Blackjack Pole: What Do You Do? (1 Viewer)

[Gally]

You confuse winning money with winning more than 50% of the hands.  That is not how you win.  You win by getting the max money on the table when you have an advantage by varying your bet and doubling and splitting as well as blackjacks. 

I am not talking about winning money.  My only point was that you never start a hand with a greater than 50% chance to win that hand - regardless of the deck count - prior to the cards being dealt.  You are closer to a 50% of chance of winning the hand but never have greater than 50% chance to win that specific hand (prior to the cards being dealt).  The original statement was that when the deck is positive the player has the advantage.  To me having the advantage means you have a greater than 50% chance to win that specific hand.  You never have a greater than 50% chance to win the hand. 

I agree that under those circumstances you have your best chance to win so you should bet accordingly.  This also goes for doubling/splitting etc.  This is why I said this argument is apples to oranges.  You are speaking of getting your money in when you have better odds and I whole heartedly agree.  I was speaking from a pure mathematical standpoint that the player never has a greater than 50% chance to win a specific hand prior to the cards being dealt regardless of the deck being positive or not. 

 

[Waingro]

I am loving the Free Bet BJ tables where all doubles and splits are covered by the house. The draw back is that if the dealer gets 22, it is a push. Pushes happen often enough so this table is most likely -EV but still, there's nothing better than catching a hand that you can split, then double while only investing your initial wager. In these multiple split/double scenarios, winning this one hand can easily make your session profitable while losing this hand will only cost you one bet. One of the main issues with these tables are that players will often play sub-optimal strategy.

For example, getting dealt a 9 while the dealer shows an Ace or 10 - the book says to hit. At this table, players will opt to take a free double and are SOL when a low card comes out. 

 

[jon_mx]

To me having the advantage means you have a greater than 50% chance to win that specific hand.  You never have a greater than 50% chance to win the hand. 

I agree that under those circumstances you have your best chance to win so you should bet accordingly.  This also goes for doubling/splitting etc.  This is why I said this argument is apples to oranges.  You are speaking of getting your money in when you have better odds and I whole heartedly agree.  I was speaking from a pure mathematical standpoint that the player never has a greater than 50% chance to win a specific hand prior to the cards being dealt regardless of the deck being positive or not. 

And the point that has been made several times is that it is the bottom line which matters.  I'd rather win 40% of the hands and win money than win 50% of the hands and lose money.  And yes, it is quite possible to have only a 40% chance to win a given hand and yet expect to win money. 

 

[Gally]

No--if the deck has primarily strong cards in it--the player gets the advantage because players generally get paid 1.5-1 on blackjacks--where if the dealer gets blackjack--they just win the original bets.  Again--even in decks where the count is good--there is still a moderate chance that you or the dealer gets a big card coupled with a small card.  Because you know that the rest of the deck is primarily filled with large cards--you have the option to stand--while the dealer does not.     Also--if you are lucky enough to pull a hand like a 10 or an 11 you can double knowing that you have strong odds of pulling a 10 or better---or if you get a hand like a 8 8 or 9 9 in a nice count deck while the dealer has a 7 or lower showing--you can split knowing that your chances are greater than normal.  If you are good a card counting--there will be times where you will be the slight favorite to win.  Great card counters take advantage of these situations and bet more when they are the slight favorites--and they bet the minimum when they aren't.    Great card counters also know that if the count shows that there are a bunch of small cards in a deck--that they can take hits and most likely not bust in situations where you wouldn't otherwise act--lets say you have a 12 and the dealer has a 5 showing. Normally you'd never hit here--but if you know the count indicates a ton of small cards in the deck--the odds are that the dealer will make chicken soup out of a chicken poop starting hand and will pull a 4 card 19 on you.    Having a moderate/strong understanding of whats left in the deck will at least eliminate any advantage the dealer gets by acting last. In cases where the count it is good--it trumps eliminating the advantage and actually gives the players a slight advantage. 

Edit-I also realized that i didn't mention the insurance aspect that is beneficial from card counting.  If the count shows that there are lots of face cards in a deck--and a dealer has an ace showing--a player can actually get insurance and limit his loss against the dealer getting a solid hand--where the house does not have the same ability versus the player. 

We are talking two different things.  You are talking return on money.  I am talking the odds of strictly winning the hand.  The player never has over 50% chance of winning a hand (prior to cards being dealt).  There are times you are closer to 50% (like a positive deck) and that is when you increase your bet because you have a better chance than in not being a positive deck.  This is where you can take advantage of the payout system.  I completely agree with that strategy and philosophy. 

 

[jon_mx]

We are talking two different things.  You are talking return on money.  I am talking the odds of strictly winning the hand.  The player never has over 50% chance of winning a hand (prior to cards being dealt).  There are times you are closer to 50% (like a positive deck) and that is when you increase your bet because you have a better chance than in not being a positive deck.  This is where you can take advantage of the payout system.  I completely agree with that strategy and philosophy. 

You are really hung up on the win percent for some reason.  It is related to winning money, but it is not the most important issue.     

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

We are talking two different things.  You are talking return on money.  I am talking the odds of strictly winning the hand.  The player never has over 50% chance of winning a hand (prior to cards being dealt).  There are times you are closer to 50% (like a positive deck) and that is when you increase your bet because you have a better chance than in not being a positive deck.  This is where you can take advantage of the payout system.  I completely agree with that strategy and philosophy. 

You are really hung up on the win percent for some reason.  It is related to winning money, but it is not the most important issue. 

He's saying something correct and people are telling him he's wrong. It's natural to push back in that situation.

 

[Gally]

You are really hung up on the win percent for some reason.  It is related to winning money, but it is not the most important issue.     

Agreed.  I picked out one statement that said the player had the advantage (better than a 50% chance) to win a given hand in a positive deck.  That is not true.  A positive deck does give you the opportunity to maximize your profits and gives you your best opportunity but the player never has a better than 50% chance to win a given hand.   That was my only point.

 

[jon_mx]

He's saying something correct and people are telling him he's wrong. It's natural to push back in that situation.

He is saying something correct, but he has been drawing incorrect conclusions from it. 

 

[Gally]

He's saying something correct and people are telling him he's wrong. It's natural to push back in that situation.

Exactly.

 

[Gally]

He is saying something correct, but he has been drawing incorrect conclusions from it. 

I was not drawing any conclusion.  The player never has a greater than 50% chance to win any given hand regardless of the deck being positive or negative. 

 

[jon_mx]

I was not drawing any conclusion.  The player never has a greater than 50% chance to win any given hand regardless of the deck being positive or negative. 

On the previous page you stated:   "Before any cards are dealt the dealer still has the advantage because they are last to act.  Now after the cards are dealt the odds can move towards the player's advantage but now you have additional information. "

This is where your logic is wrong and why people are taking issue with what you are saying. 

 

[Peyton Marino]

He's saying something correct and people are telling him he's wrong. It's natural to push back in that situation.

well not technically.  there are situations where the player would have a 100% chance of winning before the cards were dealt.  but in general yes, I misunderstood his point initially.  

 

[Gally]

On the previous page you stated:   "Before any cards are dealt the dealer still has the advantage because they are last to act.  Now after the cards are dealt the odds can move towards the player's advantage but now you have additional information. "

This is where your logic is wrong and why people are taking issue with what you are saying. 

How is that logic wrong......when specifically referring to the mathematical percentages to winning the hand (not winning money)? 

 

[Gally]

well not technically.  there are situations where the player would have a 100% chance of winning before the cards were dealt.  but in general yes, I misunderstood his point initially.  

What situation gives the players a 100% chance of winning before the cards are dealt?

 

[jon_mx]

How is that logic wrong......when specifically referring to the mathematical percentages to winning the hand (not winning money)? 

That is what we have been trying to explain to you.  Even though before the cards are dealt you expect to lose the majority of the hands, the count can still indicate you have a mathematical advantage to win money.   They don't always have the advantage pre-deal from a money-winning standpoint, despite having an advantage from a win-percent standpoint.   

 

[jon_mx]

What situation gives the players a 100% chance of winning before the cards are dealt?

If the deck was all aces, you would win every hand.  The dealer stops on 17 or 18 depending on the rules and you hit until 19. 

 

[Gally]

That is what we have been trying to explain to you.  Even though before the cards are dealt you expect to lose the majority of the hands, the count can still indicate you have a mathematical advantage to win money.   They don't always have the advantage pre-deal from a money-winning standpoint, despite having an advantage from a win-percent standpoint.   

Understood.  Two different sides of the coin in the argument - both being correct depending on your point of view.  In the end the point is to try and win money and we are in total agreement that this situation is the best time to increase your money potential.  Enjoyed the discussion even if we were arguing two different things for most of it...hahahaa

 

[Gally]

If the deck was all aces, you would win every hand.  The dealer stops on 17 or 18 depending on the rules and you hit until 19. 

Ok, I guess I should have said a situation based in reality.....hahahahahaha

 

[Peyton Marino]

What situation gives the players a 100% chance of winning before the cards are dealt?

single deck game.  5 cards left in the deck.  they are 8d 7s 8s 7c 8h.  how do you lose?

 

[jvdesigns2002]

He's saying something correct and people are telling him he's wrong. It's natural to push back in that situation.

Not quite. It's completely reasonable for intelligent people to define winning in blackjack--as winning money-not just winning any given hand.  He initially counterpointed my initial point of the benefits of card counting in a favorable deck count by giving his point about thy dynamics of any given hand--as if my point was wrong--and there were no benefits to card counting.   If anything--I was pushing back my point--not him pushing his back.   Either way--its neither here or there--as both sides have valid points and merits.  

 

[Peyton Marino]

take that example and extend it to more generalized examples where you've penetrated deep into the deck (need a good dealer who is lax about shuffling) and you can conceive of examples where your pre-deal win % is better than 50%.

 

[jon_mx]

single deck game.  5 cards left in the deck.  they are 8d 7s 8s 7c 8h.  how do you lose?

By hitting on 15.

 

[Peyton Marino]

By hitting on 15.

you would win 100% of the time by never hitting.  he never stipulated that you couldn't alter your strategy.

 

[Gally]

single deck game.  5 cards left in the deck.  they are 8d 7s 8s 7c 8h.  how do you lose?

This would never happen in real life.  Dealer would never start a hand with that few cards...ever. 

 

[Gally]

Not quite. It's completely reasonable for intelligent people to define winning in blackjack--as winning money-not just winning any given hand.  He initially counterpointed my initial point of the benefits of card counting in a favorable deck count by giving his point about thy dynamics of any given hand--as if my point was wrong--and there were no benefits to card counting.   If anything--I was pushing back my point--not him pushing his back.   Either way--its neither here or there--as both sides have valid points and merits.  

I never said anything about card counting not being a benefit.  I only challenged the statement that the player had an advantage pre-deal over the house.  I took the definition of "advantage" to mean a greater than 50% chance to win a specific hand. You took "advantage" to mean the best time to get your money on the table.  Both are correct. 

 

[Peyton Marino]

This would never happen in real life.  Dealer would never start a hand with that few cards...ever. 

1. you're moving the goalposts, you never said it needed to be a practical situation

2. if we could prove it either way, I'd be willing to bet a lot that it has happened.  there have been a lot of blackjack hands played in the history of the world.

 

[Gally]

take that example and extend it to more generalized examples where you've penetrated deep into the deck (need a good dealer who is lax about shuffling) and you can conceive of examples where your pre-deal win % is better than 50%.

Unfortunately virtually all dealers will shuffle up well before that can occur.  After all, the casinos are there to make money...hahaha.

 

[Gally]

1. you're moving the goalposts, you never said it needed to be a practical situation

2. if we could prove it either way, I'd be willing to bet a lot that it has happened.  there have been a lot of blackjack hands played in the history of the world.

Agreed.  As I said soon after to jon_mx that I should have specified realistic situations.....hahahaa

 

[jon_mx]

Agreed.  As I said soon after to jon_mx that I should have specified realistic situations.....hahahaa

For practical purposes your statement about winning percent is correct.  But I still think it is most reasonable to call what you said initially to be incorrect. 

In a deck with primarily high cards, wouldn't the dealer have the same odds of getting a strong hand?  I just don't see how the player ever has a statistical advantage of winning prior to the cards being dealt regardless of what is left in the deck.

Everyone understood this to a 'statistical advantage' to be one related to winning money in the context of the discussion. 

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I never said anything about card counting not being a benefit.  I only challenged the statement that the player had an advantage pre-deal over the house.  I took the definition of "advantage" to mean a greater than 50% chance to win a specific hand. You took "advantage" to mean the best time to get your money on the table.  Both are correct. 

I also never used the term "pre-deal" in any of my quotes. If I did--please copy and paste them so I can see.  Essentially--in this quote--you verbatim repeated what I said--both sides have merit--and both sides were arguing different points that are not mutually exclusive. 

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Good question.

 

[Gally]

I also never used the term "pre-deal" in any of my quotes. If I did--please copy and paste them so I can see.  Essentially--in this quote--you verbatim repeated what I said--both sides have merit--and both sides were arguing different points that are not mutually exclusive. 

You never specifically said pre deal however you said "If there are more 10s, face cards, and aces in the deck--the players go from being a slight dog to being a slight favorite.  If there are more small cards in the deck--the house becomes a heavier favorite. If the deck is pretty normal--the house maintains their normal small advantage.  Therefore--all card counting does is to give the players insight on when to bet big--and when to bet small."

I assumed that since you were talking about when to bet big and small that it must be pre-deal since that is the time you set your bet.  I don't see doubling as setting you bet but as more of continuing your bet.  I guess I could have taken your comment as to when to double (bet big) or not (bet small). 

 

[Good Posting Judge]

You guys read Busting Vegas by Mezrich? With the ace tracking? Man that was some baller ####.