A Play-style Called "Community Blackjack"?

A little bit of backstory to explain this thought experiment of "community blackjack".

I was at my local casino and twice I saw these two deep-stacked players playing on three spots at different times, at different tables. I observed them for awhile, curious, keeping a vague track of the count as the shoes played through. But there were a goodly number of times they didn't follow BS, but were still consistently making money over the hours they played.
The next time I went back, they were there again, playing their three spots, and playing the same blackjack, still occasionally deviating from BS, yet I started to see a pattern. So I asked one of them about it and, since he'd had a couple drinks I imagine, he indulged me with a bit of an explanation: normally, if you play perfect BS at a S17 table, the house edge is approximately 0.42%, depending on the other variables in their rules. But that is when you are only playing one spot. And normally, when someone plays more than one spot, they are still playing BS, and not thinking of it as "community blackjack", or working towards a common bankroll. Sometimes, he told me, there are times when it is worth deviating from the BS of one spot play in order to give one of your other spots a better chance, or to give yourself a better chance to profit overall, whether it be not hitting when you could potentially bust on one spot, when your other two spots were strong, so that if the dealer busted, you'd win on all three, instead of just two if you busted on the one.

He said a couple other things, but the different style made me wonder about the difference in edge. If the BS was adjusted to maximize chance for overall profit over three hands and minimize risk, what would the new edge be, if truly at all different?

Makes as much sense as not taking the dealers bust card if you are at third base .

I know someone who plays in a similar fashion by surrendering many more hands than he should. The house loves these players. The guy you spoke with said it himself. The house edge is figured for perfect basic strategy. The more deviations the higher the edge.

I agree with Buzz.

Unless you KNOW what the next card dealt is going to be, then each hand remains independent.

And if he really did know the sequence of the cards, then the deviations should be more often and more obvious....unless he's deliberately letting hands occasionally lose to disguise his abilities.

This sounds like it was devised by a witch doctor who never even saw a blackjack table before. How can playing poorly possibly do anything but hurt you and help the house? It can't!!! There is no "sacred flow of the cards". Unless you know for certain what cards are coming out next, this kind of strategy is just wishful thinking and flat out dumb. Almost any system can show a profit for a session, but none of them stand the test of time. Playing perfect BS is still the best bet except for the few expert card counters out there.

I've seen many versions of this, and they're all stupid.

In one, I had a friend describe to me how he and a group of friends took over a Blackjack table, with each of them taking turns playing third base. The third base player would play some kind of "different" strategy that would enable the rest of the table to win more than usual, while sacrificing his own hand. Whether this took the form of not taking the dealer's bust card, or taking it, or whatever, I have no idea, but he obviously thought they were able to reduce or eliminate the house edge with this strategy, which is poppycock. I didn't know enough at the time to rebuke him.

In another, I heard a story (possibly here?) about a player who would play 3 hands: two hands of the table minimum surrounding one hand with a much bigger bet. He supposedly would use his hit/stand decisions on the two small hands to increase the probability of winning the big hand. Again, pointless.

The only way this could possibly work is by 'depth-charging' a single deck game. Since you mentioned shoes, clearly they were not doing this.

So, I agree. Poppycock. There are no adjustments to make to BS on multiple hands if you are not counting or playing composition-dependent strategy, and the new edge will be the same.

I am reserving my opinion until I hear from my Blackjack consultant.

Will post the real answer as soon as I hear from John Patrick.

Hmmm, maybe using a 3-group approach (2-3-4-5) (6-7-8-9) (T-J-Q-K-A) or more generally + 0 -
You would see some off-basic if there were an excess of 6-7-8-9 that are accounted (hi/low does not account the 7-8-9).
Other than that buzz is +1.

Back in 2005-6 I did some experimental counts that focused on the Ins. bet and PE. When focusing on these two factors, strange things happen to the index. One has to include accounting the 7 and 8, and ignore the 9 and ace.

Having done a bit of individual research into this strategy he offered, I see a lot of the flaws you guys are talking about. However, I am curious to see a breakdown in how playing with three spots would either a) alter the BS or b) change the house edge.

Now hear me out: playing one spot, you are experiencing the extremes of the shoe, having only one chance to make a hand against the dealer. But with three, you are spreading your chances out. I am more confident trying to make 2/3 hands as often as possible for profit than 1/1. And because you are trying to do 2/3, I am wondering if that changes the math at all? I'd like to hear a professional opinion on this.

Quote: PhenomeNOM

Having done a bit of individual research into this strategy he offered, I see a lot of the flaws you guys are talking about. However, I am curious to see a breakdown in how playing with three spots would either a) alter the BS or b) change the house edge.

Now hear me out: playing one spot, you are experiencing the extremes of the shoe, having only one chance to make a hand against the dealer. But with three, you are spreading your chances out. I am more confident trying to make 2/3 hands as often as possible for profit than 1/1. And because you are trying to do 2/3, I am wondering if that changes the math at all? I'd like to hear a professional opinion on this.

You heard at least 3 professional opinions in that last batch:-)

Here are my semi-pro takes:
a) BS is BS. Period. What is happening to hand #1 has no effect on hand #2 or hand #3, except in a ridiculous case (like when you KNOW you just pulled the very last ace, etc.)
b) the house edge is increased by any deviation from basic strategy that does not involve card counting. You might decrease variance by playing multiple hands, but all that does is smooth out the rate of your bankroll's decline over time since you're playing a negative expectation game.

Why in the world would you only play 3 spots? Plat all 7. But only after charting the table, ala John Patrick.

Quote: PhenomeNOM

Having done a bit of individual research into this strategy he offered, I see a lot of the flaws you guys are talking about. However, I am curious to see a breakdown in how playing with three spots would either a) alter the BS or b) change the house edge.

Now hear me out: playing one spot, you are experiencing the extremes of the shoe, having only one chance to make a hand against the dealer. But with three, you are spreading your chances out. I am more confident trying to make 2/3 hands as often as possible for profit than 1/1. And because you are trying to do 2/3, I am wondering if that changes the math at all? I'd like to hear a professional opinion on this.

You mentioned a house edge of .42%. That's what the perfect basic strategy player will lose over time, .42% of all money wagered. It doesn't matter how the money is wagered.