Subject: Blackjack tips
Posted by: brm50diboll
Date: Jul 25 17
Since Casinos and Gambling are in the Entertainment category, I thought I'd start this thread for some tips on one of my, err hobbies. Nothing too serious as I'm an infrequent low stakes player.
Posted by: brm50diboll
Date: Jul 25 17
Since Casinos and Gambling are in the Entertainment category, I thought I'd start this thread for some tips on one of my, err hobbies. Nothing too serious as I'm an infrequent low stakes player.
74 replies. On page 2 of 4 pages. 1 2 3 4
brm50diboll 
|
Political incorrectness, if it's not too bad or intentionally malicious (and mine aren't), actually make good mnemonics. In astronomy, the standard mnemonic for remembering the correct order of spectral classes is: Oh Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me. (For OBAFGKM.) People remember slightly outrageous statements. So yes, hard 17 is called the mother-in-law hand for the reason I stated. Glad to see you're reading there, Lucky Lady. Reply #21. Aug 03 17, 11:57 AM |
13LuckyLady
|
OBAFGKM = Outstanding! Brian, all facts generate knowledge multiplied? My first MIL was a saint. I did want to, you know, her son sometimes though. Reading? No... Absorbing? You got it! Reply #22. Aug 03 17, 12:02 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
Thanks. I never intentionally intend to flout people's sensibilities. But political incorrectness, if judicially used, has its advantages. When I taught Astronomy, I used the mnemonic I mentioned. It's in the standard textbooks. People do remember it. Reply #23. Aug 03 17, 12:05 PM |
| 13LuckyLady
|
I don't believe in Political Correctness, Brian. SHOCK! About ROYGBIV or HOMES or those other interesting mnemonics...what else ya got? More! Reply #24. Aug 03 17, 12:09 PM |
| 13LuckyLady
|
PC has made people change, to a degree, and not for the better (in my opinion). Speak your mind but always remember that someone may disagree. As long as their hands are firmly in their pockets and you can run like the wind, no worries. Imagine a world of "yes" people and if everyone thought exactly as you did. I would be SO bored! More stuff please! Reply #25. Aug 03 17, 12:11 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
I wrote judicially, but I meant judiciously. I hate grammatical errors. I'm too obsessive-compulsive. All sorts of mnemonics are useful, *if* they're memorable. What was the taxonomy level one - I'm blanking here - King Philip something, something for Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order Family, Genus, Species. Oh well, it'll come to me. Reply #26. Aug 03 17, 12:14 PM |
| 13LuckyLady
|
I read judiciously..enough said. Try to not hate errors....if we never made any, we lose the fun of typos! Reply #27. Aug 03 17, 12:27 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
King Philip Came Over From Great Spain. Not quite memorable enough, I'm afraid. I do remember 1588 was the year of the Spanish Armada, though, but for high school students? Needs more of an edge. Never stand on soft 17, people. Reply #28. Aug 03 17, 12:37 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
Legends of Bad Blackjack Play Part II Splitting Tens Oh my, how horrible a play is this! Even against the dealer's 6 upcard (his worst.) But I see it a lot and I sort of understand why people do it, although it is a terrible play. In blackjack, tens are the most common type of card since tens, jacks, queens, and kings all count as tens. So tens are four times as common as any other value of card and therefore, if one were going to split pairs, then splitting tens would have more opportunities than any other pair. And why not put more money on the table when you are likely to win? Certainly I've seen players split tens, get more tens, split again all the way to four hands, then have the dealer bust for a huge win. What fun! Why not do this against the 6 at least and have the opportunity for a really big win? OK. Time to cite some statistics and explain why splitting tens against anything, even the dealer's 6 upcard, is a bad idea despite the occasional phenomenal exciting big wins. Wet blankets R Us. Let's begin letting the air out of the balloons by pointing out that the 6, the dealer's weakest upcard, is *not* actually the bust card players think it is. If we rank all possible dealer upcards from weakest (most favorable to the player, and most likely for a dealer bust) to strongest (least favorable to the player and least likely for a dealer bust), the correct order is: 6,5,4,3,2,7,8,9,10,A But even the 6 has less than a 50% bust rate. The actual dealer bust rate showing a 6 is 42% (43% if the casino requires the dealer to hit soft 17.) On the other end, the bust rate for the A upcard is a mere 17% (excluding dealer blackjacks; if dealer blackjacks are included, the bust rate is only 11%.) Overall, the dealer bust rate averages out at 28%. So even with the 6, the dealer is more likely to make 17 or better than to bust. Now 20 (hard or soft) is a very strong hand, likely to beat a 6 when stood upon over 80% of the time. But when you split tens, you are likely to make your very strong 20 weaker (only the A can make it stronger, and if a player who splits tens gets more tens, he will likely resplit them, resulting in a very high likelihood of weakening his hand.) Now if the dealer busts, it wouldn't matter how weak the split hands became - they still would be winners. But as I said, even with the 6, the dealer won't bust a majority of the time. So an excellent 20 against a 6 is likely to turn into a 14, a 16, and an 18. Then if the dealer makes 19 we see why splitting tens was such a bad idea. Instead of winning a 20 over a dealer 19, the player loses three hands to that 19. But you just deliberately picked a bad example, Brian. How often does bad stuff like that happen against a dealer 6, anyway? Well, statistically, we are looking at something called player expectation. Whether the player stands on 20 or splits tens against a dealer 6, simulations show the player expectation to be positive, meaning the player will win more often than he loses in this situation. But even with the additional money put on the table by the splits, the expectation for standing on 20 versus splitting tens against the 6 is over twice as high for standing than splitting, which means the awful scenario I gave occurs often enough to cancel out the big wins that also sometimes occur. Bottom line: Never split 10s, not even against the 6. It isn't worth the risk of ruining a strong hand (the 20.) But I heard that card counters know of scenarios where splitting tens is actually advantageous, Brian. Well, yes, actually. But, again to be a wet blanket, in order for splitting tens against a 6 to have a higher player expectation than standing on 20, the "true count" must be +4 or higher, which is quite rare in an eight deck shoe game. And of course, very few people know how to correctly count cards. Assuming a high positive count "on a hunch" leads to disaster. Only a real card counter should dare to play like one. Under basic strategy, there is *no* scenario, NONE, where splitting tens is advised. It's exciting, all right, but utterly reckless. Reply #29. Aug 07 17, 11:53 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
Legends of Bad Blackjack play Part III Always standing on A-7 (Soft 18) Player expectations are what drives the choices of correct play in basic strategy, and it really isn't that hard to understand how player expectations work. A few examples will help. Pushes (ties) don't count, so we can consider only the winning versus losing percentages in the long run (thousands of games) that exclude pushes. For example, if a particular matchup in simulations showed 40% wins, 40% losses, and 20% pushes, ignoring the pushes makes this the equivalent of 50% wins and 50% losses over time. Expectations are positive for win percentages and negative for loss percentages. For a unit bet, the expectation for a 100% win rate is +1. For a 100% loss rate, the expectation is -1. For a 50% win, 50% loss rate, the expectation is 0. Consider a 70% win, 30% loss rate (after excluding pushes). For that scenario, the expectation is +.7 - .3 = +.4. Simple enough, actually. Bonuses and extra bets have a multiplying effect. For example, a player blackjack wins 100% of the time against a dealer 6, but the expectation is +1.5 rather than +1 because blackjacks pay a 3:2 bonus. In a hypothetical (and unreal) doubling scenario with a 100% win rate (no real doubling scenarios have that high a win rate), the expectation would be +2 rather than +1 because the bet was doubled. A similar effect occurs for splits. Many players will always stand on A-7 (Soft 18), regardless of dealer upcard because "18 is a good hand" or "the dealer does it". Both are bad reasons. 18 is an average hand, not a good hand, and against strong dealer upcards it is actually worth the risk to try to improve the hand by hitting. Also, against weak dealer upcards it is worth the risk to double down. Basic strategy actually says that for a player A-7 (Soft 18), standing is only the correct play if the dealer upcard is 2,7, or 8. Against the dealer 3,4,5, or 6 (weak upcards), the correct strategy is to double down on A-7. Against the dealer 9,10, or A (strong upcards), the correct strategy is to actually hit the A-7. Now let's look at a few examples and their player expectations to see why these recommendations are as they are: Consider first the player A-7 against the dealer 6. The expectation for standing is +.283. For hitting it is +.191, and for doubling it is +.382. Now let's see why: Hitting has a lower expectation than standing because if you hit a soft 18, only three cards will improve it (A,2, or 3), but six cards make it worse (4-9). But you will note that doubling has twice the expectation of hitting (because of the doubled bet). So of the three choices, doubling has the highest expectation, even higher than standing, so one should double, not stand, on a player A-7 versus a dealer 6. Now consider player A-7 versus dealer 9 upcard. Here the expectations are -.183 for standing, -.101 for hitting, and -.290 for doubling. Since the 9 is a strong dealer upcard, the player is likely to lose in all three situations, which is why all three expectations are negative. Certainly one should *never* double in any situation where the odds favor the house. But note that the expectation for hitting is *less negative* than the expectation for standing. This seems odd considering that you are more likely to make a soft 18 worse with one hit than better. But since the dealer 9 is up, you may end up taking more than one hit (unlike the 6), which alters the odds. Also, a stiff hand or a hard 17 are only slightly worse against a dealer 9 than an 18, but a 19, 20, or 21 are much better than an 18 against a dealer 9, so it is worth taking a hit on the A-7 to try to improve the hand in this case. Hitting has the least negative expectation of the three options in this case; therefore, the player should hit A-7 against the dealer 9, not stand, even though this is a non-intuitive play (similarly against the dealer 10 or A, also strong upcards.) Now suppose it is A-7 versus the dealer 2. The expectations for that case are +.122 for standing, +.063 for hitting, and +.120 for doubling. Unlike the 6, against the dealer 2 the expectation for doubling is *lower* than for standing. 2 is a medium strength dealer upcard. Not strong enough to justify taking the risk of making the hand worse by hitting, but too strong an upcard to get an advantage from the increased bet by doubling. So in this case standing on the A-7 *is* actually the best play because it has the highest expectation. (Also true for the dealer's 7 or 8 upcards, also medium strength.) Every single play in basic strategy is chosen because it has the highest player expectation available (or at least the least negative expectation) as determined by simulations over many thousands of hands of the options available to the player. Always standing on A-7 (Soft 18) is actually a mistake. A-7 should only be stood upon against the dealer 2,7, or 8. Against the dealer's 3-6, it should be doubled, and against the dealer's 9,10, or A, it should actually be hit. Reply #30. Aug 15 17, 4:48 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
Tip: Always split aces and eights Many people don't do this, especially against strong dealer upcards like 10 or A, but the numbers bear out this recommendation. Splitting aces is very different than splitting any other pair, because the ace is such a strong first card that casinos altered the rules on splitting it, because if players were allowed to split aces like they do with any other pair, they might actually get an edge over the house, and casinos can't allow that to happen. So casinos generally allow players to get only one additional card to each split ace and do not allow any additional hits or doubles on split aces. Furthermore, most casinos do not allow resplitting aces, although there are a few that do, and it is an advantage to the player (albeit a small one) if you can find a casino that will allow resplitting aces. So if basic strategy says always split aces, if you are lucky enough to have the option to resplit them, you should always do so, regardless of dealer upcard, as the alternative, a stiff 12, is a very bad hand. An example of how casinos have altered the rules for splitting aces as compared to any other pair: A player gets two aces against a dealer ace. He follows the basic strategy to split them (even in this case). On his first ace, he gets a deuce for a 13. He isn't allowed to hit that 13, even though it is soft. Had it been any other card that had been split other than the ace, he would've been allowed to hit, but here he's stuck with a lousy 13. On his second ace, he gets a ten for a 21. This is a 21, *NOT* a blackjack! Blackjacks occur only on original hands, *never* after splits. The dealer turns over his hole card, which was an 8 for a 19. The player's 13 loses, but his 21 wins, so this hand was a net push for the player. But splitting aces was still the right thing to do here. Expectations show improvement in splitting aces versus the alternative to hitting a soft 12 against *every* dealer upcard, even taking into consideration that casinos alter the rules for splitting aces. Still do it, anyway. Most of the time, it seems like (as in my example here), you will get one "good" hand and one "bad" hand when you split aces. Splitting eights is also scary for some players against the dealer's ten or ace, but you should still do it, because even though the expectations are negative here, they are less negative than hitting or standing on the hard 16. Reply #31. Aug 24 17, 9:50 AM |
| brm50diboll
|
Legends in Bad Blackjack play Part IV Doubling Down on Hard 12 I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it, but I did (several times, in fact), so I have to report this has actually happened. Doubling down on *any* stiff hand is st*pid, even the 12, for several reasons: 1) Uh, any ten will bust you and cause an automatic loss 2) Even the best play for Hard 12 vs dealer 6 (standing) has a negative expectation, so hitting has an even more negative expectation and doubling doubles the negative expectation of hitting 3) Never double *any* hand with a negative expectation, it makes the expectation more negative 4) Really? Somebody did this? Now, in the interest of full honesty, I must report a guy I saw double down on Hard 12 several times in one sitting did in fact get a 9 on one of his doubles for a 21 which won. So st*pid plays don't always lose. But that doesn't change the fact it's a st*pid play. A lot of people just don't get it - hunches are meaningless. Play should be based on expectations, which change only through card count, and, even then, only weakly so for a few hands. So play should be consistent. That is, if standing on player Hard 12 vs dealer 6 is the right play (which it is), it is *always* the right play, barring card counting. But casinos can always count on some players playing their hunches. More money for the casinos, I guess. Reply #32. Sep 03 17, 5:26 PM |
daver852
|
Here's a blackjack tip: not all casinos follow the same rules. Make sure you know and understand the house rules before you begin play. Reply #33. Sep 03 17, 7:43 PM |
MiraJane
|
And not all tables within the same casino have the same rules. Reply #34. Sep 03 17, 8:22 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
You are both correct. When blackjack rules vary within a single casino, the rules more favorable to the player can usually be found at the tables with higher bet limits. A $100 minimum bet table may have more favorable rules than a $5 minimum bet table. But I am a low-stakes player, so I can't take advantage of that. However, rule variation between casinos is definitely worth exploring. It is a very broad generalization, but blackjack rules in Vegas are somewhat more favorable to players in casinos off the Strip than those on the Strip. Downtown Vegas casinos are well worth checking out. There are many of them close together in a small area. Rules favorable to players that are worth hunting for: Double on any two cards Resplit aces Surrender Dealer must stand on all 17s Fewer decks (single deck games would be ideal, but are very hard to find, but double deck games can still be found) Higher penetration into the shoe before the dealer reshuffles (at least 75% should be the target.) Obviously, the opposites to the rules listed above are disadvantageous to players (Dealer must hit Soft 17, for example), but "sucker" rules need to be looked out for. By that I mean there may be a table that appears to have liberal rules, but there is a hidden "sucker" rule that more than cancels out the advantages of all the other rules. Sucker rules are awful and *must* be avoided Examples of sucker rules: Any variant of blackjack that is not standard, such as Spanish 21 or double exposure. Those games can be played, but require totally different strategies. 1:1 or 6:5 payoffs on blackjacks - Awful rule! Avoid such tables at all costs! Reply #35. Sep 04 17, 11:59 AM |
| brm50diboll
|
