bcmarshall
bcmarshall
Joined: Jul 11, 2021
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 32
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
July 16th, 2021 at 3:08:30 PM permalink
Quote: moses

11vs10 will occur 1.4%. win 51% lose 42% tie 7%.

100k hands' 1400 doubles. 714 wins. 588 loss. 98 ties.

This is far below 65% win goal in the OP.

Basic Strategy are thresholds. Not advantages.

Again, this is why one counts. The win percentages increases the more positive the deck. Hitting and getting two cards is more likely the more negative the deck.

The humor in basic strategists. They hit 16vs10 and want a 5. They double 11vs10 and want a 10. Yet, have no idea of deck composition.



Your humor makes perfect sense. I used to laugh at slot players when we used actual quarters. They'd play for hours and run thousands through the machine without blinking an eye, but if they dropped a quarter on the floor they'd be on their hands and knees looking for it!

Human nature, I suppose!
bcmarshall
bcmarshall
Joined: Jul 11, 2021
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 32
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
July 16th, 2021 at 3:11:39 PM permalink
Quote: billryan

It seems to me that you are thinking that since it is more advantageous to double against a 2-6 than a high card, that you should only double against the low cards.
If so, you are looking at it the wrong way.
Don't compare the results for doubling against a 2-6 vs doubling against a high card. Those results are utterly meaningless to this equation. The only thing that matters is: Is doubling against a high card better or worse than simply hitting.
Not doubling against ten means you lose out on almost a third of your potential doubles and will take an almost break-even game into severely negative territory.



I love this explanation. You put it exactly as I was seeing it and provided the clarity I was looking for. I'll go back to BS.

Seriously, thanks to all of you who provided feedback.
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 192
  • Posts: 11705
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146bcmarshall
July 16th, 2021 at 3:27:11 PM permalink
Quote: bcmarshall

Quote: odiousgambit

This is a type of gambler's fallacy encountered a lot at this site. When consulting those places where they list fallacies, this one is hard to find. What name should it have?

The player is losing at a negative expectation game using best strategy, and gets frustrated. He respects the idea that it is best strategy, but somehow feels like it is not serving him well. He keeps losing, maybe has been on a losing streak. Usually, but not in this case, note well I say not in this case, his frustration makes it occur to him that he will lose less money if he hedges his bets. I won't go into what happens with that.

In this case the player wants to avoid betting more money [doubling] when the expectations change only marginally. Why isn't it better to bet less and live longer? The problem with that has multiple angles, but one he doesn't see too easily is that he is lowering the variance. The player's only hope all along has been variance, because he is playing a negative expectation strategy. With greater variance, he might win more sessions. He actually might be better off to consider doubling when BS says not to, if the individual instance has just a slight decrease in expectations, to boost variance*. His thinking process, though, is taking him into the wrong direction.

Does this fallacy have a name?

* I'm not going to say I'm recommending that, exactly



I suppose you could give it my name if you want!

Just kidding, but I see the point you're making. I hope I made the reasoning behind my question clear.

The 58% looks a lot better than the 14%, but the bottom line it appears is that positive is positive.

But let me phrase this a different way. I know that between 60% and 65% of my attempts are converted to wins by only doubling on dealer small cards. If I double as the "Good Book" says and my percentage goes down to say 55%, wouldn't that make a case for my suggestion?



No, it does not. If you have are going to win 55% of the hands, why do you think having less money out is better?
If you win 55% of the hands at $10 a hand, how is that better than winning 55% of the hands at $20?
100 hands at $10 The win rate of 55% gives you $550 in wins and $450 in losses for a net win of $100
100 hands doubled to $20 with a 55% win rate is $1100 in winnings and $900 in losses for a $200 profit.
Do we agree that $200 is better than $100?
How does the fact that you'll win 65% of your doubles against a different number affect anything?
Some doubles are apples, some doubles are oranges. All proper doubles are fruits. Some are better for you than others but they are all good for you and skipping any of them is a bad idea.
If BS calls for you to double, not following it will cost you money. If you learn to count, then there will be times you alter basic strategy but first you need to learn and accept the BS.
moses
moses
Joined: Sep 23, 2013
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 434
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
July 16th, 2021 at 4:16:07 PM permalink
Well said. If you're going to employ basic strategy do what the BS card says. You cant make the cat bark.
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 192
  • Posts: 11705
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
July 16th, 2021 at 4:39:29 PM permalink
Quote: moses

Well said. If you're going to employ basic strategy do what the BS card says. You cant make the cat bark.



I don't believe people should attempt to learn to count until they have BS down. If you can't put the time and effort into getting it down pat, you aren't going to last as a counter.
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 192
  • Posts: 11705
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
July 16th, 2021 at 4:40:41 PM permalink
Quote: moses

Well said. If you're going to employ basic strategy do what the BS card says. You cant make the cat bark.



I don't believe people should attempt to learn to count until they have BS down. If you can't put the time and effort into getting it down pat, you aren't going to last as a counter.
moses
moses
Joined: Sep 23, 2013
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 434
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
July 16th, 2021 at 6:13:35 PM permalink
Quote: billryan

I don't believe people should attempt to learn to count until they have BS down. If you can't put the time and effort into getting it down pat, you aren't going to last as a counter.

It's like a football player putting on his pads. Um, that pad is for your tailbone. It goes it the back.😲
Dieter
Administrator
Dieter
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 1988
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146odiousgambit
July 16th, 2021 at 6:51:37 PM permalink
Quote: odiousgambit

This is a type of gambler's fallacy encountered a lot at this site. When consulting those places where they list fallacies, this one is hard to find. What name should it have?



I would call it the "Law of Gravity" fallacy.



I know what I should do, I know what should happen, but things have been going sideways today and since I never studied law, I'll do something else.

It's probably actually "Cherry picking", in the common fallacies. Insufficient data to come to a conclusion, selected from a biased set.
May the cards fall in your favor.
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 192
  • Posts: 11705
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146odiousgambit
July 16th, 2021 at 7:05:05 PM permalink
There is no surer way to get an Ace than to double down on an eleven.
moses
moses
Joined: Sep 23, 2013
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 434
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
July 16th, 2021 at 7:39:59 PM permalink
Quote: billryan

There is no surer way to get an Ace than to double down on an eleven.

Amen to that. And just where is the Ace with a 9 or 10.🤔

  • Jump to: