Mathematical Effect of Other Players

Hello all,

Curious and inept as I am regarding the mathematics of Blackjack (and most kinds of advanced mathematics), I was wondering if having other players at a table impacted your probability of winning hands? If so, does it change if the player employs perfect basic strategy? Or if he is an AP? Or perhaps if he has no idea what he's doing?

It might affect your temperament if he plays silly and messes up the odd good hand. But his average effect on the house edge is very very nearly 0.

If you get enuf serious dimwits playing at the table, it begins to approach the result of CSM, which is slightly better for the bettor if no counting involved ;-). <<<<<Joke.

Prolly the best advice is play low limit tables that are full of players and run slow, if the cocktail waitresses are fast and /or loose. Drink free.
Legal Disclaimer: The strategy is somewhat different in North Carolina.

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

Legal Disclaimer: The strategy is somewhat different in North Carolina.

Are the rules of the game different in NC?

Quote: Kellynbnf

Are the rules of the game different in NC?

Which game ;-)

Lots of things are alot different in NC. Great State, don't get me wrong.
But the Casinos are not allowed to give away free alcohol, NC State thing.
Not even in the independent 'Tribal Lands'.
I have mentioned the fact one or a dozen times before ;-)

Some things do change when other players are at the table. The ratio of cards in the deck that each person sees drops, and the length of time between each bet rises. A losing player will be better off having more players at the table. A winning player is usually worse off (but I can think of some reasons why that isn't always true).

I would say there is a positive difference for an advantage player (AP) when playing with other players. With an unfavorable count the AP can sit out the hand, check cell phone messages or find some way to avoid playing when the count is not favorable. Other players will consume the shoe, which would not happen if playing solo. True, other players would also chew through shoes when the count is favorable: you can't have it all. So my answer to the OP is a slight advantage goes to the AP with other players at that table. (Note: this view is predicated on my belief that "incorrect" ploppy play is a wash in the long run.)

The count is just as likely to go positive as negative... Thus having other players at the table is a straight 50/50 as to whether or not they would be beneficial or not. As you stated other players will eat cards in BOTH good and bad situations, but another aspect is that ploppies tend to slow the game down in general... Costing an AP money due to the reduced hands per hour. Overall, good AP's seek tables by themselves.

Also, this old quote should answer the OP's question.... "There are other players at the table?"

Quote: Romes

... ploppies tend to slow the game down in general... Costing an AP money due to the reduced hands per hour. ...

Point well taken, I had not considered that important fact. I am happy to defer to your more qualified opinion on this subject. :-)

Yeah, unfortunately I've had this happen too many times. You find a GREAT game and it gets ruined by some guy betting table min and taking 5 minutes for every playing decision, driving your hands per hour to nothing and your hourly EV from hundreds to less than minimum wage =/. Game speed / hands per hour is a pretty important factor. You can have the best game in the world but if you can only play 1 hand per day it's worthless =P.

If you're a card-counter, then having a basic strategy player at your table (compared to you vs dealer heads up) obviously hurts you, because HPH goes down. If we're talking about the strategy another player uses (basic strategy vs awful strategy)....you'd be better off with someone who uses an awful strategy and very passive (ie: doesn't hit stiffs, doesn't split). Having a BS player is in the middle. And having a super aggressive player (always splitting, hitting all stiffs, etc.) tends to hurt you because he's eating up cards when the count is positive, which means fewer +EV rounds for you. If there's another card-counter at the table, then that won't really have an effect on you, really....probably more like a basic-strategy type player. But, obviously don't play at the same table as another card-counter because it'll be pretty easy to get spotted by the casino and decent chance you're playing together / as a team, and casinos reaaaally don't like that. As far as the aggressive vs passive player strategy goes.....I'd have to guess the difference in your EV is going to be pretty small, at least in a shoe game (and # of such players).

If you're a regular player (not card-counter), then the effects of someone else playing basic strategy or completely awful have absolutely no effect on you (that I can think of), at least mathematically. Having a card-counter at your table MAY hurt the basic strategy player because he MAY go from 1 spot in -EV situations and play 2 hands in +EV situations, eating up more cards in +EV situations, meaning fewer +EV rounds for you. Although, this also probably has a minimal effect.


Overall, it really doesn't make any difference whatsoever (ok, maybe a tiny sliver of a difference, if ya wanna T3-analyze it) whether it's a basic strategy player, card counter, passive or aggressive awful strategist player.

Quote: mcavanaugh8

Hello all,
I was wondering if having other players at a table impacted your probability of winning hands? If so, does it change if the player employs perfect basic strategy? Or if he is an AP? Or perhaps if he has no idea what he's doing?

While playing with a "bad" player at the table may affect you psychologically, I has almost NO effect on you mathematically, provided you don't change your basic strategy. For example: if a "bad" player at 3rd base always splits 10's, you may decide to hit with a 15 or 16 vs. 6 to "compensate" for the player's bad play.

That being said, an advantage player who enters mid-shoe during positive counts and/or leaves mid-shoe during negative counts WILL increase the house edge vs. other players. The non-counting players will play fewer hands in positive counts and fewer hands in negative counts. This is not the same thing as the "ruining the order of the cards" myth. If a player enters mid-shoe because he feels lucky or sees other players winning, this will not have a long-term impact.

I hope this helps. Replies appreciated.

Not at all. Let's say the player had aces and certain cards come out. Now, say that the person had instead splits fives. The "order" of the cards is still the same.

Besides, the number of different ways even one deck of cards can be arranged is on the order of 10**67. If you shuffled at the rate of a billion hands a sec since the beginning of the universe it would take trillions and trillions of times over the age of this universe before you would hit 10**67. Don't even ask about a 6D shoe.

Quote: BigJer

Besides, the number of different ways even one deck of cards can be arranged is on the order of 10**67. If you shuffled at the rate of a billion hands a sec since the beginning of the universe it would take trillions and trillions of times over the age of this universe before you would hit 10**67. Don't even ask about a 6D shoe.

For practical purposes in Blackjack the number of permutations would be lower since suits are irrelevant and 10/J/Q/K are all worth ten points (ignoring any special rules or side bets that make those aspects of the cards relevant).

Then 13! = 6,227,020,800 ~ 6.2 x 10**9.

6D/4 = 78 -> 78! ~ 1.13e+115