People who think that third base can effect their chances are basically espousing this belief: “

I love to hear from Ken about your question. But I will give you my two cents worth of opinion. It’s just back luck!! Johnny can took away the good card from dealer and make you win that hand too. Then you will be $2000 ahead. Then you should quit going to casino forever, so that you will be ahead $2000 , because that will be your last hand playing blackjack. Good luck! ]]>

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.

]]>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. ]]>

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?

]]>