Legends of Bad Blackjack play Part V Always Doubling on Hands less than 9 total versus Dealer 6 upcard A player gets a deuce and a three for a starting hand total of 5. The dealer has a 6. The player doubles on his 5. Good Gracious! OK, the player's bad reason for this poor play is that the 6 is the dealer's "bust card", so he might as well double to cash in on this opportunity since the dealer usually busts when showing the 6. As I have previously stated: Wrong! The dealer only busts 42-43% of the time when showing the 6. Holding a 5 total, the player has *zero* chance of achieving a 17 or better on a double. Never double on totals of 5,6, or 7. Even with an 8, the double is not advised unless in a single deck game, which is almost non-existent today. The 6 is the dealer's poorest upcard, but it is *not* a bust card. Reply #36. Sep 12 17, 9:53 AM |
| brm50diboll
|
A few words about the statistics of blackjack and how it is different from the statistics of other gambling games, say, craps. Craps is a game with independent probabilities. There are many gambling fallacies, and casinos encourage these fallacies to maximize their profits, but an important one is the so-called "Law of Averages". People who do not understand statistics frequently cite this "law" as the reason they are "due" for a hot streak after suffering through a cold streak. The probabilities in throwing dice are *independent*. That is, they do *NOT* depend in *any* way on what has happened previously. If you throw a die five times in a row and get a six each time, what is the probability you will get a six when you throw it the sixth time? One in six. It is *always* one in six, no matter what has happened before. Or, to put it another way, suppose you throw a die fifty times and never get a six. By the "Law of Averages", on the fifty-first time, aren't you "due" for a six? Shouldn't the probability for throwing a six then be higher than one in six? No. The probability remains one in six. Always. Dice throwing is *independent* probability and never changes. It is true that if you throw a die 6000 times, the most probable outcome is to get 1000 sixes, but, in fact if you do that, you will probably *not* get exactly 1000 sixes. Most likely, your number of sixes will be *near* 1000 but not exactly equal to it. In fact, the more times you throw a die, the *less* likely you are to get a six exactly one-sixth of the time. There is a concept of standard deviation which is very useful to understand, but I will spare you that now. But in blackjack, probabilities are *dependent*, not independent as in craps. That is, your chance of being dealt a particular card is *very definitely* dependent on the cards that have previously been dealt. Consider a simple example - a single deck of 52 cards with no jokers. After a fresh shuffle, your chance of being dealt an ace on the first card is 4 out of 52, or 1 in 13. Suppose you were dealt an ace on the first card. What would your probability of being dealt an ace on the second card be? One in thirteen again? No! It has now dropped to one in seventeen, because the probabilities were *dependent*. Here's why: There are only three aces left in the deck to be dealt, but 51 remaining cards to be dealt, so the probability of being dealt an ace on the second card (given you were dealt an ace in the first card) is now 3 out of 51, or 1 in 17. The fact that blackjack probabilities are *dependent*, rather than independent as with many other casino games such as craps, roulette, and slots, has significant consequences. Card counting. See you next time. Reply #37. Sep 24 17, 2:44 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
Card counting is real. Card counting actually works. And it is not illegal, though casinos do have many countermeasures against it (not the ones shown in the movies Casino and 21, where goons take you into a room and beat the tar out of you.) A basic primer on card counting, and how and why it works: Because blackjack probabilities are dependent rather than independent, sometimes the edge actually favors the player over the house. This occurs when the remaining cards yet to be dealt are "rich" in aces and tens. Although the single deck game is almost nonexistent nowadays (because of how effective card counters were at beating it), I will use it as my example since the math is a bit simpler, but card counting also works in multideck games. Consider the first hand after a shuffle in which ten cards came out and none of them were aces or tens. On the upcoming second hand, there are only 42 cards left to be dealt, but all four of the aces and all sixteen of the tens remain available to be dealt. The odds of being dealt a blackjack (an ace and a ten) are now higher than normal (usually about 1 in 21) because the remaining deck is "rich" in aces and tens. Card counters would say the "count" is positive, and the odds now favor the player over the house. More to come next post. Reply #38. Oct 03 17, 11:14 AM |
