Winning % and Doubles

I understand that the one advantage a player has as the count increases is that more BJs appear (for both player and the dealer), but the 3:2 payout benefits the player. Thus, we should have more money out on the table. I've also seen this statement (or similar statements):

From Blackjackinfo: "The player’s advantage at positive true counts comes from the fact that at any given moment there is a higher probability that the next card drawn will be a high card thus making your doubles and splits (the money making hands) more successful. . . "

This suggests to me that as the count increases the player will win more often on doubles and splits. Isn't that what "more successful" means? I've also learned (from blackjackincolor) that the win rate at TC = 0 is 42.7% and only goes as high as 44.0% at TC = +18(!!). So even at this ridiculous TC, our win percentage has increased only a mere 1.3%. I assume that even at something more modest, say TC = +5, the win rate may have only increased by two or three tenths of a percent, if that. And I know that this win rate includes all winning hands, from beating the dealer as well as from dealer busts.

My question is: is this why counting is such a grind? Do we only increase our success by exploiting this ever slight increase in win rates? Or, as the author above suggests, as the count increases, are a larger percentage of our wins made up of doubles and splits than at TC = 0? Blackjackincolor points out that as the count increases the frequency of doubles decreases, as fewer small cards means the dealer will have fewer cards against which we'd double.

It's pointless to think in term of win %, when edge much more accurately expresses what is going on. TC +5 offers between a 2% to 3% edge, depending on how liberal the ruleset, which is a pretty good investment when you consider its time span is one minute. Most people are happy to put their money in the stock market and get 6% over the course of one year.

So how is the 2 or 3% edge manifested during the course of play? I'm still trying to reconcile the author's statement above.

From my A-Z articles found on this site:

1) You get paid 3-2 on your blackjacks, the dealer does not.
2) You can put more money on the table by splitting your pairs, the dealer cannot.
3) You can put more money on the table by doubling down, the dealer cannot.
4) The dealer will bust slightly more often.

Italic emphasis added on the last one.

Also in the A-Z articles I explain a bit about where the advantage comes from with counting. 2-3% btw is stretching it. Most counters will see about 1-1.5% advantage. Very accomplished good counters who have mastered their counts can see 1.5-2%, and those that wong a lot (which can also draw a lot of heat) can see maybe 2-3%.

Link to article 1 (other 2 articles are linked at the top): https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/A-to-Z-Counting-Cards-in-Blackjack/

Quote: theoriemeister

So how is the 2 or 3% edge manifested during the course of play? I'm still trying to reconcile the author's statement above.

Others have explained it better, but in my laymans words....
The hands where we double or split are usually great hands where we are at an advantage even before the hand plays out: Visualise ace-ace against dealer 5.
If the deck is rich in tens, the probability of those split aces, and the 5 all getting dealt a ten is increased. Similarly, our probability of a 3:2 paying blackjack is increased significantly. It's the enhanced frequency of these somewhat rare but lucrative occasions working out well (their contribution to EV ) that gives us the tiny edge.
Change in win frequency rate is insignificant by comparison.

Card counting is such a grind because your edge is very low and you rarely put out +EV bets. Most of your edge comes from the higher rate of getting a blackjack.

Quote: RS

Card counting is such a grind because your edge is very low and you rarely put out +EV bets. Most of your edge comes from the higher rate of getting a blackjack.

And a good chunk from taking insurance when appropriate?.. And of course, Wonging.

Quote: OnceDear

And a good chunk from taking insurance when appropriate?.. And of course, Wonging.

I’m not sure how much insurance adds, but I don’t think it’s all that much. With 3 extra T’s in the deck, you’d have a 9.6% edge on insurance, which is 1/2 your main bet, and should show up about 1-in-12 to 1-in-13 rounds.

Normally a BJ should happen 1-in-21.125 rounds if my math is right. If you have 3 extra T’s in the deck, then you’ll get a BJ 1-in-17.78 rounds. That’s an 18% increased chance of getting a BJ, which is pretty significant. Or in 100 rounds, you normally expect 4.73 BJ’s. With the extra T’s, you’d expect 5.62 BJs. That’s an extra 0.9 BJs, and at 3:2 pay that’s an extra 1.35 units per 100 rounds. Or an extra 1.35% in added EV from BJs (obviously doesn’t take into account where both you and dealer have a BJ, but that should only happen 1-in-316 rounds with the extra T’s, which should knock the 1.35% to about 1%).

Of course that’s overly simplified since I just assumed 3 little cards were replaced by 3 T’s and didn’t account for extra aces and hwatnot.


Wonging kinda makes you money, but mostly in the sense that you can go play a better table, as opposed to just not losing EV. If you wong out aggressively at -1, then you’re just avoiding a game at about a 1% HE. Most important is how big your spread is. If you’re spreading 1-100, for example, those small $10 bets mean nothing, since you’d be saving 10c/round by not playing at -1, which doesn’t really mean much if you’re making a few hundred an hour in EV. Now if you have a smaller spread, wonging out is going to save you more money relative to your EV. And of course, if you don’t wong out aggressively at -1, but wait till -2, then you’re not really wonging our that often, and you’d just be saving about 1.5% of your min bets — obviously it helps, but most important is how big your spread is.


I guess same thing can be said about index plays in general. The bigger your spread, the less important knowing many indices. And if you have a smaller spread, then you would be better off knowing more indices — even though in reality, you’d just be better off by spreading more, assuming you can get away with it.

One player advantage left out by Romes in his post:

The player has the option of Standing on a stiff hand (a hard 12-16) and the dealer does not. Obviously, player elects to Stand on all 13-16 versus dealer 2-6, and on all 12s vs dealer 4-6. These are situations where standing is better than hitting. And when the remaining cards in the shoe have a surplus of Tens, this player advantage is worth more because hitting a hard 12-16 with a surplus of Tens means the player is more likely to bust.

The player should stand on all 13-16s. They often don't.

Quote: Romes

From my A-Z articles found on this site:

2) You can put more money on the table by splitting your pairs, the dealer cannot.
3) You can put more money on the table by doubling down, the dealer cannot.
4) The dealer will bust slightly more often.

Italic emphasis added on the last one.

Thanks, Romes, et al.

2) But we have to win/push those splits more than we lose them, yes?
3) This makes sense to me, in that having more 10s remaining in the deck when we double with a 9 - 11 is even more advantageous than at lower counts, right?
4) This is what I'm looking for. Likewise, we can stand on hands that normally we might hit at a lower count, hoping for the dealer to bust.