Going to try BJ someday

After practicing with real cards and with the Wizard's free game, I'm now pretty sure now I'll give BlackJack a go the next time I'm somewhere that has table games with a $25 or less table available. I am not kidding when I say my knowledge of how to play the game was limited to "stand on 17", plus knowing what the card values were. All the other business of insurance, surrender, doubling, you name it, were quite mysterious to me. I think I have it down now and can play a bit better than the Wizard's Simple Strategy without maybe just a few errors now and then.

I occurs to me that there is little reason to not soon be using the simple Ace Five card counting, if it is possible to get a low limit game without CSM. This unavailability is probably going to be the problem, but if I find it isn't, I do have some questions.

*why does the five suffice for establishing that the count is favorable. OK, it is a low card, does that mean there is something arbitrary though, about the choice of the five? Would counting two's not work for some reason?

*why the aces count in the opposite way is a bit of mystery for me too.

*the recommendation is to stick with basic strategy, but just alter the bet size in a favorable count. It seems to me you would discontinue any doubling down in a bad count though?

Quote: odiousgambit

*why does the five suffice for establishing that the count is favorable. OK, it is a low card, does that mean there is something arbitrary though, about the choice of the five? Would counting two's not work for some reason?

*why the aces count in the opposite way is a bit of mystery for me too.

*the recommendation is to stick with basic strategy, but just alter the bet size in a favorable count. It seems to me you would discontinue any doubling down in a bad count though?

I think the 5s are counted because they have the highest probability of resulting in 2 card hands totalling 12-16. Hitting from there is bad for the player.

The aces are the opposite situation. You need aces to get the 3:2 bonus payout on blackjack. Fewer aces means lower chances for the bonus payout.

I'm not sure about the ace-5 count, but in other methods I think you double fewer hands in a bad count. No more 9 against a 3 or 4, no more 10 against a 9, etc. But I think soft doubles get better. If you happen to get ace-4 in a bad count, you're relatively happier to make that double knowing there are more small cards to come.

Quote: odiousgambit

*why does the five suffice for establishing that the count is favorable. OK, it is a low card, does that mean there is something arbitrary though, about the choice of the five? Would counting two's not work for some reason?

In "Beat The Dealer", Edward Thorp showed that removing fives from the deck had the largest positive advantage for the player. See Table 4.1 (and chapter 4 in general). Removing 2s is good; removing 5s is about 2.5x better.

Fives suck because they turn the dealers worst stiffs into 20s and 21s. Fours are almost as bad. The dealer and you are both going to get 15s and 16s, and other stiffs. The difference is he has to hit them. You don't.

Aces are great because you can get 3-2 BJ payouts, and he can't. Also, you can double down on soft hands, although that's not a huge advantage--same with splitting aces.

I would completely master basic strategy before you try the Ace-Five count. I've been playing for years and still don't think I'm good enough to count yet.

Yes, master basic strategy. Ideally, for the exact game you plan to play, or as close to it as you can get. I'd been playing on a single-deck H17 no-DAS chart for almost 20 years, but since I'm usually playing DD H17 DAS now, I have learned that chart too.

The counting scheme I use is very basic, I think it's called Super-Simple Hi-Opt I which I found back in the usenet rec.gambling days. I don't vary my bet tremendously when I count (no more than the random bet variation of others at the table), and I don't think it helps my results very much. Just often enough to keep doing it, it seems. But playing correct BS is much more important.

thanks for the tips

of course I am in for some surprises with an actual dealer, always happens. One thing not sure about is how blackjack is paid on a $25 table, typically anyway? $37.50 conceivably could get rounded off?

any local $10 table seems to be a pipe dream, although as a beginner much to be desired

There's a pink chip worth $2.50. You get one bj, you get one. You get a second bj, you trade a pink for a red.

It`s curious... Here in south america the $2.50 chips are light blue! Sometimes dealers get messed up when they have to pay using that chips! LOL
Also it`s not allowed to bet a single light blue chip in our casinos, e.g: $27.50, $32.50, $52.50... You can only bet them in pairs, so that the dealer will trade it for a red one.

I was going to make a joke about bjs turning pink into red, but I decided not to.

Quote: Mosca

I was going to make a joke about bjs turning pink into red, but I decided not to.

Hooo.... awwww...

But seriously, you are allowed to take a strategy card to the table with you. Look at it. Play enough, and you will memorize it.

Good luck!

Played some game and bet some odd amounts and found the dealer cannot discern the total amount bet and multiply by 1.5 for a BJ. For instance on a $16 bet I should get $24 but they can't pay that. They separate the 3 red chips and give me 4 red chips and a $2.50 chip for that then the give me a white chip and two 25 cent pieces for the extra white chip. I'd collect a couple $2.50 chips and rebet them until they lost. But I'd collect these 25 cent pieces, actual quarters not to be confused with greens, and by the time I colored up after an hour I had $2 of them.

When I first sat down at the table, the dealer was shuffling up for the first time at 4:40 pm and I was the first one at the table. The pit boss came over and removed the $5 minimum sign just as a couple other people were coming up and replaced it with a $10 minimum sign. I was told I was grandfathered in at $5 and so were the other people who were in on the first deal. I had just walked in the door and came back from the kiosk to check my points. I would have thought the table would have opened 6 hours before. The craps table was already raised to $10 and it was before 5 pm, I usually try to get there before 5pm because that's when they raise the minimums, but it was Sunday. This is the 3rd time I've had the table sign raised on me as soon as I showed up for the dealer's first shuffle. They also only have about 25 white chips in the tray and most of my bets use white chips, so I'm straining hard with the tray. I'm going to have to change up my betting strategy to be a red chipper; the craps table has more white chips.

I lost 3 $20 double downs on 3 progressions. So I would have been $240 higher if they won instead of lost.

@chumpchange why did you post on a 15 year old thread

Quote: KatrinaO

@chumpchange why did you post on a 15 year old thread
link to original post

I have to admit that it's hard not to view this thread once you've seen its title.

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: KatrinaO

@chumpchange why did you post on a 15 year old thread
link to original post

I have to admit that it's hard not to view this thread once you've seen its title.
link to original post

that a joke about "BJ" and it's other meaning in other contexts? That joke always flops seems like here

I was so new to casino gambling 15 years ago. Overall do I regret taking a dip in those waters? I have to think about that.

But I'm still standing, yeah, yeah, yeah!

You talked more about UTH recent years. More than Blackjack.

Quote: aceside

You talked more about UTH recent years. More than Blackjack.
link to original post

I didn't know how dissatisfactory the variance was going to be flatbetting BJ. It's not really a good choice for me after all, low HE be damned.

UTH has lots of variance, you can just stick to the minimum bet and the results are all over the place. Low enough HE too. But no game near me now, while local friendly game poker is going well, and there's online sports betting too. I haven't been in a casino in a long time.

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: aceside

You talked more about UTH recent years. More than Blackjack.
link to original post

I didn't know how dissatisfactory the variance was going to be flatbetting BJ. It's not really a good choice for me after all, low HE be damned.

UTH has lots of variance, you can just stick to the minimum bet and the results are all over the place. Low enough HE too. But no game near me now, while local friendly game poker is going well, and there's online sports betting too. I haven't been in a casino in a long time.
link to original post

Without variance, you would never win.

Is there any thought that a single player will lose worse at a full table than at a table with only 2 to 3 other players?
I just tried the Draft Kings demo Multi-Player BJ Game and played 6 players myself and kept losing and losing. If I cut it down to 2 or 3 players I started to do better.

Quote: ChumpChange

Is there any thought that a single player will lose worse at a full table than at a table with only 2 to 3 other players?
I just tried the Draft Kings demo Multi-Player BJ Game and played 6 players myself and kept losing and losing. If I cut it down to 2 or 3 players I started to do better.
link to original post

At a full table, the dealer gets approx. one blackjack out of every seven dealt.
Playing one on one, the dealer gets roughly half the BJs.
Would you rather play at the table where the dealer gets 50% of the BJs or the table where he gets around 14% of them?

In your case, your expected ratio of BJs went from 1/7 to 1/3.

Not that any of that means anything.

Wouldn't the single player get a similarly fewer ratio of BJ's too? Most of my winnings come from BJ's and Double Downs and Splits.

Quote: ChumpChange

Wouldn't the single player get a similarly fewer ratio of BJ's too? Most of my winnings come from BJ's and Double Downs and Splits.
link to original post

For most players, the fewer hands played per hour, the less they will lose—another reason to avoid CSMs. More hands per hour means more losses. One on one, you might get 120 hands an hour. At a full table, you're lucky to get 50.

Quote: billryan

Quote: ChumpChange

Is there any thought that a single player will lose worse at a full table than at a table with only 2 to 3 other players?
I just tried the Draft Kings demo Multi-Player BJ Game and played 6 players myself and kept losing and losing. If I cut it down to 2 or 3 players I started to do better.
link to original post

At a full table, the dealer gets approx. one blackjack out of every seven dealt.
Playing one on one, the dealer gets roughly half the BJs.
Would you rather play at the table where the dealer gets 50% of the BJs or the table where he gets around 14% of them?

In your case, your expected ratio of BJs went from 1/7 to 1/3.

Not that any of that means anything.
link to original post

That is incorrect. The probability the dealer gets a blackjack has nothing to do with the number of players.

On to math I can't find on Reddit: An average hand is 2.7 cards. An 8 deck shoe has a 1.5 deck pen, so 336 cards; divide by 2.7 equals 125 hands. Heads-up would be about 62 hands for the player and dealer. BJ comes around once every 21 hands, so about 3 BJ's for each per shoe. With 7 players + 1 Dealer is about 15 hands per shoe and won't even expect even 1 BJ per shoe. After 4 shoes you'd about catch up. There's more variance with the BJ's in heads-up, the player could get extra BJ's much quicker if you're counting bathroom breaks.

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: billryan

Quote: ChumpChange

Is there any thought that a single player will lose worse at a full table than at a table with only 2 to 3 other players?
I just tried the Draft Kings demo Multi-Player BJ Game and played 6 players myself and kept losing and losing. If I cut it down to 2 or 3 players I started to do better.
link to original post

At a full table, the dealer gets approx. one blackjack out of every seven dealt.
Playing one on one, the dealer gets roughly half the BJs.
Would you rather play at the table where the dealer gets 50% of the BJs or the table where he gets around 14% of them?

In your case, your expected ratio of BJs went from 1/7 to 1/3.

Not that any of that means anything.
link to original post

That is incorrect. The probability the dealer gets a blackjack has nothing to do with the number of players.


No one said it did. With six players and a dealer, the dealer can be expected to receive one-seventh of the Blackjacks dealt. With only one player, he is expected to get one half of the BJs. True or False?
link to original post

It's true but irrelevant. If another player gets a blackjack, it doesn't do me any good. I only care if the dealer or I get a blackjack.

Suppose we had an infinite deck game with one million players. The percentage of all blackjacks dealt that the dealer gets is very, very tiny. Yet, in this infinite deck game, the probability you get a blackjack and the probability the dealer gets a blackjack are the same as an infinite deck game with just one player -- 4/13*1/13*2 = 1 in 21.125.

Which casino deals from an infinite deck? It would be a horrible game for regular players.

Quote: billryan

Which casino deals from an infinite deck? It would be a horrible game for regular players.
link to original post

It would be a horrible game for the solar system, possibly the whole galaxy! An infinite deck... just more and more cards until they gravitationally collapse into a black hole, creating a new universe with nothing but cards forever!

Somebody had better report this to the gaming authorities. Infinite decks need to be banned forthwith.

Quote: billryan

Which casino deals from an infinite deck? It would be a horrible game for regular players.
link to original post

It would be ideal for the basic strategy player. A basic strategy player's average loss gets bigger as the dealer moves through a physical deck because the ideal decision changes with deck composition.

Infinite deck is the easiest way for a computer to deal blackjack. Just pick a random number between 1 and 52 every time.

An infinite deck would never need to be shuffled, increasing the hands played per hour. As BS is a losing strategy, more hands an hour means more losses per hour, not to mention more tips.

Quote: billryan

An infinite deck would never need to be shuffled, increasing the hands played per hour. As BS is a losing strategy, more hands an hour means more losses per hour, not to mention more tips.
link to original post

I was referring to the % of each bet.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: billryan

Which casino deals from an infinite deck? It would be a horrible game for regular players.
link to original post

It would be a horrible game for the solar system, possibly the whole galaxy! An infinite deck... just more and more cards until they gravitationally collapse into a black hole, creating a new universe with nothing but cards forever!

Somebody had better report this to the gaming authorities. Infinite decks need to be banned forthwith.
link to original post

Gaming isn't going to ban infinite decks, merely require that all the cards are inspected on the table before shuffling and dealing.

The cost of shipping an infinite deck from China would be prohibitive.