| brm50diboll
|
So what if blackjacks are more common at some times than others, you may ask? After all, if blackjacks are more common for you, aren't they also more common for the dealer? True enough. But if the dealer gets a blackjack, you lose one bet. But if you get a blackjack, you don't win one bet, you win one-and-a-half bets, because blackjacks pay a 3:2 bonus. Thus, when blackjacks become more likely, the house edge shifts in favor of the player. When low cards are dealt, it makes it *more* likely high cards will be dealt in the future, and vice versa. There are several card counting systems of various degrees of usefulness, but the simplest one works like this: Each 2,3,4,5 or 6 counts as +1 point, each A or 10 counts as -1 point. 7,8, and 9 are ignored. The count starts anew after each shuffle at 0. The total number of +1 cards happens to exactly equal the total number of -1 cards, so the *average* count is 0. But during the course of the deal, the count will fluctuate, sometimes becoming positive (favoring the player) and sometimes negative (favoring the house). How does a card counter take advantage of the count? Will explain that next post. Reply #39. Oct 03 17, 12:55 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
OK. The reality of most modern blackjack games is that they're played out of a multideck shoe. This was instituted by casinos as a defensive measure against successful card counters, and, like other such measures casinos have instituted, is somewhat effective but does not entirely prevent card counting from working, just complicates it a bit. Say you are playing at a blackjack table that is dealing from an eight deck shoe. A slight adjustment to the count that is made is known as the "true count". Good blackjack players are able to (at least roughly) estimate the number of decks remaining to be played in the shoe. For example, several hands after a shuffle, a card counter sees the running count at +15. He estimates that three decks have been dealt out of the shoe at this point, leaving about five decks remaining in the shoe left to be dealt. The true count is the running count divided by the number of decks in the shoe remaining. In my example, the true count is therefore +15 divided by 5, or +3. The multideck shoe game has the effect of preventing wild swings in the true count, thus reducing the number of opportunities for card counters to seize to their advantage. The primary way card counters take advantage of positive counts is not by changing their play choices. Actually, only a handful of plays are count-dependent. Most are not. The main way card counters take advantage of positive counts is by varying their bets. That is, they bet more (often much more) when the count is positive and less when it is zero or negative. If the count goes very negative (as it must from time to time), card counters may even choose to sit out a few hands, not bet at all, and even leave the table for a few minutes for a "bathroom break". But if the count becomes very positive, their bets may become very large. Large bets, however, attract the attention of casino watchers always on guard against card counters, and so the experience card counter must always be prepared for casino "heat", which takes a variety of forms (though not usually beating the player, as seen in some movies.) Card counting is not illegal, but courts have held that casinos may ban players from playing blackjack if they are suspected to be card counters. And casinos can ban players who use any sorts of electronic devices or computers in their efforts to card count. So there are a variety of methods card counters have developed over the years to get around casino "heat", some of which were shown in the Kevin Spacey movie "21", which was based on a true story about how an MIT professor and some math students would fly to Vegas and make a killing playing blackjack on weekends. The movie alters a few details from reality, but it is worth discussing some of the methods they successfully used, though casinos have since instituted countermeasures. Casinos vs card counters is a long-running arms race that is interesting to observe and comment on. More next time. Reply #40. Oct 16 17, 9:35 PM |
74 replies. On page 2 of 4 pages. 1 2 3 4
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: