5 misplayed hands video
August 4th, 2014 at 5:15:21 PM
permalink
I was watching this video on Youtube.
It had me questioning two statements, wondering if they were true? Perhaps somebody with more knowledge could answer them for me.
First: At 4:42 he says that if your 16 is composed of 3 small cards that you should stand as you have just taken small cards from the deck.
Second: At 6:07 he says that if you got an 18 on every hand that you would always be a loser. This I would be more likely to believe, just curious the math behind it.
Let me know what ya'll think.
It had me questioning two statements, wondering if they were true? Perhaps somebody with more knowledge could answer them for me.
First: At 4:42 he says that if your 16 is composed of 3 small cards that you should stand as you have just taken small cards from the deck.
Second: At 6:07 he says that if you got an 18 on every hand that you would always be a loser. This I would be more likely to believe, just curious the math behind it.
Let me know what ya'll think.
I got a plan, we take all your picks we reverse them like one of those twilight zone episodes where everything is the opposite. You say "black" we go white.
August 5th, 2014 at 1:40:51 PM
permalink
I'm not sure if H17/S17 affects this (used to know, but can't remember) but he's right at least for one set of rules. This is b/c if the count is more than 0, than you should stand, the count is less you should hit and if it's even the EV is exactly the same (by coincidence.) It's just one of those things.
August 5th, 2014 at 2:01:16 PM
permalink
Quote: VCUSkyhawkI was watching this video on Youtube.
It had me questioning two statements, wondering if they were true? Perhaps somebody with more knowledge could answer them for me.
First: At 4:42 he says that if your 16 is composed of 3 small cards that you should stand as you have just taken small cards from the deck.
Second: At 6:07 he says that if you got an 18 on every hand that you would always be a loser. This I would be more likely to believe, just curious the math behind it.
Let me know what ya'll think.
Both are correct.
The index of 16v10 is 0, so you should stand at any positive or neutral count. If you are not counting, then all you have to go on are the cards in front of you. 3 small cards + 1 big card (the dealer's 10) is a RC of +2, so it's a stand. Personally, I would not worry about composition dependent basic strategy in a shoe game -- it's almost worthless. Either count, or just play total-dependent basic strategy.
As for 18, you would not "always" be a loser (you would win some hands) but 18 has -EV against a random dealer hand, so you would lose in the long term. 19 is the first total that is +EV against random dealer cards.
Of course, 18 is +EV against some dealer up cards, but, overall, it's a net loser.
August 5th, 2014 at 3:13:41 PM
permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice
The index of 16v10 is 0, so you should stand at any positive or neutral count. If you are not counting, then all you have to go on are the cards in front of you. 3 small cards + 1 big card (the dealer's 10) is a RC of +2, so it's a stand. Personally, I would not worry about composition dependent basic strategy in a shoe game -- it's almost worthless. Either count, or just play total-dependent basic strategy.
So if I am not counting it shouldn't matter the previous few cards and I would hit a 16, correct?
I got a plan, we take all your picks we reverse them like one of those twilight zone episodes where everything is the opposite. You say "black" we go white.
August 5th, 2014 at 3:20:38 PM
permalink
I like Henry. It's a good thing he's not a member here because he'd be nuked for giving us not one, not two, but three of his web sites.
He never seems to mention his involvement with Speed Count.
He never seems to mention his involvement with Speed Count.
Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth. - Mahatma Ghandi
August 5th, 2014 at 3:24:31 PM
permalink
Quote: VCUSkyhawkSo if I am not counting it shouldn't matter the previous few cards and I would hit a 16, correct?
But your own cards in this case do matter whether you are counting or not. a 3-card 16 is enough to shift a neutral count (which a non-counter should always assume) to make 16 v T a stand. Now the EV difference between hitting and standing on a neutral count is pretty small. It's definitely not a big deal.
August 5th, 2014 at 3:30:02 PM
permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceQuote: VCUSkyhawkI was watching this video on Youtube.
It had me questioning two statements, wondering if they were true? Perhaps somebody with more knowledge could answer them for me.
First: At 4:42 he says that if your 16 is composed of 3 small cards that you should stand as you have just taken small cards from the deck.
Second: At 6:07 he says that if you got an 18 on every hand that you would always be a loser. This I would be more likely to believe, just curious the math behind it.
Let me know what ya'll think.
Both are correct.
The index of 16v10 is 0, so you should stand at any positive or neutral count. If you are not counting, then all you have to go on are the cards in front of you. 3 small cards + 1 big card (the dealer's 10) is a RC of +2, so it's a stand. Personally, I would not worry about composition dependent basic strategy in a shoe game -- it's almost worthless. Either count, or just play total-dependent basic strategy.
As for 18, you would not "always" be a loser (you would win some hands) but 18 has -EV against a random dealer hand, so you would lose in the long term. 19 is the first total that is +EV against random dealer cards.
Of course, 18 is +EV against some dealer up cards, but, overall, it's a net loser.
Oh yeah?
10 eyes for an eye. 10 teeth for a tooth. 10 bucks for a buck?! Hit the bad guys where it hurts the most: the face and the wallet.
August 5th, 2014 at 3:39:20 PM
permalink
Quote: tringlomaneBut your own cards in this case do matter whether you are counting or not. a 3-card 16 is enough to shift a neutral count (which a non-counter should always assume) to make 16 v T a stand. Now the EV difference between hitting and standing on a neutral count is pretty small. It's definitely not a big deal.
Some players take it further with the Rule of 4,5. Stay on any multi card 16 if your hand contains a 4 or a 5. That's pretty accurate and it does have you hitting some combinations. Staying on all combinations is just fine, especially for the non counter. There are more important things to be concerned with. Counters will know what to do.
Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth. - Mahatma Ghandi
August 7th, 2014 at 11:49:15 PM
permalink
Quote: Boney526I'm not sure if H17/S17 affects this
Wow I need to sleep more in general, but especially before posting advice. H17 vs S17 can't affect this, since anytime the dealer has a 10 value upcard they can't have a soft hand.
August 8th, 2014 at 2:00:20 AM
permalink
Interesting that one of the miss played hands he talks about is soft 18 against a 9 or 10. He correctly points out that alot of people stand but you should hit. However he doesn't include soft 18 against an ace. It's correct to hit that one too. Maybe it's because standing on soft 18 against an ace is correct for single deck when the dealer stands on soft 17 but come on, does single deck s17 exist anywhere? Maybe 6:5, but the basic strategy I use for 6:5 is to keep walking.
"Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things."
-- Isaac Newton
August 8th, 2014 at 5:25:44 AM
permalink
Are you 100% sure if you started out with a 18 every time and the dealer played his hand out (dealer stands soft 17) its - EV? Or is this with the assumption the average hand is 19 therefor 18 would be a loser? But does this take in the fact during actual play considering you would NEVER BUST but now the dealer would?Quote: AxiomOfChoiceQuote: VCUSkyhawkI was watching this video on Youtube.
It had me questioning two statements, wondering if they were true? Perhaps somebody with more knowledge could answer them for me.
First: At 4:42 he says that if your 16 is composed of 3 small cards that you should stand as you have just taken small cards from the deck.
Second: At 6:07 he says that if you got an 18 on every hand that you would always be a loser. This I would be more likely to believe, just curious the math behind it.
Let me know what ya'll think.
Both are correct.
The index of 16v10 is 0, so you should stand at any positive or neutral count. If you are not counting, then all you have to go on are the cards in front of you. 3 small cards + 1 big card (the dealer's 10) is a RC of +2, so it's a stand. Personally, I would not worry about composition dependent basic strategy in a shoe game -- it's almost worthless. Either count, or just play total-dependent basic strategy.
As for 18, you would not "always" be a loser (you would win some hands) but 18 has -EV against a random dealer hand, so you would lose in the long term. 19 is the first total that is +EV against random dealer cards.
Of course, 18 is +EV against some dealer up cards, but, overall, it's a net loser.
When I was younger I had this proposition presented to me from a friend and experienced counter when I was first learning. For fun I took it thinking I cant bust and crushed him (probably got lucky) .
Is there a BJ simulator that can be set up where the player start with 18 and the dealer plays the hands out?
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
August 8th, 2014 at 5:26:10 AM
permalink
Quote: JimRockfordInteresting that one of the miss played hands he talks about is soft 18 against a 9 or 10. He correctly points out that alot of people stand but you should hit. However he doesn't include soft 18 against an ace. It's correct to hit that one too. Maybe it's because standing on soft 18 against an ace is correct for single deck when the dealer stands on soft 17 but come on, does single deck s17 exist anywhere? Maybe 6:5, but the basic strategy I use for 6:5 is to keep walking.
In any S17 game soft 18 vs. A is a borderline play (in both the single-deck game like you mentioned and multi-deck games the best play is composition-dependent - BS charts are usually based on the two-card A7 hand). This hand is like 16 vs. 10 (but much less common) - a very close decision that can vary depending on what cards you have. (Note that in H17 games this hand is decidedly a hit because it's less likely the dealer will finish with 17.)
August 8th, 2014 at 6:05:29 AM
permalink
Axiom is correct. Eighteen is a losing hand. If you were dealt 18 on every hand, the house would have about a 0.6% advantage. Break even is 18.5.
Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth. - Mahatma Ghandi
August 8th, 2014 at 9:19:00 AM
permalink
There is BJ side bet that is a player always having a 18. Instant 18
“Man Babes” #AxelFabulous
August 8th, 2014 at 11:28:57 AM
permalink
Quote: JimRockfordInteresting that one of the miss played hands he talks about is soft 18 against a 9 or 10. He correctly points out that alot of people stand but you should hit. However he doesn't include soft 18 against an ace. It's correct to hit that one too. Maybe it's because standing on soft 18 against an ace is correct for single deck when the dealer stands on soft 17 but come on, does single deck s17 exist anywhere? Maybe 6:5, but the basic strategy I use for 6:5 is to keep walking.
There are single deck S17 3:2 games at my local casino.
Restrictive doubling and no resplitting or DAS give it a small house edge.
August 8th, 2014 at 11:43:48 AM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfAre you 100% sure if you started out with a 18 every time and the dealer played his hand out (dealer stands soft 17) its - EV? Or is this with the assumption the average hand is 19 therefor 18 would be a loser? But does this take in the fact during actual play considering you would NEVER BUST but now the dealer would?
When I was younger I had this proposition presented to me from a friend and experienced counter when I was first learning. For fun I took it thinking I cant bust and crushed him (probably got lucky) .
Is there a BJ simulator that can be set up where the player start with 18 and the dealer plays the hands out?
This is absolutely true. You got suckered.
Why would you take a bet from someone who obviously knew what he was doing when you didn't know the math behind it?
August 8th, 2014 at 11:45:49 AM
permalink
Quote: mipletThere is BJ side bet that is a player always having a 18. Instant 18
I was looking for that but couldn't find it.
Wizard: Is there a reason that this has its own page, rather than being listed in the index with all the other blackjack side bets?
Funnily enough, Grosjean suggested that a casino should offer this bet in the original Beyond Counting. I guess someone at the casino read the book.
August 8th, 2014 at 12:00:35 PM
permalink
Because i was 21 and it was fun in a social setting. It's like playing craps or whatever.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThis is absolutely true. You got suckered.
Why would you take a bet from someone who obviously knew what he was doing when you didn't know the math behind it?
possibly the same reason you smoke cigars.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
August 8th, 2014 at 12:08:33 PM
permalink
I was told it was not a good bet prior so I don't consider it being suckered. I just wanted to play it with him. It was not like he brought it up to con me we were practicing BJ and I got an 18 and i said something about it and he explained it was not a good starting hand.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThis is absolutely true. You got suckered.
Why would you take a bet from someone who obviously knew what he was doing when you didn't know the math behind it?
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
August 8th, 2014 at 12:34:46 PM
permalink
Fair enough.
This is one of those things that is known by practically everyone who understands the game and practically no one who doesn't. Grosjean even talked about the "rule of 18", which was that you could tell if someone knew what they were doing by looking at how they played their 18s. Chances are, if they play their soft 18s and 99s correctly, they know what they are doing, because almost all bad players think that it is a good hand that they don't want to ruin
This is one of those things that is known by practically everyone who understands the game and practically no one who doesn't. Grosjean even talked about the "rule of 18", which was that you could tell if someone knew what they were doing by looking at how they played their 18s. Chances are, if they play their soft 18s and 99s correctly, they know what they are doing, because almost all bad players think that it is a good hand that they don't want to ruin
