Ever hear of Holland Casino's Blackjack?

Can someone help me understand this paper? It says that BS is useless within a 6 deck, 7 player setting, and is only good up to a point. At least from what I understand from the paper.

Quote: Management

Sorry, new members are not allowed to post links, even if veiled.

They say counting cards is useless because they use a continuous shuffle machine (CSM). Played cards are immediately added to the CSM after a hand. They do advise learning basic strategy. They seem pretty up front about what they are offering. They also offer a variant called Casino 21 which has a low minimum bet. The difference in the game is you lose on a tie rather than push, which one analyst points out gives the house a +5% edge. Ouch! I'm not going to post a link. Nothing more to see here folks. Move along. Show's over. Go home to your loved ones.

I can't see the original question but from my experience many years ago Holland casinos have different rules for "Blackjack" depending on table limts. Some Euro 5 tables had 6/5 Blackjack whereas higher stakes had regular Blackjack. Beware that sometimes doubling rules essentially rule out soft doubles. I can't remember whether they had a pontoon like game; but the imporatnt message is check the rules before you play.

*facepalm* I hate forums for this very reason but the link i posted DOES NOT go to the modern day Holland casino. It goes to a paper analyzing their form of blackjack back in 1993. It also states BS is useless against 7 players and 6 decks. It also laid out an alternative but slightly similar version of BS.

The number of players at the table is irrelevant to the efficacy of basic strategy, which is simply a list of expectation maximizing decisions. There is simply no way for the number of players at the table to change the expected value of hitting vs standing vs doubling or w/e. The probability of getting a good card vs busting is in no way influenced by how many people are sitting at the table with me.

Quote: BlackjackGuy123

The number of players at the table is irrelevant to the efficacy of basic strategy, which is simply a list of expectation maximizing decisions. There is simply no way for the number of players at the table to change the expected value of hitting vs standing vs doubling or w/e. The probability of getting a good card vs busting is in no way influenced by how many people are sitting at the table with me.

This is probably an extreme edge case where the number of people was actually relevant, but one I've actually seen-- the number of cards played in a single deck game before the official shuffle was *53*. Courtesy of too many split hands in the third deal of the shuffle, we actually ran out of cards when the dealer had to draw. Policy at that location was to shuffle the used cards and deal from there, which would mean the final card was operating at dramatically different probability than at the start of the hand.

It's probably an unusual enough situation to be hardly worth consideration, but, if my sleep-deprived post-midnight mind is functional, it does mean that there are some fringe cases where it would be beneficial to split to force that situation, or vice versa, against what would otherwise be recommended. (...And it's now that I remember that we're looking at 'the efficacy of basic strategy', so... moot. Oh well.)

But you're really not talking about other people at this point, you're talking about deck composition. Sure, changes in deck composition can change the proper strategy play, that's why I count cards. But it has nothing to do with the number of people at the table and everything to do with the cards that remain in the shoe.