Playing Blackjack one on one with dealer
I would hope I'd win 40 hands ahead sooner than losing 40 hands behind.
Quote: technicsI believe that the Wizard has stated that playing against the Dealer one on one (by yourself) is plus EV, My experience seems to confirm this as true . Curious as to everyone’s thoughts.
link to original post
I'd be surprised if he said that, and would have to see the context. Playing one on one makes the game faster, with many more hands per hour. It doesn't change the house edge and it eliminates any possibility of scavenger plays.
Agree, Needs context. Might give more scope to exploit dealer errors.Quote: billryanQuote: technicsI believe that the Wizard has stated that playing against the Dealer one on one (by yourself) is plus EV, My experience seems to confirm this as true . Curious as to everyone’s thoughts.
link to original post
I'd be surprised if he said that, and would have to see the context. Playing one on one makes the game faster, with many more hands per hour. It doesn't change the house edge and it eliminates any possibility of scavenger plays.
link to original post
Quote: billryanThere was a guy in AC who exploited the shuffle with his cuts, playing one on one but those are exceptions to the rule.
link to original post
I believe playing blackjack one-on-one (solo) has a smaller variance per hand, than playing with another player. However, I haven’t found a mathematical proof for this problem. Can anybody step in on this problem?
If you’re playing by yourself, and playing three hands, then 75% of all black jacks will be in one of your hands. I think that’s where part of the +EV comes from.
Quote: DJTeddyBearJust a wild ass guess here, but I believe it involves playing multiple hands as well.
If you’re playing by yourself, and playing three hands, then 75% of all black jacks will be in one of your hands. I think that’s where part of the +EV comes from.
link to original post
You just brought up a new concept. Is it possible to beat the blackjack game just by varying the number of hands while flat betting all the way? Interesting!
While accurate, I think it is meaningless.
Quote: billryanI overheard a guy saying he won't play one on one because the dealer gets 50% of the BJs whereas with four players, he gets 20%.
While accurate, I think it is meaningless.
link to original post
This is definitely meaningless. I agree.
Quote: acesideQuote: DJTeddyBearJust a wild ass guess here, but I believe it involves playing multiple hands as well.
If you’re playing by yourself, and playing three hands, then 75% of all black jacks will be in one of your hands. I think that’s where part of the +EV comes from.
link to original post
You just brought up a new concept. Is it possible to beat the blackjack game just by varying the number of hands while flat betting all the way? Interesting!
link to original post
Being able to spread from one minimum bet to three large bets can be a great strategy if you are counting and do it at the right time. Randomly switching from one hand to three will simply let you play more hands in a shorter timespan. I don't see how it would let you overcome the house edge by itself.
Quote: billryanQuote: acesideQuote: DJTeddyBearJust a wild ass guess here, but I believe it involves playing multiple hands as well.
If you’re playing by yourself, and playing three hands, then 75% of all black jacks will be in one of your hands. I think that’s where part of the +EV comes from.
link to original post
You just brought up a new concept. Is it possible to beat the blackjack game just by varying the number of hands while flat betting all the way? Interesting!
link to original post
Being able to spread from one minimum bet to three large bets can be a great strategy if you are counting and do it at the right time. Randomly switching from one hand to three will simply let you play more hands in a shorter timespan. I don't see how it would let you overcome the house edge by itself.
link to original post
This is exactly what is interesting!
If there is "something else going on", playing heads up should get you more rounds per hour, each of which may be +EV.
2. If the count is high, a non AP may take a bust card away from the dealer when they should stand based on BS and deviations.
3. If you are first dealt, the count may change as players absorb cards. Changing a count based decision.
4. When the count is low, you may leave. When the count is high, you share high cards with other players.
5. A non AP may waste high cards when they should stand.
6, A non AP may give a dealer more opportunities to make a good hand by standing when they should hit.
How do you mean? What's the significance?Quote: mosesThe last card of your current hand could be the first card of your next hand in straight up play.
link to original post
At the bricks and Mortar I occasionally visit, one dealer gets ahead of himself and draws next card from the shoe. Very occasionally I can get a glimpse of that and say 'No. I think I'll stick' Messes with his head and that next card becomes his hole card (ENHC rules)
It annoys me when he pre-emts my decisions so I do anything to get back at him.
So, by not hitting, there is a 50% chance the first card of my next hand will be an Ace or a 10.
Don S has written some interesting posts on the value of starting one's hand with a 10 or Ace.
Quote: mosesFor instance, suppose I have 16vs10 and the deck composition is 50% 10's/A's remainng and 50% other cards. Chances are I will bust or end up with 17. Neither would be enough to beat the nearly 50% chance of the dealer having a 10 in the hole.
So, by not hitting, there is a 50% chance the first card of my next hand will be an Ace or a 10.
Don S has written some interesting posts on the value of starting one's hand with a 10 or Ace.
link to original post
I think its true that for a shoe with a high positive count, you would prefer to not consume cards without a good reason. So, for a hit?stand decision that is an incredibly close call, you might prefer to stand even if it has a slightly lower EV. But in practice, its hard to know when to make that play unless you are tracking the cards with a computer.
Quote: mosesFor instance, suppose I have 16vs10 and the deck composition is 50% 10's/A's remainng and 50% other cards. Chances are I will bust or end up with 17. Neither would be enough to beat the nearly 50% chance of the dealer having a 10 in the hole.
So, by not hitting, there is a 50% chance the first card of my next hand will be an Ace or a 10.
Don S has written some interesting posts on the value of starting one's hand with a 10 or Ace.
link to original post
I recall that if the count is high enough, not to split 8’s against a 10. And stand or surender on 8’s. 10 and 6 should also stand with a positive count. If the dealer has a small card face down, dealer may bust hitting a high card.
Playing with a full table will find yourself more often at the beginning of a shoe hovering around zero count at the house edge.
I have not played for a year til last nite. 6:5 bj table 6 deck, big house edge. Lost $300. I gambled.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: mosesFor instance, suppose I have 16vs10 and the deck composition is 50% 10's/A's remainng and 50% other cards. Chances are I will bust or end up with 17. Neither would be enough to beat the nearly 50% chance of the dealer having a 10 in the hole.
So, by not hitting, there is a 50% chance the first card of my next hand will be an Ace or a 10.
Don S has written some interesting posts on the value of starting one's hand with a 10 or Ace.
link to original post
I think its true that for a shoe with a high positive count, you would prefer to not consume cards without a good reason. So, for a hit?stand decision that is an incredibly close call, you might prefer to stand even if it has a slightly lower EV. But in practice, its hard to know when to make that play unless you are tracking the cards with a computer.
link to original post
I know you are an expert, so let me direct my question to you. When I play a 6-deck blackjack shoe flat betting all the way and all hands, I believe playing solo (myself) has a smaller variance per hand, as compared to playing with another player. Is this thinking mathematically correct?
Quote: acesideQuote: gordonm888Quote: mosesFor instance, suppose I have 16vs10 and the deck composition is 50% 10's/A's remainng and 50% other cards. Chances are I will bust or end up with 17. Neither would be enough to beat the nearly 50% chance of the dealer having a 10 in the hole.
So, by not hitting, there is a 50% chance the first card of my next hand will be an Ace or a 10.
Don S has written some interesting posts on the value of starting one's hand with a 10 or Ace.
link to original post
I think its true that for a shoe with a high positive count, you would prefer to not consume cards without a good reason. So, for a hit?stand decision that is an incredibly close call, you might prefer to stand even if it has a slightly lower EV. But in practice, its hard to know when to make that play unless you are tracking the cards with a computer.
link to original post
I know you are an expert, so let me direct my question to you. When I play a 6-deck blackjack shoe flat betting all the way and all hands, I believe playing solo (myself) has a smaller variance per hand, as compared to playing with another player. Is this thinking mathematically correct?
link to original post
If the other players are less skilled, I think the variance will be more. How much more? Idk. There is already a-lot of variance playing solo.
In a single deck. Let's say your 1st hand is 9,7vs10. 16 cards (2-5) will improve the hand to 18 to 21. 29 cards will break it. 4 will get you to 17. Those same 4 Aces would also start your next hand with an Ace while 15 tens still remain in the deck.
25 cards make the dealer stop. At 17 thru 20.
20 cards make the dealer hit. At 12 thru 16.
If 1 of 4 Aces are in the hole, conversation over.
IF 13 more cards 7-10 were to come out? And not one 2-5? Your chances of getting to 18 to 21 are still only 50%.
Quote: mosesShoes are most likely a different story.
In a single deck. Let's say your 1st hand is 9,7vs10. 16 cards (2-5) will improve the hand to 18 to 21. 29 cards will break it. 4 will get you to 17. Those same 4 Aces would also start your next hand with an Ace while 15 tens still remain in the deck.
25 cards make the dealer stop. At 17 thru 20.
20 cards make the dealer hit. At 12 thru 16.
If 1 of 4 Aces are in the hole, conversation over.
IF 13 more cards 7-10 were to come out? And not one 2-5? Your chances of getting to 18 to 21 are still only 50%.
link to original post
Single deck BJ that pays 3-2 and doesn't have a crazy minimum is not a game available to most. I recently attended a charity night that advertised single deck,3-2. After driving almost three hours to the middle of nowhere, I found out the game was indeed single deck, but they shuffle after every round.
They had a side bet I've never seen. If you and the dealer both get a BJ, it pays $200. If the dealer BJ is in Spades, it pays double. I didn't stick around long, but it seemed like everyone was playing the sidebet.
So heck yes, I want the straight up game with decent pen in 1 or 2 decks. More than two? I'd turn blue.
Give me 7 or more rounds in single deck? I'd go Thorpe on you. 🤣
Going to 3 hands? And you're soon watching from the stands.😉
Quote: mosesIt all starts with a single deck of cards. Sort like the free throw line.. it's the best place to line up your shot.. For each deck added, the computing skews and difficulty increases. Thus estimates are necessary. But in single and double deck, knowing what is played and still remains is doable.
So heck yes, I want the straight up game with decent pen in 1 or 2 decks. More than two? I'd turn blue.
Give me 7 or more rounds in single deck? I'd go Thorpe on you. 🤣
Going to 3 hands? And you're soon watching from the stands.😉
link to original post
If it’s a full table Id rather play 6 deck, I don’t like waiting during shuffling.
Quote: jjjooogggQuote: mosesIt all starts with a single deck of cards. Sort like the free throw line.. it's the best place to line up your shot.. For each deck added, the computing skews and difficulty increases. Thus estimates are necessary. But in single and double deck, knowing what is played and still remains is doable.
So heck yes, I want the straight up game with decent pen in 1 or 2 decks. More than two? I'd turn blue.
Give me 7 or more rounds in single deck? I'd go Thorpe on you. 🤣
Going to 3 hands? And you're soon watching from the stands.😉
link to original post
If it’s a full table Id rather play 6 deck, I don’t like waiting during shuffling.
link to original post
I agree. I've bought houses in less time than it takes to shuffle 6 decks.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: mosesFor instance, suppose I have 16vs10 and the deck composition is 50% 10's/A's remainng and 50% other cards. Chances are I will bust or end up with 17. Neither would be enough to beat the nearly 50% chance of the dealer having a 10 in the hole.
So, by not hitting, there is a 50% chance the first card of my next hand will be an Ace or a 10.
Don S has written some interesting posts on the value of starting one's hand with a 10 or Ace.
link to original post
I think its true that for a shoe with a high positive count, you would prefer to not consume cards without a good reason. So, for a hit?stand decision that is an incredibly close call, you might prefer to stand even if it has a slightly lower EV. But in practice, its hard to know when to make that play unless you are tracking the cards with a computer.
link to original post
Not so fast my friend. If we are talking shoes? Then yes, you need the brain of Rainman, the valor of Rambo, with an act of Forrest Gump. "I'm not smat man, but I know what a blackjack ez."
But a percentage count of knowing what has been played vs what still remains is very doable up to two decks.
Quote: mosesQuote: gordonm888Quote: mosesFor instance, suppose I have 16vs10 and the deck composition is 50% 10's/A's remainng and 50% other cards. Chances are I will bust or end up with 17. Neither would be enough to beat the nearly 50% chance of the dealer having a 10 in the hole.
So, by not hitting, there is a 50% chance the first card of my next hand will be an Ace or a 10.
Don S has written some interesting posts on the value of starting one's hand with a 10 or Ace.
link to original post
I think its true that for a shoe with a high positive count, you would prefer to not consume cards without a good reason. So, for a hit?stand decision that is an incredibly close call, you might prefer to stand even if it has a slightly lower EV. But in practice, its hard to know when to make that play unless you are tracking the cards with a computer.
link to original post
Not so fast my friend. If we are talking shoes? Then yes, you need the brain of Rainman, the valor of Rambo, with an act of Forrest Gump. "I'm not smat man, but I know what a blackjack ez."
