Statistics Only Playing
I also have a few unusual math skills.
I seem to have been able to consistently win using a two hand approach, using statistics that are dynamic to each card played and playing most sets to break even between the two hands until a favorable set comes along. A sample strategy is to choose which hand has a better chance against a good hole card, and which hand has a better chance against a weak hole card, and to play the hands accordingly. Since so many of the probable choices are close to 50% bets, this strategy increases the odds of one of the hands winning, resulting in a tie for that set.
For instance, I've played over 10,000 hand of blackjack +21 and am running +6.1%.
Does anyone know if this kind of approach was what the MIT team used in addition to counting?
Curious.
I'm not quite sure I fully understand your 'system.' Are you counting cards when doing this? Do you play with any deviations? Do you always play 2 hands? What is your bet spread/ramp per count if you are?
Overall, other than co-variance when you play 2 hands of blackjack they are completely separate. They both have their own statistics on their respective options (Hit, Stand, Double, Split, Surrender). The EV of each of those decisions is based on the hand itself and the dealers up card, not other cards at the table (with an exception for card counting, but these would simply be deviations). There is a mathematical best play every time. If you're playing one hand differently because your other hand is stronger/weaker, then you're more than likely not making the proper (most EV) plays.
Can you also give me an example of 2 hands and how you would play them "differently" than standard basic strategy and your reasoning as to why?
Quote: LifeOfBlackjackI've played blackjack for over 50 years, first earning my spending money in high school, but one deck counting is nothing.
I also have a few unusual math skills.
I seem to have been able to consistently win using a two hand approach, using statistics that are dynamic to each card played and playing most sets to break even between the two hands until a favorable set comes along. A sample strategy is to choose which hand has a better chance against a good hole card, and which hand has a better chance against a weak hole card, and to play the hands accordingly. Since so many of the probable choices are close to 50% bets, this strategy increases the odds of one of the hands winning, resulting in a tie for that set.
For instance, I've played over 10,000 hand of blackjack +21 and am running +6.1%.
Does anyone know if this kind of approach was what the MIT team used in addition to counting?
Curious.
So if you have two stiff hands you hit the one with lowest total and stand on the other one?
Hit the 14 vs X and stand on the 16 vs x....
Quote: LifeOfBlackjackI seem to have been able to consistently win using a two hand approach, using statistics that are dynamic to each card played and playing most sets to break even between the two hands until a favorable set comes along. A sample strategy is to choose which hand has a better chance against a good hole card, and which hand has a better chance against a weak hole card, and to play the hands accordingly. Since so many of the probable choices are close to 50% bets, this strategy increases the odds of one of the hands winning, resulting in a tie for that set.
For instance, I've played over 10,000 hand of blackjack +21 and am running +6.1%.
Welcome to the forum.
Your post raises more questions than answers.
6.1% of what? count of winning hands or rate of lifetime profit. You've taken the trouble to join here to tell us of your success. Now PLEASE elaborate before someone calls BS.
And no. It was not.
O
