2 thru 7 Blackjack free to count on
Poll
 | 3 votes (23.07%) | ||
| | 2 votes (15.38%) | ||
| | 8 votes (61.53%) |
13 members have voted
September 18th, 2011 at 1:39:12 AM
permalink
In discussions of a "no-hassle" countable blackjack, there IS a new gaming product called "2 Thru 7" Blackjack that is full blackjack where counting is allowed or immaterial, by Stanley Ko, a respected mathematician mathematician and very fine game designer.
It uses switching between BJ payouts of 2:1 (when the dealer's up card is 7 or less) to even money when the dealer's up is 8 through Ace - which reasonably well corresponds to the "true count."
Additional benefits of the game allow for:
1. Wide betting limits, like Blackjack already - but without the counting issues and its correspopnding table pit issues, surveillance issues, and policitcal issues all over the place.)
2. No fear of counting hassles - count all you want.
3. Full featured blackjack game, the same Blackjack we all know and love - only difference is the Blackjack payout varying based on dealer's up card.
4 Virtually any existing side bets can be used as is.
5. The most hassle-free solution to providing regular blackjack games, without all the crazy operational issues of card-counting as a casino problem, that "card-counting this, or card-counting that!" involves. The game of blackjack is the same. The only threat this game provides is the reduction of verbiage and windage on gambling forums about the so-called merits of card counting. [Some might argue that is a bad thing. I do not!]
From Stanley Ko
I saw you mention my game “2 thru 7 Blackjack” on Wizard of Vegas [on the "Open Card Counting" BJ thread]. Weaselman says, “The average payout is therefore going to be (2*6 + 1*7)/13 = 1.46 or 2.92 : 2”. His formula assumes that “all up cards are created equal” and therefore is erroneous. When the dealer’s up card is neither 10 nor Ace, a player’s blackjack always gets paid. However, when the dealer’s up card is 10 or Ace, the player’s blackjack can be “contested” if the dealer also turns up a blackjack, thereby not receiving a payoff.
My game pays at least 99% of what the traditional 3:2 Blackjack pays. For comparison purposes, below is the math that illustrates the differential between my game and 3:2 Blackjack if a single deck is used:
Dealer’s Face-Up Card: 2 through 7:
Blackjack pays double, 2:1, and the Probably of uncontested Blackjack win: 0.023167, or 1 in 43 hands.
This Returns 0.046335, - versus regular 3:2 BlackJack at 0.034751 [Note, single deck would pay 6:5 anyway, so the advantge of the game increases in comparisons using single deck BJ.]
Dealer’s Face-Up Card: Ace:
Blackback pays even money except when it ties against dealer's BJ, just as it does in regular blackjack anyway.
Probability of Player's BJ winning: return=0.002009. Traditional "3:2 blackjack" pays 3:2, return = 0.003014
[Dan notes: single deck often pays 6:5, so the advantage of "2 thru 7" blackjack's superiority increases further versus the 6:5 single-deck practice.]
Dealer’s Face-Up Card: 10-value:
Blackback pays even money except when it ties against dealer's BJ flipping over an ace under a ten-card, just as it does in regular blackjack anyway.
Probability of Player's BJ winning: return=0.013593. Traditional "3:2 blackjack" pays 3:2, return = 0.020390
[Dan notes: single deck often pays 6:5, so the advantage of "2 thru 7" blackjack's superiority increases further versus the 6:5 payout on single-deck practice.]
Dealer’s Face-Up Card: 8 or 9:
Probability of Player's BJ winning: return=0.007722. Traditional "3:2 blackjack" pays 3:2, return = 0.011584
[Dan notes: single deck often pays 6:5, so the advantage of "2 thru 7" blackjack's superiority increases further versus the 6:5 payout on single-deck practice.]
Total performance on BJ payouts:
Dealer’s Face-Up Card: any up card (aggregate):
Probability of Player's BJ winning 2:1 with dealer's up card of 2-7: return=0.069660. Traditional "3:2 blackjack" pays 3:2, return =0.069739
[Dan notes: single deck often pays 6:5, so the advantage of "2 thru 7" blackjack's superiority increases further versus the 6:5 payout on single-deck practice.]
[Quote Stanley Ko:] "As can be seen above, the differential in contribution between my game (0.06966) and 3:2 Blackjack (0.069739) is a mere 0.000079. However, due to the decreasing probability of getting a blackjack as the number of decks used increases, the differential will increase slightly:
Number of decks =1: differential = 0.000079, or 0.0079%
Number of decks =2: differential = 0.000399, or 0.0399% ("Double Deck Pitch Game")
Number of decks =6: differential = 0.000602, or 0.0602%
Slightly is an overstatement.
IMO - A screaming new Blackjack game!
I do not know if insurance is allowed (probably not, as that would be count dependent, re-introducing all this "counting issue B.S." If absent, it's once less issue to worry about anyway, and makes for a cleaner and faster game. Indeed, basic strategy itself recommends against insurance - unless you are card counting anyway [ gak! :) ])
Any and ALL BJ side bets would essentially work the same.
Just love this game.
It uses switching between BJ payouts of 2:1 (when the dealer's up card is 7 or less) to even money when the dealer's up is 8 through Ace - which reasonably well corresponds to the "true count."
Additional benefits of the game allow for:
1. Wide betting limits, like Blackjack already - but without the counting issues and its correspopnding table pit issues, surveillance issues, and policitcal issues all over the place.)
2. No fear of counting hassles - count all you want.
3. Full featured blackjack game, the same Blackjack we all know and love - only difference is the Blackjack payout varying based on dealer's up card.
4 Virtually any existing side bets can be used as is.
5. The most hassle-free solution to providing regular blackjack games, without all the crazy operational issues of card-counting as a casino problem, that "card-counting this, or card-counting that!" involves. The game of blackjack is the same. The only threat this game provides is the reduction of verbiage and windage on gambling forums about the so-called merits of card counting. [Some might argue that is a bad thing. I do not!]
From Stanley Ko
I saw you mention my game “2 thru 7 Blackjack” on Wizard of Vegas [on the "Open Card Counting" BJ thread]. Weaselman says, “The average payout is therefore going to be (2*6 + 1*7)/13 = 1.46 or 2.92 : 2”. His formula assumes that “all up cards are created equal” and therefore is erroneous. When the dealer’s up card is neither 10 nor Ace, a player’s blackjack always gets paid. However, when the dealer’s up card is 10 or Ace, the player’s blackjack can be “contested” if the dealer also turns up a blackjack, thereby not receiving a payoff.
My game pays at least 99% of what the traditional 3:2 Blackjack pays. For comparison purposes, below is the math that illustrates the differential between my game and 3:2 Blackjack if a single deck is used:
Dealer’s Face-Up Card: 2 through 7:
Blackjack pays double, 2:1, and the Probably of uncontested Blackjack win: 0.023167, or 1 in 43 hands.
This Returns 0.046335, - versus regular 3:2 BlackJack at 0.034751 [Note, single deck would pay 6:5 anyway, so the advantge of the game increases in comparisons using single deck BJ.]
Dealer’s Face-Up Card: Ace:
Blackback pays even money except when it ties against dealer's BJ, just as it does in regular blackjack anyway.
Probability of Player's BJ winning: return=0.002009. Traditional "3:2 blackjack" pays 3:2, return = 0.003014
[Dan notes: single deck often pays 6:5, so the advantage of "2 thru 7" blackjack's superiority increases further versus the 6:5 single-deck practice.]
Dealer’s Face-Up Card: 10-value:
Blackback pays even money except when it ties against dealer's BJ flipping over an ace under a ten-card, just as it does in regular blackjack anyway.
Probability of Player's BJ winning: return=0.013593. Traditional "3:2 blackjack" pays 3:2, return = 0.020390
[Dan notes: single deck often pays 6:5, so the advantage of "2 thru 7" blackjack's superiority increases further versus the 6:5 payout on single-deck practice.]
Dealer’s Face-Up Card: 8 or 9:
Probability of Player's BJ winning: return=0.007722. Traditional "3:2 blackjack" pays 3:2, return = 0.011584
[Dan notes: single deck often pays 6:5, so the advantage of "2 thru 7" blackjack's superiority increases further versus the 6:5 payout on single-deck practice.]
Total performance on BJ payouts:
Dealer’s Face-Up Card: any up card (aggregate):
Probability of Player's BJ winning 2:1 with dealer's up card of 2-7: return=0.069660. Traditional "3:2 blackjack" pays 3:2, return =0.069739
[Dan notes: single deck often pays 6:5, so the advantage of "2 thru 7" blackjack's superiority increases further versus the 6:5 payout on single-deck practice.]
[Quote Stanley Ko:] "As can be seen above, the differential in contribution between my game (0.06966) and 3:2 Blackjack (0.069739) is a mere 0.000079. However, due to the decreasing probability of getting a blackjack as the number of decks used increases, the differential will increase slightly:
Number of decks =1: differential = 0.000079, or 0.0079%
Number of decks =2: differential = 0.000399, or 0.0399% ("Double Deck Pitch Game")
Number of decks =6: differential = 0.000602, or 0.0602%
Slightly is an overstatement.
IMO - A screaming new Blackjack game!
I do not know if insurance is allowed (probably not, as that would be count dependent, re-introducing all this "counting issue B.S." If absent, it's once less issue to worry about anyway, and makes for a cleaner and faster game. Indeed, basic strategy itself recommends against insurance - unless you are card counting anyway [ gak! :) ])
Any and ALL BJ side bets would essentially work the same.
Just love this game.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
September 18th, 2011 at 3:02:17 AM
permalink
This is a pretty good concept. I voted that I wouldn't play it. First, because of the average BJ win is 1.46, as opposed to 1.5, which Dan said increased the house edge by 0.06% in a six-deck game. Second, even if I'm just playing for fun, I usually still do what I call the "eyeball count." That means if I see a lot of small cards go out, I up my bet, and might walk away for a minute if I see lots of tens and aces. Such a game would remove what little benefit I get from eyeball counting.
However, I'm not the average player. As a player advocate, I would like to see some other compensating rule to make up for the 0.06% lost in a six-deck game.
For the same reason players take "even money" on blackjacks against a dealer ace, I could see a lower happiness factor with this game. By taking "even money," the player is saying I would rather have a 100% chance of winning 1-1, than a 69.2% chance of winning 3-2. This attitude of wanting to lock in a guaranteed blackjack win may cause some ill-will among players who just sit down at this game, not bothering to read the rules.
However, I'm not the average player. As a player advocate, I would like to see some other compensating rule to make up for the 0.06% lost in a six-deck game.
For the same reason players take "even money" on blackjacks against a dealer ace, I could see a lower happiness factor with this game. By taking "even money," the player is saying I would rather have a 100% chance of winning 1-1, than a 69.2% chance of winning 3-2. This attitude of wanting to lock in a guaranteed blackjack win may cause some ill-will among players who just sit down at this game, not bothering to read the rules.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
September 18th, 2011 at 3:46:58 AM
permalink
Mike,
All true.
Your happiness factor is based on immense mathematical knowledge, and an almost innate - visceral - response knowing that "something's very tough to get an edge on," as you yourself admit the player bias, - and as I admit an operator bias.
But that's the beauty of Stanley's design: looks good - even looks GREAT - and it plays the SAME in just about every way aside from the BJ payout switch only - and so very tough to get that "counting edge" that counters look for and thirst for. And so it knocks out BOTH the card counting threat and card counting operational hassle for casinos - while offering essentially the same blackjack game.
The only problem that Stanley's game is going to knock out is the card-counting threat, expense - and annoyance to casino operators - while still offering exactly the same standard and fair blackjack game to all non-counters, and tourists, and recreational players. And to counters to "knock themselves out!"
In fact, many players will say - "Blackjack pays DOUBLE! What a deal! - Now doesn't a dealer's seven and less show up most of the time statiscally! [- kinda like craps "field bet thinking!" on that bet]. So seductive and very fair, too, with 2:1 BJ payouts every time a dealer happens to have a 7 or less showing!
Diabolically brilliant, if I may say, - and as fully as fair and the same to the non-counting Blackjack player in any case, - only that counting avails you counters nothing - who the casino doesn't want to deal with (or to) anyway. Wonderful. As a game designer, I salute Stanley, - Chairman Mao don't have shit on him. Truly the Taipei Saipan King-Fu master of game design, and his commission-free tiles is amazing, too. Some of his game design magic just impresses me no end....
On a long shoe (8-deck) with deep penetration, his game might be countable, because you'd be making so many "card-counting" flat-bet wins at big money that the even money blackjacks might not make up for it. We need a one billion-hand hand simulation against perfect card-counting play heuristics to determine this. (Where is Charles "Charlie the M" [his card-counting gangland name] Mouseau when you need him? The billion-hand simulation master...)
I can see Stanley's "2 thru 7 Blackjack" as a double deck or four-deck shoe with 60%-70% penetration and 20x bet limits as the "new blackjack." Come and play - count your ass you - fine with us. With it's 2:1 blackjack payouts on a dealer bust card showing, it could be killing "Wonging" and make counting a non-issue in blackjack - as a blackjack standard.
Brilliant - and a Perfect answer.
We salute Stanley. Certainly I do as a successful game designer and Casino corporate lackey. You - Mike, and perhaps not so grudgingly also, because this game is simply brilliant in many ways - got to admit - an elegant solution - whether or not it gets out. But it should indeed.
All true.
Your happiness factor is based on immense mathematical knowledge, and an almost innate - visceral - response knowing that "something's very tough to get an edge on," as you yourself admit the player bias, - and as I admit an operator bias.
But that's the beauty of Stanley's design: looks good - even looks GREAT - and it plays the SAME in just about every way aside from the BJ payout switch only - and so very tough to get that "counting edge" that counters look for and thirst for. And so it knocks out BOTH the card counting threat and card counting operational hassle for casinos - while offering essentially the same blackjack game.
The only problem that Stanley's game is going to knock out is the card-counting threat, expense - and annoyance to casino operators - while still offering exactly the same standard and fair blackjack game to all non-counters, and tourists, and recreational players. And to counters to "knock themselves out!"
In fact, many players will say - "Blackjack pays DOUBLE! What a deal! - Now doesn't a dealer's seven and less show up most of the time statiscally! [- kinda like craps "field bet thinking!" on that bet]. So seductive and very fair, too, with 2:1 BJ payouts every time a dealer happens to have a 7 or less showing!
Diabolically brilliant, if I may say, - and as fully as fair and the same to the non-counting Blackjack player in any case, - only that counting avails you counters nothing - who the casino doesn't want to deal with (or to) anyway. Wonderful. As a game designer, I salute Stanley, - Chairman Mao don't have shit on him. Truly the Taipei Saipan King-Fu master of game design, and his commission-free tiles is amazing, too. Some of his game design magic just impresses me no end....
On a long shoe (8-deck) with deep penetration, his game might be countable, because you'd be making so many "card-counting" flat-bet wins at big money that the even money blackjacks might not make up for it. We need a one billion-hand hand simulation against perfect card-counting play heuristics to determine this. (Where is Charles "Charlie the M" [his card-counting gangland name] Mouseau when you need him? The billion-hand simulation master...)
I can see Stanley's "2 thru 7 Blackjack" as a double deck or four-deck shoe with 60%-70% penetration and 20x bet limits as the "new blackjack." Come and play - count your ass you - fine with us. With it's 2:1 blackjack payouts on a dealer bust card showing, it could be killing "Wonging" and make counting a non-issue in blackjack - as a blackjack standard.
Brilliant - and a Perfect answer.
We salute Stanley. Certainly I do as a successful game designer and Casino corporate lackey. You - Mike, and perhaps not so grudgingly also, because this game is simply brilliant in many ways - got to admit - an elegant solution - whether or not it gets out. But it should indeed.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
September 18th, 2011 at 5:24:58 AM
permalink
Why do we need "uncountable" or "counting is okay" blackjack? I have read the other threads related to counting and it appears that casinos get really fired up about those devious folks using the brains God (or nature or whoever you subscribe to as your Maker) gave them. We've gone through pages of stuff about counting being illegal and all of that, but the truth appears to be that no written rule applies and that the casino can bar you for anything they want (at least in Nevada). Counting is legal but it can also get you kicked out is the short story.
My opinion is that casinos make asses of themselves on a daily basis trying to discourage a perceived threat that really makes them more money. What are the statistics? How many casinos went broke even in the heyday of counters? How many more players who could count until drunk played more and more dollars thinking that they could win? How many other ones just enjoyed following along or playing with people they thought might be counting and put more action on the table? I don't think counting hurts the casinos all that much; I think a revival of counting might even HELP them in the long run by bringing blackjack back with more popularity.
It is the same silly mentality that tries to discourage dice setters--instead of hassling a guy who sets the dice a certain way while letting others play "Yahtzee" in front of them before they decide to roll, why not just allow a period of time and pass the dice if someone continually takes too long. Is one of those two (and a hundred more variants) more dangerous to the casino than the other? If dice setting really worked and was proven to work, wouldn't it bring more people to the table trying it--and them bringing along less skill as in blackjack counting?
Whatever the advantage plays are, I think they give the casino an even bigger advantage overall. They produce players. Players aren't disciplined as a group to avoid alcohol, hot chicks, etc. and the advantages fade. The casino makes more money by having people come in thinking they can make money...
"Known counters"? Flat bet them, if they really take a given casino for a ride for a while. Bar them if you must. Change table limits so the max bet is not big enough to spread. Your casinos are nice enough to take all the money we will lose; if someone wins for a bit, let them. My bet is that it will be good for business. Someone will see them win and think they can do the same thing...
My opinion is that casinos make asses of themselves on a daily basis trying to discourage a perceived threat that really makes them more money. What are the statistics? How many casinos went broke even in the heyday of counters? How many more players who could count until drunk played more and more dollars thinking that they could win? How many other ones just enjoyed following along or playing with people they thought might be counting and put more action on the table? I don't think counting hurts the casinos all that much; I think a revival of counting might even HELP them in the long run by bringing blackjack back with more popularity.
It is the same silly mentality that tries to discourage dice setters--instead of hassling a guy who sets the dice a certain way while letting others play "Yahtzee" in front of them before they decide to roll, why not just allow a period of time and pass the dice if someone continually takes too long. Is one of those two (and a hundred more variants) more dangerous to the casino than the other? If dice setting really worked and was proven to work, wouldn't it bring more people to the table trying it--and them bringing along less skill as in blackjack counting?
Whatever the advantage plays are, I think they give the casino an even bigger advantage overall. They produce players. Players aren't disciplined as a group to avoid alcohol, hot chicks, etc. and the advantages fade. The casino makes more money by having people come in thinking they can make money...
"Known counters"? Flat bet them, if they really take a given casino for a ride for a while. Bar them if you must. Change table limits so the max bet is not big enough to spread. Your casinos are nice enough to take all the money we will lose; if someone wins for a bit, let them. My bet is that it will be good for business. Someone will see them win and think they can do the same thing...
September 18th, 2011 at 6:40:22 AM
permalink
Quote: RonCWhy do we need "uncountable" or "counting is okay" blackjack? I have read the other threads related to counting and it appears that casinos get really fired up about those devious folks using the brains God (or nature or whoever you subscribe to as your Maker) gave them. We've gone through pages of stuff about counting being illegal and all of that, but the truth appears to be that no written rule applies and that the casino can bar you for anything they want (at least in Nevada). Counting is legal but it can also get you kicked out is the short story.
And that is the real story. Short, long, - or otherwise.
And Since people think it is unfair to try to count and really cannot, and since casino operators think it unfair to spend resources on these "card-counting pipe dream fantasies," -who's kidding whom in this new day and age?
When you realize that card-counters cannot even truly play at it anyway, and you cannot "have it," then why even pretend that you counters have it when you do not? Reading fantasy stories of the good old days in the Blackjack Forum, of Max Rubin and Ian Andersen, reading stories of accounts of the "MIT-21 team" being comped suites to wins millions of dollars just even to play - all we really have now is clowns being back out of Jokers Wild on Boulder High for raising a $5 bet to $80 by a $14 an-hour-floorman - to take the bus back home to a motel on Boulder Highway. We are actually doing you a favor, because all you are spending for is to be backed off.
Quote: RonCMy opinion is that casinos make asses of themselves on a daily basis trying to discourage a perceived threat that really makes them more money.
No we don't - we take the money, until you win and get backed off and barred. We even back of you when you LOSE while counting, because we're such good guys - doing you a favor with your time and money.
Quote: RonCWhat are the statistics?
The statistics is that nobody at this board or anywhere else makes any money counting cards anymore. No more smiling photos in the Las Vegas Review Journal of Max Rubin, Ian Anderson, Anthony Curtis, or Stanford Wong or anyone else holding wads of cash after taking down a casino, like they do playing poker in the World Series of Poker. There is no world series of card counting, and no one making real money money from, like sice setting, another fools' Gold. Believe that if you will, if you think it is going to happen again. As for flying under the radar, you are only doing so by working a day time job. Only the blackjack forum gets revenue from this by selling pipe dreams.
It's now a lot like selling Roulette schemes or crap game schemes on the Internet, card counting is dead - except for suckers with pipe dreams. The real story is that casinos make more money from card counting than card counters do, and I would not be surprised if they are promoting it, aside from the expenses it causes via pit operations and surveillance crews.
Quote: RoncHow many casinos went broke even in the heyday of counters?
A lot took massive hits in the 80's and 90's. It Financed real Estate operations in Boston as a side business, it was once ridiculously lucrative. DECADES ago.
Quote: RoncHow many more players who could count until drunk played more and more dollars thinking that they could win?
Very few, - and casinos are doing them an act of grace by backing them off and putting them out of their embarassment.
Quote: RonCHow many other ones just enjoyed following along or playing with people they thought might be counting and put more action on the table? I don't think counting hurts the casinos all that much; I think a revival of counting might even HELP them in the long run by bringing blackjack back with more popularity.
It had already done that, to make Blackjack the most popular game, which it will now remain as without regards to any more card-counting at this point whatsoever. It now just causes embarassment to the counter being backed off as a fool from a lost generation, and a needless expense to casino surveillance, security, often with a nneedless shouting match with the counter yelling, "But I've done nothing illegal!" Which to Stacy and Mike I say is true, hence no jail time or arrest photos, - but you're hitting the street anyway.
Quote: RocIt is the same silly mentality that tries to discourage dice setters
We have no problem with dice setters if they are quick, our dice tables have the same consistent hold - it doesn't seem to work for them almost ever, and it is wasting too much time for the set
Quote: Ronc--instead of hassling a guy who sets the dice a certain way while letting others play "Yahtzee" in front of them before they decide to roll, why not just allow a period of time and pass the dice if someone continually takes too long. Is one of those two (and a hundred more variants) more dangerous to the casino than the other? If dice setting really worked and was proven to work, wouldn't it bring more people to the table trying it--and them bringing along less skill as in blackjack counting?
No, it doesn't seem to work, except on rare occasions where a thrower has the skills of a Roger Clemens, (and that's the kind ofg skill it takes on a short table) - and it is more in the throwing of the dice, where it hits the back wall in the sweet spot, - so that the dice setting "originally set" remains statistically true though the throw, as to how they were initially thrown. Next to impossible.
Quote: RonCWhatever the advantage plays are, I think they give the casino an even bigger advantage overall. They produce players. Players aren't disciplined as a group to avoid alcohol, hot chicks, etc. and the advantages fade. The casino makes more money by having people come in thinking they can make money...
Ot have a good time and maybe win some money having fun.
Quote: RonC"Known counters"? Flat bet them,
We already do that...
Quote: RonCif they really take a given casino for a ride for a while. Bar them if you must. Change table limits so the max bet is not big enough to spread. Your casinos are nice enough to take all the money we will lose; if someone wins for a bit, let them. My bet is that it will be good for business. Someone will see them win and think they can do the same thing...
We would actually just be better off adopting Stanley Ko's "2 thru 7" Blackjack game - same game, same advantages, plays the same, and no counting or pit control or surveillance "backing off" security issues.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
September 18th, 2011 at 6:58:04 AM
permalink
Thanks, Dan. Just about everything you write on this subject proves my point (and that of others). Casinos waste a lot of time trying to find counters when counting (or, or more correctly, the perceived ability to count) actually is profitable for them.
You may back off losing counters but I am betting the vast majority of folks backed off were either winning or even...
Most of the need for security and game protection in the casino is to protect the casino from inside jobs. Some of it is needed to protect the players from theft. Way too much energy is spent on chasing down card counters who don't have the time or money to really make money at even if they played sober and perfect. After all, counters still lose...the cards don't always play the way you need them to, and the "advantage" is a couple of percent...
Why all the time devoted to, well, nothing???
You may back off losing counters but I am betting the vast majority of folks backed off were either winning or even...
Most of the need for security and game protection in the casino is to protect the casino from inside jobs. Some of it is needed to protect the players from theft. Way too much energy is spent on chasing down card counters who don't have the time or money to really make money at even if they played sober and perfect. After all, counters still lose...the cards don't always play the way you need them to, and the "advantage" is a couple of percent...
Why all the time devoted to, well, nothing???
September 18th, 2011 at 7:16:11 AM
permalink
You started with a suggestion that "all blackjack games should have the same rules", and ended up pitching a whole new set of rules :)
Who needs another blackjack game, that does not offer anything whatsoever new to the player except for the payout table?
There already is an uncountable blackjack game on the floor. It is any table with a CSM. Ask yourself why there are so few CSM tables around, compared to the regular ones, especially with high limits, and you'll know why this new blackjack game will never work.
Who needs another blackjack game, that does not offer anything whatsoever new to the player except for the payout table?
There already is an uncountable blackjack game on the floor. It is any table with a CSM. Ask yourself why there are so few CSM tables around, compared to the regular ones, especially with high limits, and you'll know why this new blackjack game will never work.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
September 18th, 2011 at 7:16:36 AM
permalink
Ron - thank you so much!!!
You know Ron,
As nutty as this games sounds, - I do think it's time has come.
Because it ISN'T so crazy!
Same blackjack game - with all the same features.
No dealer retraining - Same feaures and options.
Side bets ALL work the same.
Counting is now NOT possible as "bustable" offense by the casino - if fact, count if you want -
Now surviellance can work on
If you're not counting the House Edge is STILL the same!
If you try (which you shouldn't - now CAN) - it's still okay with the casino. Unreal!
Beat that!
I DO think it needs a good name - "Double Pay Blackjack - because the blackjack pays double when 7 or less. Good catch to it.
You know Ron,
As nutty as this games sounds, - I do think it's time has come.
Because it ISN'T so crazy!
Same blackjack game - with all the same features.
No dealer retraining - Same feaures and options.
Side bets ALL work the same.
Counting is now NOT possible as "bustable" offense by the casino - if fact, count if you want -
Now surviellance can work on
If you're not counting the House Edge is STILL the same!
If you try (which you shouldn't - now CAN) - it's still okay with the casino. Unreal!
Beat that!
I DO think it needs a good name - "Double Pay Blackjack - because the blackjack pays double when 7 or less. Good catch to it.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
September 18th, 2011 at 7:27:20 AM
permalink
I remember Stanley coming up with this concept some time ago, at least a couple of years or so I think.
I wasn't sure of his original intention of this concept - I thought it was designed to reduce the effect of counting as well as eliminate the silver needed in a game of Blackjack i.e. a $5 wager will never be paid at $7.50. I don't know which one Stanley placed more emphasis on.
However, one of the unfortunate downsides actually came up in this thread - the bet is actually a lot fairer than it appears. At first hand a player may think:-
"6 cards pay 2/1 and 7 cards pay 1/1 so I'm losing out by 1/13 extra which is about 8%" - Of course, as in Stanley's explanation, this 7:6 ratio is greatly diminished due to the dealer having possibilities of a 'Blackjack' with a 10 or Ace showing.
Nevertheless, players will be guided by their 'basic instinct' and IMO will opt for a 3/2 game for that reason. (If they can find one :-) ).
I wasn't sure of his original intention of this concept - I thought it was designed to reduce the effect of counting as well as eliminate the silver needed in a game of Blackjack i.e. a $5 wager will never be paid at $7.50. I don't know which one Stanley placed more emphasis on.
However, one of the unfortunate downsides actually came up in this thread - the bet is actually a lot fairer than it appears. At first hand a player may think:-
"6 cards pay 2/1 and 7 cards pay 1/1 so I'm losing out by 1/13 extra which is about 8%" - Of course, as in Stanley's explanation, this 7:6 ratio is greatly diminished due to the dealer having possibilities of a 'Blackjack' with a 10 or Ace showing.
Nevertheless, players will be guided by their 'basic instinct' and IMO will opt for a 3/2 game for that reason. (If they can find one :-) ).
September 18th, 2011 at 7:33:39 AM
permalink
As to the assertion that my note about this not being equivalent to the 3:2 bj payout being "incorrect", this is typical "casino talk".
Yes, I ignored dealer's blackjacks, because they don't change the result qualitatively.
If you take dealer's bj into account, the average payout on of the regular game is 1.5 * 161/169 = 1.429
In the "screw the counter" variant, it is (6*2 + 2*1 + 4*1*12/13 + 1*1*9/13)/13 = 1.4142
Bottom line is this is not equivalent to a 3:2 game, but is sufficiently close to allow the house successfully mislead its customers to believe that it is.
This is not a huge difference, but not a tiny one either. It is more than the player loses by limiting splits to two hands, comparable (a little less) with the double on 9-11 only rule or resplitting aces...
Easy: CSM.
House edge is actually even slightly better than a shoe game. Count all you want, it won't change a bit. No need to retrain the dealers, even to make them learn new payouts. Sidebets are still the same. AND ... as an extra bonus, more hands are played per hour.
I don't see any benefit in this game to either the player or the house, other than cheating the customer out of that extra 0.06% (my calculation actually shows 0.07%) of the house edge ... oh, yeah, and also getting rid of the silver on the table.
Yes, I ignored dealer's blackjacks, because they don't change the result qualitatively.
If you take dealer's bj into account, the average payout on of the regular game is 1.5 * 161/169 = 1.429
In the "screw the counter" variant, it is (6*2 + 2*1 + 4*1*12/13 + 1*1*9/13)/13 = 1.4142
Bottom line is this is not equivalent to a 3:2 game, but is sufficiently close to allow the house successfully mislead its customers to believe that it is.
This is not a huge difference, but not a tiny one either. It is more than the player loses by limiting splits to two hands, comparable (a little less) with the double on 9-11 only rule or resplitting aces...
Quote: PaigowdanBeat that!
Easy: CSM.
House edge is actually even slightly better than a shoe game. Count all you want, it won't change a bit. No need to retrain the dealers, even to make them learn new payouts. Sidebets are still the same. AND ... as an extra bonus, more hands are played per hour.
I don't see any benefit in this game to either the player or the house, other than cheating the customer out of that extra 0.06% (my calculation actually shows 0.07%) of the house edge ... oh, yeah, and also getting rid of the silver on the table.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
September 18th, 2011 at 7:58:09 AM
permalink
Quote: SwitchI remember Stanley coming up with this concept some time ago, at least a couple of years or so I think.
Geoff - yes he did, and it is not a bad idea to this day. As you yourself know, a brilliant idea takes years to get born in the gaming industry.
Quote: GeoffI wasn't sure of his original intention of this concept - I thought it was designed to reduce the effect of counting as well as eliminate the silver needed in a game of Blackjack i.e. a $5 wager will never be paid at $7.50. I don't know which one Stanley placed more emphasis on.
That's an additional floor and cage benefit - but should not be a primary thrust of this game's true merits.
Quote: SwitchHowever, one of the unfortunate downsides actually came up in this thread - the bet is actually a lot fairer than it appears.
Sshh!!!...be quiet you, dammit! Out! Damn spot!
Quote: SwitchNevertheless, players will be guided by their 'basic instinct' and IMO will opt for a 3/2 game for that reason. (If they can find one :-) ).
For single deck version, this is not the case.
For double decks, and 4-6 decks shoes, it is close.
It'll play great, as well as remove "the issue."
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
September 18th, 2011 at 8:02:28 AM
permalink
This Returns 0.046335, - versus regular 3:2 BlackJack at 0.034751 [Note, single deck would pay 6:5 anyway, so the advantge of the game increases in comparisons using single deck BJ.]
offering exactly the same standard and fair blackjack game to all
I can see Stanley's "2 thru 7 Blackjack" as a double deck or four-deck shoe with 60%-70% penetration and 20x bet limits as the "new blackjack.
Once again the DEVIL is in the details. Another so called fair game. All allowing counters to play. Oh, we will screw you on the BJ payoffs, only allow multideck, poor penetration, 20x limit. And of course still reserve the right to bar you. And no surrender or insurance of course.
Saying this is just like Blackjack is akin to putting horseshit on a roll, covering it with onions and green peppers, and calling a Philly cheese steak sub.
offering exactly the same standard and fair blackjack game to all
I can see Stanley's "2 thru 7 Blackjack" as a double deck or four-deck shoe with 60%-70% penetration and 20x bet limits as the "new blackjack.
Once again the DEVIL is in the details. Another so called fair game. All allowing counters to play. Oh, we will screw you on the BJ payoffs, only allow multideck, poor penetration, 20x limit. And of course still reserve the right to bar you. And no surrender or insurance of course.
Saying this is just like Blackjack is akin to putting horseshit on a roll, covering it with onions and green peppers, and calling a Philly cheese steak sub.
September 18th, 2011 at 8:04:56 AM
permalink
Quote: buzzpaffThis Returns 0.046335, - versus regular 3:2 BlackJack at 0.034751l
returns where? and to whom? :)
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
September 18th, 2011 at 8:11:10 AM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanreturns where? and to whom? :)
Why to the frustrated old man who started this stupid thread !
September 18th, 2011 at 9:06:02 AM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanThe statistics is that nobody at this board or anywhere else makes any money counting cards anymore.
I call you on that, let's see the statistics.
Furthermore, if you're right, then "2 thru 7" blackjack would not be needed, so why are you tooting its horn?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
September 18th, 2011 at 9:56:30 AM
permalink
Correct me if I'm wrong Dan but your position is counters don't make money anymore because of the house's vigilance in stopping them. You're tooting the horn of this new blackjack game because it lets the pit bosses focus on other things instead of stopping counters. I think the members of this forum should let Dan and his crew believe they are stopping all the counters instead of just the obvious ones.
As for this new game I wouldn't play it for the reasons the Wizard mentioned.
As for this new game I wouldn't play it for the reasons the Wizard mentioned.
September 18th, 2011 at 11:00:21 AM
permalink
I have enjoyed hearing about Dan's adventures in the game industry but I am totally confused by his double-speak on the issue of card counters. I'm not upset with him at all--he is just trying that stuff I used to try on my parents when I was trying to get away with something.
Card counters either ARE making money from casinos or they ARE NOT doing so.
If the card counters ARE NOT making money from the casinos, why all of this attention to them? If it is true that no one makes money from card counting anymore, then why are we still talking about people being backed off?
If card counters ARE making money off the casinos, then further attention would be warranted.
It is one or the other--we don't need new games or counter-allowed tables. New games almost always end up being worse for the player and better for the casino. It may be mere 100ths of a % point, but the casino still stands ot make money with all of the millions of dollars in play.
I'm wondering if the real story is that counters are still making money and the casinos are just upset that they can't stop all of them... Maybe no one is financing huge real estate deals off it but the casino wouldn't like it if one guy was winning enough to make a living off of counting. Staying under the radar may be the norm for counters as opposed to the big hits that drew too much attention. Since they can't find all of them, they treat people who can't count well like counters who can...and back off people they would make tons of money on.
I don't get the angst about people who are not winning...isn't that kind of the goal???
I do want EvenBob's no lose roulette system. I'm headed to Vegas in a month and it would be great to come with my entire bankroll plus some extra!!
Card counters either ARE making money from casinos or they ARE NOT doing so.
If the card counters ARE NOT making money from the casinos, why all of this attention to them? If it is true that no one makes money from card counting anymore, then why are we still talking about people being backed off?
If card counters ARE making money off the casinos, then further attention would be warranted.
It is one or the other--we don't need new games or counter-allowed tables. New games almost always end up being worse for the player and better for the casino. It may be mere 100ths of a % point, but the casino still stands ot make money with all of the millions of dollars in play.
I'm wondering if the real story is that counters are still making money and the casinos are just upset that they can't stop all of them... Maybe no one is financing huge real estate deals off it but the casino wouldn't like it if one guy was winning enough to make a living off of counting. Staying under the radar may be the norm for counters as opposed to the big hits that drew too much attention. Since they can't find all of them, they treat people who can't count well like counters who can...and back off people they would make tons of money on.
I don't get the angst about people who are not winning...isn't that kind of the goal???
I do want EvenBob's no lose roulette system. I'm headed to Vegas in a month and it would be great to come with my entire bankroll plus some extra!!
September 18th, 2011 at 1:16:09 PM
permalink
The Mad magician is at it again. Here we are folks, step right up and see how easily 2-7 BJ defeats any and all counters. It is so much better than 6-5 single deck. Hurry Hurry Hurry. Do the math. It only adds 0.06%
And while the folks are doing the math, Dan says he never intends to offer it as single deck, preferably a 6 deck shoe, and since this
game can NEVER be beaten by counters, he must limit the bets to 20X. Oh and of course no surrender or insurance. And to be safe only 60-70% penetration which means 50-60% at best.
He puts horseshit on a bun instead of a steak and says " Look all the fine sauteed onions and green peppers on my Philly Cheese Steak."
Those snake oil medicine salesman could learn a lot from Dan.
And while the folks are doing the math, Dan says he never intends to offer it as single deck, preferably a 6 deck shoe, and since this
game can NEVER be beaten by counters, he must limit the bets to 20X. Oh and of course no surrender or insurance. And to be safe only 60-70% penetration which means 50-60% at best.
He puts horseshit on a bun instead of a steak and says " Look all the fine sauteed onions and green peppers on my Philly Cheese Steak."
Those snake oil medicine salesman could learn a lot from Dan.
