mrjjj
mrjjj
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 1579
Joined: Sep 4, 2010
September 7th, 2010 at 9:07:39 PM permalink
I heard this from a buddy a few years ago. I repeat, this is not my idea but I wanted to get a little input. When he plays blackjack, he only plays for the dealer to BUST. He never takes a hit. It does not matter what his cards are and it does not matter what the up card is for the dealer.....NO HITTING or DD or splitting.

He does not play to win, he plays for the dealer to lose. Yes, he does use a progression and must start out at a $5 min. table. How many steps does he get? I have no idea. The dealer WILL bust in 'X' number of hands, I think we can agree on that. Lets also not forget, busting is not the only way to win. If he is dealt 19 and the dealer has 18, thats a win without RELYING on a bust. Any comment on this? Ken
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
September 7th, 2010 at 9:21:17 PM permalink
Quote: mrjjj

I heard this from a buddy a few years ago. I repeat, this is not my idea but I wanted to get a little input. When he plays blackjack, he only plays for the dealer to BUST. He never takes a hit. It does not matter what his cards are and it does not matter what the up card is for the dealer.....NO HITTING or DD or splitting.

He does not play to win, he plays for the dealer to lose. Yes, he does use a progression and must start out at a $5 min. table. How many steps does he get? I have no idea. The dealer WILL bust in 'X' number of hands, I think we can agree on that. Lets also not forget, busting is not the only way to win. If he is dealt 19 and the dealer has 18, thats a win without RELYING on a bust. Any comment on this? Ken



The Wiz has analyzed this here. The house edge is just under 4%. Basic strategy on the same table would yield a .4% house edge. I also have a friend who plays like this. He says it's better to watch the dealer bust than to bust himself. The progression can help mask the negative effect of the strategy, but if you get capped by the table/house limit then you'll really pinch yourself progressive betting like this.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
mrjjj
mrjjj
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 1579
Joined: Sep 4, 2010
September 7th, 2010 at 9:32:06 PM permalink
I have not read it yet (but I will), I am interested if the math takes into account, the player NEVER busting? Ken
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
September 7th, 2010 at 9:50:52 PM permalink
Actually the HA is much much higher than that, because he is not hitting, DD, or splitting. He is just taking two cards and letting the dealer do what he does.

On a six deck shoe, Dealer Stands on 17, I took the results in Wizard's BJ Appendix 9 and added up all the results of standing, multiplied by the number of combinations, and then divided by the total combinations to get an expected return.

Because my multiplication efforts did not take into account card removal, my result is slightly off. However, I calculate the HA of STANDING on any two cards is -12.79 percent, simply AWFUL.

It would be far better for the player to take a card on 11 or less and even better to double down and split correctly as well.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
mrjjj
mrjjj
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 1579
Joined: Sep 4, 2010
September 7th, 2010 at 9:53:47 PM permalink
Does that include the player winning without the dealer busting? Like I said, this is not my method, I'm only posting here to get feedback. Ken
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
September 8th, 2010 at 3:54:03 AM permalink
Quote: mrjjj

he only plays for the dealer to BUST. He never takes a hit.

I've heard of this "Lazy Man's Blackjack" before and my first impression then was that the player is embarrassed by his slow and perhaps deficient math skills and therefore simply abandons any decision-making role on his hand. Its not really a sensible option but perhaps its entertaining nevertheless. He still gets his drinks and his entertainment and its still likely to be a bit better of a game than hitting a red button all day long at 8 percent house edge. So he sits there and avoids the embarrassment of hitting when he already has 21, nurses his drinks and has some fun "gambling".
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
September 8th, 2010 at 5:09:26 AM permalink
Yes it does.

The dealer only busts on about 23 percent of hands. That mean he makes 77 percent of hands (17-21). The player meanwhile is only going to get dealt a 17 to 21 on 22.5 percent of hands.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
  • Threads: 207
  • Posts: 10992
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 8th, 2010 at 7:33:46 AM permalink
Yeah, it sucks to bust and then to watch the dealer bust as well.

It sucks more when you're in third base, or watch the cards being dealt, and know that the dealer would have busted either way.

But to play all hands with the fear of the double bust is just nuts.

If you're holding a 12 and the dealer has a ten, you're not going to hit? Simple probabilities say that only 4 of 13 cards will bust you. You're not taking the card because of those odds? NUTS, I tell ya...
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ ————————————————————————————————————— Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
September 8th, 2010 at 9:54:11 AM permalink
Actually, my odds were wrong.

The players makes the following hands:

3-16 65.1 percent
17 7.1 percent
18 6.5 percent
19 5.9 percent
20 10.65 percent
BJ 4.73 percent

The problem is that on 3 - 16, with the dealer making 29 percent of hands, the HA on those is 41.6 percent.

The HA on the whole "I'll stand on 3 strategy" is still 12.8 percent.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
sabre
sabre
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 1172
Joined: Aug 16, 2010
September 8th, 2010 at 11:26:10 AM permalink
Quote: mrjjj

The dealer WILL bust in 'X' number of hands, I think we can agree on that.



No, we can't agree on that. There is no value of X which will make that statement true.

The statement "The dealer won't win 'X' number of hands" is true as long as he deals < X hands.
benbakdoff
benbakdoff
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 448
Joined: Jul 13, 2010
September 8th, 2010 at 1:25:00 PM permalink
Quote: mrjjj

I heard this from a buddy a few years ago. I repeat, this is not my idea but I wanted to get a little input. When he plays blackjack, he only plays for the dealer to BUST. He never takes a hit. It does not matter what his cards are and it does not matter what the up card is for the dealer.....NO HITTING or DD or splitting.

He does not play to win, he plays for the dealer to lose. Yes, he does use a progression and must start out at a $5 min. table. How many steps does he get? I have no idea. The dealer WILL bust in 'X' number of hands, I think we can agree on that. Lets also not forget, busting is not the only way to win. If he is dealt 19 and the dealer has 18, thats a win without RELYING on a bust. Any comment on this? Ken




When you say he never takes a hit, do you mean he never puts himself in a position to break by staying on twelve or higher or do you mean he literally stays on the first two cards?

The posts above have given some percentages of the dealer breaking so let me throw this into the mix.

Players' faces light up when the dealer has a break card showing. Most know that a five or six are the worst cards for the dealer and are the cards the players most want the dealer to have.

What a lot of people don't know is that with these up cards the dealer has only a 42% chance of breaking. In a six deck shoe S17, it's 41.8% and 42.2% respectively. If you don't have a decent hand you see where this can go.

I can only imagine the flack your buddy must get from the other players. Personally I would love to play at his table. He'll never eat up the tens in a positive shoe and when the count tanks the pit won't think twice when I excuse myself. A win win!
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
September 8th, 2010 at 5:28:52 PM permalink
Quote: WizardofOdds

Three popular bad strategies encountered at the blackjack table are: never bust, mimic the dealer, and always assume the dealer has a ten in the hole. All three are very bad strategies. Following are my specific comments on each of them, including the house edge under Atlantic City rules (dealer stands on soft 17, split up to 4 hands, double after split, double any two cards) of 0.43%.

Never bust: For my analysis of this strategy I assumed the player would never hit a hard 12 or more. All other decisions were according to correct basic strategy. This "never bust" strategy results in a house edge of 3.91%.



One way that I find useful to think about basic strategy is that if your hand has a positive expectation then the decision on how to play is usually obvious.

Basic strategy is primarily about hands that have a negative expectation. Basic strategy tells you what is the least damaging move to make, even though usually all possible moves still have a negative expectation.

The "never bust" strategy undermines this principle because it attempts to avoid a bad occurence at all costs. So you are never forced to choose between two negative outcomes.

The probability is that your friend is playing at an even higher house advantage than 3.91%. If he never wants to bust, he probably is not trying to split 8's against a dealer high card or other difficult moves. The wizard's analysis assumed that all splitting and doubling was still done according to basic strategy.

Incidentally, it is why casinos are not afraid of strategy cards. Basic strategy tells you to split 8's against a dealer 9. Casinos know that if a player follows basic strategy a lot of really bad things will happen. The novice player splits 8's against a dealer 9 and sometimes he loses both hands. He gets frustrated and returns to playing with his gut.
mrjjj
mrjjj
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 1579
Joined: Sep 4, 2010
September 8th, 2010 at 5:36:13 PM permalink
Geez, I forgot about this thread. lol To answer the above, he stays on the first 2 cards, NEVER takes a hit. As I said before, I cant do the math on this and I am NOT saying I agree with the method, I am only posting it. My question being....Does the math INCLUDE, the player will never bust AND the player can win some hands without the dealer busting? Ken
DeMango
DeMango
  • Threads: 36
  • Posts: 2958
Joined: Feb 2, 2010
September 8th, 2010 at 6:42:25 PM permalink
Quote: mrjjj

Does the math INCLUDE, the player will never bust AND the player can win some hands without the dealer busting? Ken



So will the player win with a BJ and the dealer not bust? Great question, let me get back to you with the answer..... Anybody else?
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
ChesterDog
ChesterDog 
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 1479
Joined: Jul 26, 2010
September 8th, 2010 at 7:07:37 PM permalink
Quote: DeMango

...Anybody else?



Using an infinite deck analysis, I get a house edge of 16.0% for S17 and 15.8% for H17. So if my math is right, the H17 game is better than S17 for players who always stand on their first two cards.

(This analysis takes into account the possibilty of a player's winning a hand even if the dealer doesn't bust.)
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 9th, 2010 at 5:10:09 AM permalink
I am getting 18% for S17 using this spreadsheet:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AiDpbflsSMD3dHctZG9mV2tKVWVtLTFLM0duWnJzdWc&hl=en&authkey=CP_liX0
Would be curious to see where the extra two percent came from ...
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
ChesterDog
ChesterDog 
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 1479
Joined: Jul 26, 2010
September 9th, 2010 at 7:12:02 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

I am getting 18% for S17 using this spreadsheet:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AiDpbflsSMD3dHctZG9mV2tKVWVtLTFLM0duWnJzdWc&hl=en&authkey=CP_liX0
Would be curious to see where the extra two percent came from ...



I see one typo in your spreadsheet. In cell D5, you meant to have =sum(C3:C4)+C8-sum(C6:C7), but you have =sum(C3:C4)+C7-sum(C6:C7).
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 9th, 2010 at 7:45:25 AM permalink
Indeed. I fixed it, and the new answer is 16.8%
Close enough I guess :)
Thanks for being so thorough
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
  • Jump to: