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 4 of 4 pages. 1 2 3 4
brm50diboll 
|
Never split a pair of fives. A pair of fives is a ten, which is a good starting hand and which should be doubled down upon (not split) against any dealer upcards other than tens or aces. Splitting fives takes one good starting hand and turns it into two terrible starting hands (at double the bet, no less.) I'm not known for being diplomatic: Splitting fives is one of the *dumbest* things a blackjack player can do. It is easier to win by keeping a low profile than a high one, and you will notice the truly outstanding players here on FT don't say very much on the boards. Why is that, you may ask? A little parable: You put one crab in a bucket and it will climb its way out. You put ten crabs in a bucket and none of them can crawl out because as soon as one of them starts to climb up, others grab it and pull it back down. It is a sad thing to say, but most of the people who make most of the comments on the FT boards are a lot like those other crabs: they can't stand the fact other people do well, so they devote their comments to claims that something is "unfair" about the process and their remarks are designed to mislead novice players and try to lower standards because "everyone is special". Well, it is fortunate that I don't care that much about being popular, because taking on that kind of thing rather aggressively is part of what I do here. Maybe I am making FT "safe" for the superstars like eyhung and Triviaballer, but these guys are just flat great players, and deserve congratulations, not criticism. So I'll continue to "take the point" on this. FT is a trivia site, not social media. If people don't like winning or good strategies for winning, why are they commenting on this site? Seems to me claiming you like fishing and softball more than trivia is a claim better made on Facebook than the FunTrivia boards. Nothing wrong with fishing, softball, baking, gardening or any of that, but no one should have to defend playing trivia well on a trivia site, it seems to me. Yet I feel I need to. And I'll continue to point out ways to improve one's play to those who are interested, no matter what troglodytes might say. Reply #61. Dec 16 18, 9:49 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
Perhaps one of the best tips for blackjack play is finding the right place to play. In my opinion, Las Vegas is the best place in the world for blackjack for a very simple reason: it has the most competition. If you go to, say an Indian casino in some remote place, you are very likely to encounter unfavorable rules as the place has no nearby competition. But if you don't like something about a Vegas casino, there are hundreds of others you can choose from nearby. So, with a little effort, you can find a place with favorable rules and climate for blackjack. The principles of game theory analysis is based on statistics, not anecdotes or "hunches". The correct play does not always win. Incorrect plays sometimes do win. These two facts do not obviate game theory. Science and mathematics may be difficult to understand, but our modern post-industrial society could not exist without its contributions. Avoiding fallacies is central to understanding why things work as they do. There is no "Law of Averages". It doesn't matter how many times something has happened in a row, independent probabilities do not change. The probability of getting a head on a flipped coin is 50%, even if you have just flipped ten heads in a row, or ten tails in a row. This is hard for many people without exposure to advanced mathematics to grasp, but it is true nonetheless. Because independent probabilities do not change with recent events, basic strategy is the same regardless of what happened before. If you split eights against the dealer's ten three times and lost each time, splitting eights against the dealer's ten is *still* the right thing to do. People who change how they play because of recent events are making mistakes. This is true for other games based on independent probabilities as well as for blackjack. For example, the best way to maximize your number of wins each day in Duel is to play all 15 games every day if you are a Gold Member. It is true you can identify several Duels each day that you have a low probability of winning. I would estimate my chances of winning a Duel in 1950s Music to be around 20%. But 20% is still greater than 0%, which is the probability of winning if you don't play. So I will play 1950s Music anyway, as well as several other Duels I have little chances of winning, because that is the best chance of winning the most Duels in a day. This is true even if I have had a streak of bad luck. Even if my last four days of play netted 4,6,7, and 5 wins I still would play all 15 games. Superstitions and fallacies are harmful to the cause. Reply #62. Jan 07 19, 2:52 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
Don't split nines against a Dealer's seven. Against a six or an eight, yes, split nines, but stand on a pair of nines against the Dealer's seven. Your eighteen will very likely beat the Dealer's seven, and splitting the nines here does not increase the probability of winning both your split hands enough to be worth the extra bet. Little details matter over the long run. In isolated instances, it may not seem to matter, but over long periods of time, it definitely does. Consider the Grand Canyon. A massive hole in the ground? Yes. How did it get there, some tremendous explosion? No, a small amount of erosion over a very, very long time. A river running over rock does not erode the rock quickly, not at all. Even after a year, the degree of erosion is almost imperceptible. But it happens relentlessly. Then why doesn't every river form a Grand Canyon? If the erosion is too rapid (as in the case with a wetter climate and a softer river base), then alluvial plains form and the area erodes too close to sea level too rapidly to form a canyon. You need water flowing through a dry area over hard rock to get good canyon formation. Sometimes the most consequential things are done slowly, imperceptibly, against great resistance. It is easier and quicker to sculpt a statue out of butter than marble, but the butter statue falls apart rapidly in warm temperatures. In FunTrivia, there is a lot of low-hanging fruit to entice newbies to enjoy themselves here and spend some time with us as they ascend rapidly up the ranks for quite awhile feasting on that low-hanging fruit. But eventually it runs out. The ones that stay for long periods eventually are forced to shift their focus to things which can only be accomplished over long periods of time, not just with persistence (although that is necessary) but also with careful planning. Just doing the same thing over and over and over again will get you some badges, but others require you keep at it for a long time with a careful battle plan. When you read something on these boards, consider this: what if the writer were not just writing something that happened to occur to him that day at that moment, but that it was part of a longer plan? What could that plan be? Reply #63. Feb 19 19, 11:09 AM |
| brm50diboll
|
Here's a truly random thought: Red herrings are fragments of previous unsuccessful timelines that were not needed to be removed from the final version. Reply #64. Mar 20 19, 5:02 AM |
| brm50diboll
|
Georg Cantor studied the cardinality of infinities. He argued that there were distinct types of infinities. There was countable infinity, as represented by the set of natural numbers (1,2,3,4....) and there was uncountable infinity, as represented by the set of real numbers. He used the symbol aleph-null to represent the cardinality of countable infinity. There is a proof I have seen that shows the distinction between these two types of infinities, but I'll admit I really can't completely grasp it. Anyway, want to hear a stupid math joke? Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall Aleph-null bottles of beer Take one down Pass it around Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall A nice song for nerds and geeks to sing while on the bus to math camp. Reply #65. Mar 27 19, 10:04 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
I've been thinking some about games that encourage cooperation. I'm not talking about silly things like soccer games for children where the score is not (officially) taken, (because all kids are special, a meaningless phrase). No, the parents are deluding themselves when they think this sort of thing deemphasizes competitiveness. (Guess what? Their kids are keeping score, even if the parents aren't.) Competitiveness is engrained deeply in people, even small children (particularly boys) and it probably isn't a good thing to try to root it out. No, I'm thinking about games that, by their very design, encourage cooperation. Consider bridge. Bridge is a partnership game, yet, at the highest levels, individuals are ranked. How is that possible? In social bridge, players tend to stick, for the most part, with the same partners (husband and wife teams, for example). But in tournament play, players may rotate partners. So player A is not always paired with player B, but, at different times, may be paired with B, C, D, or more. Yet if player A consistently is on the winning side, even as his partners change, this indicates player A is a superior bridge player, despite the fact that bridge is inherently a partnership game. Competitive team sports has the disadvantage in that, although team play is essential to success, players tend to be on the same team with (more or less) the same teammates. What if that were *not* the case? All-star games are interesting in that players get the opportunity to play on the same team as players they are usually opponents of. A good deal of social bonding can occur in all-star games, but they are one-off events. Suppose that wasn't the case. Consider a hypothetical team sport where one team of eight players plays another team of eight players. Nothing special so far. But here's the twist: the teams in the league only field *four* players, not eight. So to play a game, two different teams have to join against two other different teams. So one game might look like: Team A and Team B vs Team C and Team D. In this scenario, players from Team A get to work *with*, not against players from Team B in that game. But the teams rotate who they are partnered with, so A isn't *always* paired with B. Now the players, at various points in their play, get to learn cooperation with others they are sometimes opponents of. A sample schedule might look something like this: 1) A&B v C&D 2) A&C v B&D 3) A&D v B&C This was oversimplified, but the example shows that players in each team get the opportunity to play *with* the players of other teams at some point, not just against. And this sort of system does not invalidate competitiveness. In a longer, more complex schedule, the best teams would still win the most often (even as their partners change), similar to the competitive bridge play example I started with. There could still be meaningful team standings and even playoffs and championship games under this system. As a student of game theory, I've been thinking about the design of cooperative, yet competitive games. I have more elaborate examples in mind. Reply #66. Apr 20 19, 10:09 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
Split sevens against a dealer's deuce through seven. If you have a pair of sevens and are facing a dealer's eight or higher, the correct play is to hit your hard fourteen. Do not stand with a pair of sevens. So thinking about game theory has made me long for the good ol' days of my youth, when sports were actually competitive and they didn't give trophies for participation. In my high school days, only the district champ advanced to the playoffs, not three or four teams as is the case today. But there were some excesses to the old ways, I'll admit. A favorite game we used to play in PE classes in my elementary schools and junior high was dodgeball. There is no more politically incorrect sport, which is part of why I love it so much. The coaches used to pick the two most athletic students in the class to be team captains, and then the two team captains would alternate picking other students for their teams until everyone was assigned to a team. Nothing was more fun than being the last student left in the class to be picked. Ben Stiller had a real eye for the comedic potential of the great game of dodgeball, as demonstrated in this clip: https://tinyurl.com/y5rj3dmx Nothing more fun than slamming a "Winston" in the face with a dodgeball from three feet away. (I'm kidding, I'm kidding! Gee!) Reply #67. Aug 07 19, 9:25 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
Hmmm. The link worked yesterday. I checked it. YouTube can be strange. Let's try this link: https://tinyurl.com/y3orfqag It is missing the "Winston" part, though. Too bad. Reply #68. Aug 08 19, 2:50 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
The original video I posted yesterday (including "Winston") can still be accessed by going to YouTube and searching "dodgeball training scene 1/5". It comes up as the top video on the list. Reply #69. Aug 08 19, 2:58 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
I found this video to be quite useful. Don't make these mistakes when playing blackjack: https://tinyurl.com/y2hafw4l Reply #70. Aug 29 19, 3:09 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
It's been a long time since I contributed to this thread (or played blackjack, for that matter). But I saw this on the internet: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.reviewjournal.com/local/the-strip/las-vegas-casinos-going-dark-for-at-least-30-days-photos-1984464/amp/ I don't want to look like a compulsive gambler (I'm not), but this news saddens me. There are no jokers in blackjack, by the way Reply #71. Mar 18 20, 5:49 PM |
| johnnycat777
|
I read somewhere once that the player's chances of winning on any given hand of blackjack is 17 percent. Don't know how accurate that is but even if it is close then the single best blackjack tip is not to play. Reply #72. Apr 10 20, 11:07 PM |
Catreona
|
Currently reading "Willow Basin: A Western Sextet" by Peter Dawson. The reason I bring it up is that in one story, "Dead Man's Assay", there's a scene in which the protagonist takes the crooked saloon owner, not quite for every penny he has, but for a goodly amount at Black Jack. He's able to do this because the friend whose murder he is investigating taught him about marked cards. He remarks in fact that the decks being used in his games were not marked in a sophisticated way, so the saloon must not have a sophisticated clientele. Anyway, even not being a card player, I found the scene interesting. And it seemed like something to mention here - though now my doing so seems a bit lame.:( Reply #73. Jun 01 21, 11:04 AM |
| brm50diboll
|
The history of blackjack is full of all sorts of methods players have used over the years to get an edge over the house. Marked cards would be detected fairly easily in modern casinos by the ever-present "eye in the sky". Anytime a player varies his bet widely and goes on a winning streak, this triggers casino "heat", which is intense scrutiny by the pit crew and the camera observers. The player may just be on a lucky streak, but frequently the dealers will get changed out and the cards shuffled when that happens. I'm not saying it's impossible to cheat at blackjack (far from it), but that game has enough history now that successful schemes that have any staying power would be quite elaborate, involving multiple people. The 2008 movie "21", which starred Kevin Spacey, contained a number of "dramatic license moments" which an experienced blackjack player would recognize as unrealistic, but the movie was based on a true story adapted from a book "Bringing Down The House", and some of the events portrayed in the movie were actually methods used by the MIT math students in the real events the story was based on. I found the movie entertaining despite its flaws. Casinos learn from their mistakes, and "The Big Player" method dramatized in that movie and book would not work anymore, but undoubtedly some even more extensive variation of it might work somewhere someday. https://tinyurl.com/yw6y2nytReply #74. Jul 24 21, 9:32 PM |
74 replies. On page 4 of 4 pages. 1 2 3 4
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: