3 and out
Thread Rating:
Gets you off the bad tables with small losses, and keeps you on the good tables when the going is good.
Quote: dwmI like to play at a table and keep playing double deck bj until lose 3 consecutive hands. If lose 3 hands in a row, even if overlap between shuffles, then quit that table. Then move to another table with same 3 and out. Have been playing with $25 level bets with $750 day bankroll(30 bet bankroll).
Gets you off the bad tables with small losses, and keeps you on the good tables when the going is good.
If you go through all the available tables, will you circle back around to the first table, or leave the property?
Do you have a win goal where you will stop playing for the day (or session) if you hit it?
Quote: dwmI like to play at a table and keep playing double deck bj until lose 3 consecutive hands. If lose 3 hands in a row, even if overlap between shuffles, then quit that table. Then move to another table with same 3 and out. Have been playing with $25 level bets with $750 day bankroll(30 bet bankroll).
Gets you off the bad tables with small losses, and keeps you on the good tables when the going is good.
What you are doing actually lowers your expectation. All else being equal, you are more likely to win money in blackjack after a loss than after a win. What you're doing is sort of like reverse-card-counting.
Of course, the effect is very small. Really what you are doing is wasting your time with superstition that somehow tables or decks are predestined to be "good" or "bad."
Quote: sodawaterWhat you are doing actually lowers your expectation. All else being equal, you are more likely to win money in blackjack after a loss than after a win. What you're doing is sort of like reverse-card-counting.
Of course, the effect is very small. Really what you are doing is wasting your time with superstition that somehow tables or decks are predestined to be "good" or "bad."
Could a string of losses be a "non-counting" way to indicate that the TC is actually negative? Perhaps a shoe can really be "bad", and show it?
Quote: AyecarumbaCould a string of losses be a "non-counting" way to indicate that the TC is actually negative? Perhaps a shoe can really be "bad", and show it?
If you don't know anything else except that you lost three straight hands, the count is likely to be higher than lower. So exactly the opposite of what you're saying.
Quote: ANONYMOUSWe have all been at blackjack tables where it appears the dealer cannot seem to lose. Assuming you cannot count cards and the dealer is winning 3, 4 or 5 hands in a row, is there any assumptions one can make about the count or is all just random? Do you get up and leave (and/or reduce your bet) and go to another table on the theory that the count is against you and that is why you are losing. Or, do you just assume that the past has no influence on the next hand and continue on. What would the Wizard do? I know hunches have nothing to do with it but, particularly in Blackjack, are there any mathematical conclusions one can draw about the future from the fact that the dealer has been winning (or losing for that matter) for what seems like an inordinate amount of time.
Quote: WizardActually, if the dealer has been winning it is slightly likely that it is because lots of small cards have come out, which would mean the deck is rich in large cards, in which case the odds would actually bend in your favor the next hand. But this is a very slight effect and nothing you should be trusting in. I think in these situations you have just been having bad luck and switching tables will not help. Lest some perfectionist correct me I will say that between shuffles blackjack hands do have a slightly negative correlation. If you had asked about roulette or craps I would say the past makes no difference at all. It would also say that about blackjack if a continuous shuffler were used. However I can’t absolutely say blackjack hands are independent for the reason I just explained.
Quote: sodawaterWizard has also answered this topic in his old column: https://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/124/
Quote: ANONYMOUSWe have all been at blackjack tables where it appears the dealer cannot seem to lose. Assuming you cannot count cards and the dealer is winning 3, 4 or 5 hands in a row, is there any assumptions one can make about the count or is all just random? Do you get up and leave (and/or reduce your bet) and go to another table on the theory that the count is against you and that is why you are losing. Or, do you just assume that the past has no influence on the next hand and continue on. What would the Wizard do? I know hunches have nothing to do with it but, particularly in Blackjack, are there any mathematical conclusions one can draw about the future from the fact that the dealer has been winning (or losing for that matter) for what seems like an inordinate amount of time.
Quote: WizardActually, if the dealer has been winning it is slightly likely that it is because lots of small cards have come out, which would mean the deck is rich in large cards, in which case the odds would actually bend in your favor the next hand. But this is a very slight effect and nothing you should be trusting in. I think in these situations you have just been having bad luck and switching tables will not help. Lest some perfectionist correct me I will say that between shuffles blackjack hands do have a slightly negative correlation. If you had asked about roulette or craps I would say the past makes no difference at all. It would also say that about blackjack if a continuous shuffler were used. However I can’t absolutely say blackjack hands are independent for the reason I just explained.
Excellent sodawater! Thanks for the reference!
