Confused
February 25th, 2025 at 4:51:34 PM
permalink
Of course it is "not EV per dollar bet. It’s EV per dollar of initial bet". That has been established on this very thread over and over again. But maybe you didn't read all of the responses and comments? That would explain some of why we seem to be talking past each other here. Your comments remind of that famous quote of Upton Sinclair's: "It is impossible to get a person to understand what his livelihood depends on him not understanding".
By not including every dollar at risk the combinatorial analysis is misleading. And I have explained why on this thread in enough different ways that I shouldn't need to explain any further.
By not including every dollar at risk the combinatorial analysis is misleading. And I have explained why on this thread in enough different ways that I shouldn't need to explain any further.
February 25th, 2025 at 5:03:30 PM
permalink
Ok that’s fine. You said you wanted a discussion upthread but clearly don’t. So I’ll stop. My opinion is you are not engaging in good faith.
Best of luck.
Best of luck.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
February 25th, 2025 at 8:27:27 PM
permalink
You should be ready with 8X your initial bet for each hand in case you get wrapped up in splits and double downs across the board. If you run out of money mid-hand, just hit.
February 25th, 2025 at 9:12:27 PM
permalink
Quote: unJonOk that’s fine. You said you wanted a discussion upthread but clearly don’t. So I’ll stop. My opinion is you are not engaging in good faith.
Best of luck.
link to original post
You're absolutely right. I think RLL123 thinks there should be a reduction in the EV numbers because of the added risk of betting more.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
February 26th, 2025 at 4:05:50 AM
permalink
Quote: RLL123My math skills are limited. But I seem to have found some flaws in the basic strategy for Blackjack, maybe? To simplify, take the hand A,2 with a 6 up. The analyzer on the Wizard's simulator recommends doubling down and provides the following analysis: a double down provides a return, per dollar bet, of 0.230210. As compared to a lessor return per dollar bet when hitting: 0.168495. But because the option of hitting allows more wins overall, due to the options of additional hits, all of which are risk-free, for example an A,2 can draw an Ace, a 2, 3, 4, or even a 5, and still take another hit without any risk of busting. So, if this hand is played in accordance with Basic Strategy, a player will never bust and win much more often when hitting rather than when doubling down (of course doubling down only allows a draw of one card). So, on a per dollar bet basis, how might the return when doubling down be higher than when hitting?
link to original post
I’ll say the OP confusion can be explained by Wizards Biblical sig:
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow."
RLL123 is afraid she can lose a few more hands when DD compared to hit. She is aware though that she wins more money given an adequate bankroll. Play 100 hands and lose 2 extra hands when DD. The player is afraid that those 2 losing hands occur early in the game and wipe out the BR. Rare situations, such as insufficient BR and unusually big bets.
But her POV makes a lot of sense in card counting. We talked about it in a said hot thread here: Card Counting Quirks?.
Makes a whole lot of sense. Many experts say that the counter makes more money not necessarily wins more hands. Even gurus say that. I quote Norm Wattenberger and Don Schlesinger whose quotations led to the thread above. They said on the Bj the forum: You don't have to win over 50% of the hands to win due to blackjacks, doubles, splits and insurance. We're trying to explain to you that winning more hands as the count goes up is NOT the primary reason that you win more money. In fact, it's the least important reason of all. You've already made it clear that you think winning > 50% of the hands (excluding ties), which happens when the TC >=+5, is very important. We're telling you that it isn't. If I make three bets and lose $100 on two of them but win $500 on the third, who cares that I won just 33.3% of the hands?
It appears clear to me that counting gurus (most of them) do not consider the cost of counting – the counter bets more in all counting situations but he doesn’t winn in ALL situations. If you doubled your bet in 10 plus situations and say won 5 of them. You won 1000 but your cost was 2000.
This is the big problem – counters assume she wins every situation when the count is high. The reality is very different. It is well documented that counters encounter at times much bigger losses than the BS players. Quoting a card counting guru:
“Three first-rate counters playing the Hi-Opt II lost over $60,000 in less than 3 weeks. There is new research going on concerning what happens when the count is extremely positive. The player is actually at a disadvantage when the count is a very high plus.” (Lance Humble, “The World's Greatest Blackjack Book”).
I ask as the OP does: Choose to win more or lose less? Choose more wisdom or less sorrow? Depends on the bankroll more than anything else. Then, personality plays a role.