But a percentage count of knowing what has been played vs what still remains is very doable up to two decks.
link to original post
Isn't that the same nonsense Hollywood has been protecting for years? " It's impossible to count an 8 deck shoe?
What garbage. If you can count a single deck, you can count 8 decks. The ratio of good to bad cards doesn't change no matter how many decks you have. For many balanced counts, you need to add another calculation for more decks, taking the running count and dividing it to get a true count, but use an unbalanced count and you don't need to do that.
Quote: billryanQuote: mosesQuote: gordonm888Quote: mosesFor instance, suppose I have 16vs10 and the deck composition is 50% 10's/A's remainng and 50% other cards. Chances are I will bust or end up with 17. Neither would be enough to beat the nearly 50% chance of the dealer having a 10 in the hole.
So, by not hitting, there is a 50% chance the first card of my next hand will be an Ace or a 10.
Don S has written some interesting posts on the value of starting one's hand with a 10 or Ace.
link to original post
I think its true that for a shoe with a high positive count, you would prefer to not consume cards without a good reason. So, for a hit?stand decision that is an incredibly close call, you might prefer to stand even if it has a slightly lower EV. But in practice, its hard to know when to make that play unless you are tracking the cards with a computer.
link to original post
Not so fast my friend. If we are talking shoes? Then yes, you need the brain of Rainman, the valor of Rambo, with an act of Forrest Gump. "I'm not smat man, but I know what a blackjack ez."
But a percentage count of knowing what has been played vs what still remains is very doable up to two decks.
link to original post
Isn't that the same nonsense Hollywood has been protecting for years? " It's impossible to count an 8 deck shoe?
What garbage. If you can count a single deck, you can count 8 decks. The ratio of good to bad cards doesn't change no matter how many decks you have. For many balanced counts, you need to add another calculation for more decks, taking the running count and dividing it to get a true count, but use an unbalanced count and you don't need to do that.
link to original post
Big difference between counting and knowing.
Quote: ChumpChangeI win more on negative counts without even increasing my bets on positive counts.
link to original post
Of course. Less 10s to break your hand. Increased small cards to improve your hand without busting.
Quote: billryanQuote: mosesQuote: gordonm888Quote: mosesFor instance, suppose I have 16vs10 and the deck composition is 50% 10's/A's remainng and 50% other cards. Chances are I will bust or end up with 17. Neither would be enough to beat the nearly 50% chance of the dealer having a 10 in the hole.
So, by not hitting, there is a 50% chance the first card of my next hand will be an Ace or a 10.
Don S has written some interesting posts on the value of starting one's hand with a 10 or Ace.
link to original post
I think its true that for a shoe with a high positive count, you would prefer to not consume cards without a good reason. So, for a hit?stand decision that is an incredibly close call, you might prefer to stand even if it has a slightly lower EV. But in practice, its hard to know when to make that play unless you are tracking the cards with a computer.
link to original post
Not so fast my friend. If we are talking shoes? Then yes, you need the brain of Rainman, the valor of Rambo, with an act of Forrest Gump. "I'm not smat man, but I know what a blackjack ez."
But a percentage count of knowing what has been played vs what still remains is very doable up to two decks.
link to original post
Isn't that the same nonsense Hollywood has been protecting for years? " It's impossible to count an 8 deck shoe?
What garbage. If you can count a single deck, you can count 8 decks. The ratio of good to bad cards doesn't change no matter how many decks you have. For many balanced counts, you need to add another calculation for more decks, taking the running count and dividing it to get a true count, but use an unbalanced count and you don't need to do that.
link to original post
Counting 416 cards is as easy as 52? Garbage!
Quote: mosesQuote: billryanQuote: mosesQuote: gordonm888Quote: mosesFor instance, suppose I have 16vs10 and the deck composition is 50% 10's/A's remainng and 50% other cards. Chances are I will bust or end up with 17. Neither would be enough to beat the nearly 50% chance of the dealer having a 10 in the hole.
So, by not hitting, there is a 50% chance the first card of my next hand will be an Ace or a 10.
Don S has written some interesting posts on the value of starting one's hand with a 10 or Ace.
link to original post
I think its true that for a shoe with a high positive count, you would prefer to not consume cards without a good reason. So, for a hit?stand decision that is an incredibly close call, you might prefer to stand even if it has a slightly lower EV. But in practice, its hard to know when to make that play unless you are tracking the cards with a computer.
link to original post
Not so fast my friend. If we are talking shoes? Then yes, you need the brain of Rainman, the valor of Rambo, with an act of Forrest Gump. "I'm not smat man, but I know what a blackjack ez."
But a percentage count of knowing what has been played vs what still remains is very doable up to two decks.
link to original post
Isn't that the same nonsense Hollywood has been protecting for years? " It's impossible to count an 8 deck shoe?
What garbage. If you can count a single deck, you can count 8 decks. The ratio of good to bad cards doesn't change no matter how many decks you have. For many balanced counts, you need to add another calculation for more decks, taking the running count and dividing it to get a true count, but use an unbalanced count and you don't need to do that.
link to original post
Counting 416 cards is as easy as 52? Garbage!
link to original post
You aren't counting 416 cards. You are counting the next card out. Do you find it harder to count the first card of the shoe than the 17th? the 35th card? If the answer is yes, you shouldn't be counting. If the answer is no, then why would the 254th card be any different than the 35th or the 253rd?
If you are using a balanced count, you have to divide by half decks, or quarter decks but I use KISS/TK0 which produces a true count without dividing by anything.
Quote: mosesIf you lose count you get a reshuffle every 6 or 7 rounds. You have the ability to know what has been played and what still remains.
link to original post
With 500 cards, you can be off by a card or two, and if losing track of the count is an issue, you shouldn't be playing for money.
Quote: billryanQuote: mosesIf you lose count you get a reshuffle every 6 or 7 rounds. You have the ability to know what has been played and what still remains.
link to original post
With 500 cards, you can be off by a card or two, and if losing track of the count is an issue, you shouldn't be playing for money.
link to original post
I agree. But you know your count is perfect over 500 cards? Hmm.. doubtful.
If 4 Aces get played in the first round, I know I'm not getting a blackjack for the next 5 or 6 rounds. On the flip side, if no Aces have been played after 5 rounds, spreading to two hands with alot of tens still remaining, I have an advantage' not just a threshold.
Playing one on one against the dealer is advantageous IF you KNOW exactly what has been played and what remains to be played. Or if you know the percentages of high cards remaining vs low cards.
If not, you are playing thresholds. So, if that is the case, it doesn't matter how many are at the table.
Quote: mosesGetting back to the statement thread.
Playing one on one against the dealer is advantageous IF you KNOW exactly what has been played and what remains to be played. Or if you know the percentages of high cards remaining vs low cards.
If not, you are playing thresholds. So, if that is the case, it doesn't matter how many are at the table.
link to original post
If you are playing double deck in first position and make a count based deviation, the count can drastically change as the players recieve cards.
If you are playing last position face down double deck, you are making count based decisions without knowing the actual running count.
Just playing one on one with a dealer does not put the player at an advantage.
Just playing one on one with a dealer does not put the player at an advantage.
For instance, if the deck is exhausted of 2 thru 5, there is no point in hitting 16. If the deck is out of Aces, no one is getting a blackjack. There are many more. But these are the obvious.
The player is in control. Be smart enough to find your advantage situations. If not, then you just another threshold player chasing variance.
Quote: billryanI'm still waiting to see if Mr. Wizard ever said one on one was a player advantage and what the context is.
Just playing one on one with a dealer does not put the player at an advantage.
link to original post
In general, i dont think that the amount of players matter. Yet, likely an infinitesimal difference.
In any event, he is talking about needing a skill few players possess.
Quote: billryanSomeone who tracks every card might occasionally be able to do what Moses says, but the lost scavenger opportunities would negate any perceived advantage.
In any event, he is talking about needing a skill few players possess.
link to original post
Good point. Only about 5 players that I'm aware of understand the concept. There are more scavenger opportunities in the double deck game rules. Single deck is a matter of letting the game come to you. Thus a percentage count provides a higher frequency of large bets without giving up strong deck compositions.
In other words, don't turn a positive deck into a negative one by getting 10s and Aces that get you to 25 and 26.
Use them as the first card of your next two hands with more money bet.
If your bet minimum is $50 and a column count turns 10 losing hands by standing on 16 into winning hands a month. That's an extra $1k in my pocket. Very doable for a frequent player.
By the way. I think that reno was the place i was met with above avg resistance before i played my first hand. If you are accepted there, that is something.
Id like to think of myself as the dark oz of the west coast.
