale VIP, mentre nella sala principale vengono offerti il pontone e altre varianti del Blackjack.
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.
The following may be a bit longish for this format. You may publish it or not as you choose.
The Five Reasons You Lose at Blackjack
This essay contains the remarkable claim that one of five possible situations can explain any loss at the Blackjack table, whether a single hand, a session or a life-time of play. It is comprehensive!
It is also arranged as a hierarchy. That is, if “Reason #1” explains a loss, no further reason is needed. If “Reason#1” is rejected, i.e. falsified, then proceed to “Reason#2” and so on.
Reason #1: God did not want you to win.
Don’t ask me why; I have no especial insight into God’s mind.Perhaps playing Blackjack is sinful and losing a gentle expression of His/Her wrath. If you can’t accept this as the reason for losing go on to #2.
Reason #2: You played in a crooked game.
This is a reason often suspected and sometimes claimed. For sure it has happened. There are many ways a dealer can cheat that are almost undetectable and many ways the house can cheat without even the dealer’s knowledge. However, I think such cheating is very rare in most large casinos. The casino can make tons of money without cheating and can not risk exposure and customer loss in a highly competative business. So on to #3.
Reason #3: You played poorly: you didn’t play a good basic strategy.
The best way to play any card combination is well known and widely distributed. An occasional misplay is only human, but a systematic error will grind you down. I once played a table with a man who for 20 years would not hit any hand that might bust. He looked ground down. Fear of a bust is no reason to not take the best odds.
Reason #4: You had a string of bad luck: you didn’t win as many hands as average.
Note that this is the same scenario as Reason#1, but does not invoke the intervention of a Higher Power. It’s purely mathematical, a normal variation from the mean. Knowing this, it is still amazing the variance you may experience from series to series in a Blackjack game. Now, the last reason. Everyone knows it, but presumes they are exempt.
Reason #5: Even with average luck, the house has a small edge.
This edge seems to magnify in a long series of hands. Nevertheless, there is still hope. The possibility of better than average luck, i.e. a win, does exist. The probability of a win is reduced the longer you play, but never reaches zero. Some suggest that offers of travel, free play and generous comps can produce a win for the player that enjoys the game and the gaming environment. So, enjoy and good luck.
Segnaruote
P.S.: I’m sure many will protest that i have included all the reasons for losing. I have heard (too many times): “You took my card. You took the dealer’s bust card. You didn’t hit and let the dealer have a winning card. You misplayed and now the whole shoe is out of order. You came in mid-shoe and ended my winning streak.” These beliefs, and innumerable variations are best described as superstitious mumbo-jumbo. There is no mathematical support for any of them. I did not cause you to lose, so stop getting angry and enjoy the game, or at least keep quiet and let me enjoy the game.
Per determinare la giocata migliore non basta guardare la percentuale di vincita. Bisogna invece considerare il rendimento medio della mano, tenendo conto delle vittorie, delle perdite e dei push. La strategia di base utilizza la giocata che produce il rendimento medio più elevato.
Può darsi che un particolare double-down vinca più di 50% delle volte, ma c'è comunque un modo migliore di giocare la mano. (Asso, Asso) vs 5 è un buon esempio. Il raddoppio di questa mano vince più di 50% delle volte, ma lo split è ancora meglio.
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, grazie per gli eccellenti consigli per il gioco in torneo. Ho una domanda in riferimento al tuo penultimo paragrafo. Lei consiglia di andare all-in ($400) anche se $350 sarebbe in vantaggio? Questo non è contrario al suo consiglio sul rischio e sulla ricompensa? Inoltre, voglio sempre risparmiare abbastanza denaro per battere i miei avversari se il banco vince l'ultimo giro e a tutti gli altri non rimane nulla.
Grazie ancora, spero di non doverti affrontare in finale - Walter
Questo paragrafo parla di un'eccezione comune al consiglio precedente. L'idea è che se si perde $350 del proprio banco da $400, il restante $50 non è probabilmente sufficiente per organizzare una rimonta nelle mani rimanenti. In questo caso, andate invece all-in.
Per quanto riguarda il trattenere una piccola somma nel caso in cui tutti gli altri perdano tutte le loro fiches nella mano finale, si tratta di un piano utile in alcuni casi e può essere un motivo per trattenere una somma apparentemente inutile. Tuttavia, questa tattica funziona molto meno spesso al giorno d'oggi, dato che i giocatori sono diventati più esperti. Se qualcuno vede che state sfruttando un piccolo bankroll sperando di arrivare alla mano finale, di solito si assicurerà di bloccarvi evitando di andare all-in alla fine.
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.
Ciao Ken,
Recentemente, durante una visita al Casinò Genting in Malesia, ho scoperto che non offrono più il gioco del Blackjack ai giocatori comuni come me. Il personale mi ha detto che viene offerto solo ai giocatori con puntate elevate nelle sale VIP, mentre nella sala principale vengono offerti il pontone e altre varianti del Blackjack.
Cordiali saluti,
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.
The following may be a bit longish for this format. You may publish it or not as you choose.
The Five Reasons You Lose at Blackjack
This essay contains the remarkable claim that one of five possible situations can explain any loss at the Blackjack table, whether a single hand, a session or a life-time of play. It is comprehensive!
It is also arranged as a hierarchy. That is, if “Reason #1” explains a loss, no further reason is needed. If “Reason#1” is rejected, i.e. falsified, then proceed to “Reason#2” and so on.
Reason #1: God did not want you to win.
Don’t ask me why; I have no especial insight into God’s mind.Perhaps playing Blackjack is sinful and losing a gentle expression of His/Her wrath. If you can’t accept this as the reason for losing go on to #2.
Reason #2: You played in a crooked game.
This is a reason often suspected and sometimes claimed. For sure it has happened. There are many ways a dealer can cheat that are almost undetectable and many ways the house can cheat without even the dealer’s knowledge. However, I think such cheating is very rare in most large casinos. The casino can make tons of money without cheating and can not risk exposure and customer loss in a highly competative business. So on to #3.
Reason #3: You played poorly: you didn’t play a good basic strategy.
The best way to play any card combination is well known and widely distributed. An occasional misplay is only human, but a systematic error will grind you down. I once played a table with a man who for 20 years would not hit any hand that might bust. He looked ground down. Fear of a bust is no reason to not take the best odds.
Reason #4: You had a string of bad luck: you didn’t win as many hands as average.
Note that this is the same scenario as Reason#1, but does not invoke the intervention of a Higher Power. It’s purely mathematical, a normal variation from the mean. Knowing this, it is still amazing the variance you may experience from series to series in a Blackjack game. Now, the last reason. Everyone knows it, but presumes they are exempt.
Reason #5: Even with average luck, the house has a small edge.
This edge seems to magnify in a long series of hands. Nevertheless, there is still hope. The possibility of better than average luck, i.e. a win, does exist. The probability of a win is reduced the longer you play, but never reaches zero. Some suggest that offers of travel, free play and generous comps can produce a win for the player that enjoys the game and the gaming environment. So, enjoy and good luck.
Segnaruote
P.S.: I’m sure many will protest that i have included all the reasons for losing. I have heard (too many times): “You took my card. You took the dealer’s bust card. You didn’t hit and let the dealer have a winning card. You misplayed and now the whole shoe is out of order. You came in mid-shoe and ended my winning streak.” These beliefs, and innumerable variations are best described as superstitious mumbo-jumbo. There is no mathematical support for any of them. I did not cause you to lose, so stop getting angry and enjoy the game, or at least keep quiet and let me enjoy the game.
Perché alcune delle vostre possibilità di vincita sono superiori a 50%, ma non si avvicinano al grafico della strategia di base?
Per determinare la giocata migliore non basta guardare la percentuale di vincita. Bisogna invece considerare il rendimento medio della mano, tenendo conto delle vittorie, delle perdite e dei push. La strategia di base utilizza la giocata che produce il rendimento medio più elevato.
Può darsi che un particolare double-down vinca più di 50% delle volte, ma c'è comunque un modo migliore di giocare la mano. (Asso, Asso) vs 5 è un buon esempio. Il raddoppio di questa mano vince più di 50% delle volte, ma lo split è ancora meglio.
Per un'ulteriore discussione sul perché non si può usare il win-rate per decidere come giocare una mano, vedere Perché dividere le decine è una mossa sbagliata.
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, grazie per gli eccellenti consigli per il gioco in torneo. Ho una domanda in riferimento al tuo penultimo paragrafo. Lei consiglia di andare all-in ($400) anche se $350 sarebbe in vantaggio? Questo non è contrario al suo consiglio sul rischio e sulla ricompensa? Inoltre, voglio sempre risparmiare abbastanza denaro per battere i miei avversari se il banco vince l'ultimo giro e a tutti gli altri non rimane nulla.
Grazie ancora, spero di non doverti affrontare in finale - Walter
Questo paragrafo parla di un'eccezione comune al consiglio precedente. L'idea è che se si perde $350 del proprio banco da $400, il restante $50 non è probabilmente sufficiente per organizzare una rimonta nelle mani rimanenti. In questo caso, andate invece all-in.
Per quanto riguarda il trattenere una piccola somma nel caso in cui tutti gli altri perdano tutte le loro fiches nella mano finale, si tratta di un piano utile in alcuni casi e può essere un motivo per trattenere una somma apparentemente inutile. Tuttavia, questa tattica funziona molto meno spesso al giorno d'oggi, dato che i giocatori sono diventati più esperti. Se qualcuno vede che state sfruttando un piccolo bankroll sperando di arrivare alla mano finale, di solito si assicurerà di bloccarvi evitando di andare all-in alla fine.
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.