Last edited by: toolyp on Feb 26, 2025
February 26th, 2025 at 4:54:58 AM
permalink
Quote: toolyp
I ask as the OP does: Choose to win more or lose less? Choose more wisdom or less sorrow? Depends on the bankroll more than anything else. Then, personality plays a role.
link to original post
Good post. Interesting stuff.
For me: choose to play in a way that maximizes expected value. When the courage to do so fails, choose the wisdom to play a different game. Elsewise, choose the serenity to accept the sorrow that will follow.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
February 26th, 2025 at 6:12:01 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardQuote: unJonOk that’s fine. You said you wanted a discussion upthread but clearly don’t. So I’ll stop. My opinion is you are not engaging in good faith.
Best of luck.
link to original post
You're absolutely right. I think RLL123 thinks there should be a reduction in the EV numbers because of the added risk of betting more.
link to original post
Perhaps I'm having trouble understanding.
Isn't the cost of increasing the bet with a double already part of the EV's used to calculate basic strategy?
May the cards fall in your favor.
February 26th, 2025 at 7:00:08 AM
permalink
Quote: DieterIsn't the cost of increasing the bet with a double already part of the EV's used to calculate basic strategy?
link to original post
Yes
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
February 26th, 2025 at 7:08:24 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardQuote: DieterIsn't the cost of increasing the bet with a double already part of the EV's used to calculate basic strategy?
link to original post
Yes
link to original post
Shhhh. Evidently, this isn't widely known. Anyone who has vowed to defend the Sacred Flow of the Cards should defend our Secret Knowledge, not discuss it on public websites where the casino might b e lurking.
The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
February 26th, 2025 at 7:38:17 AM
permalink
The EV of a double down bet takes into account both of these:
1. when the bet wins, the amount won is twice the amount that is won when simply HITTING
2. when the bet loses, the amount lost is twice the amount that is lost when simply HITTING
Because both of these are factored into the EV calculation, the Expected Value does indeed take into account that an additional amount of money is being wagered as part of a DOUBLE option.
When you are faced with a decision of whether or not to wager $100 in order to play a blackjack hand you need to consider:
- the probability of winning $200
- the probability of winning $100
- the probability of pushing, neither winning or losing
- the probability of losing $100
- the probability of losing $200
The EXPECTED VALUE combines all those probabilities of all those outcomes to inform you as to the wisdom, or cost, of making your initial bet and then playing according to basic strategy. The fact that basic strategy requires one to double down and wager more on certain situations is correctly factored into the Expected Value of your decision to play the game and make your initial wager.
1. when the bet wins, the amount won is twice the amount that is won when simply HITTING
2. when the bet loses, the amount lost is twice the amount that is lost when simply HITTING
Because both of these are factored into the EV calculation, the Expected Value does indeed take into account that an additional amount of money is being wagered as part of a DOUBLE option.
When you are faced with a decision of whether or not to wager $100 in order to play a blackjack hand you need to consider:
- the probability of winning $200
- the probability of winning $100
- the probability of pushing, neither winning or losing
- the probability of losing $100
- the probability of losing $200
The EXPECTED VALUE combines all those probabilities of all those outcomes to inform you as to the wisdom, or cost, of making your initial bet and then playing according to basic strategy. The fact that basic strategy requires one to double down and wager more on certain situations is correctly factored into the Expected Value of your decision to play the game and make your initial wager.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
February 26th, 2025 at 7:38:17 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardQuote: DieterIsn't the cost of increasing the bet with a double already part of the EV's used to calculate basic strategy?
link to original post
Yes
link to original post
Both. Deion Sanders answered when he was asked if he wanted to play football or baseball. Here both OP and DD advocates are right.
Basic strategy is valid for flat betting only –except for DD and SP (occurring 1 in 10 hands). OPs point was: the risk is higher to lose when DD instead of hit. So if my bet is bigger I risk losing bigger when I DD as I lose 2 extra hands in 100.
Wizard and Dieter and all pundits here are also right. In the long run you add more money to your winnings if you DD as the basic strategy preaches.
Here is the kicker that unites both camps. If you already stacked a bigger bet on the table, you win more money anyway. You don’t have to double down. Usually I play like that IF my bet is big. I earn more money without doubling up my hand. But I become more concerned with the possibility of losing. I think of not risking to lose double than what I bet. It could cost me a big chunk of my bankroll.
Splitting is a tricky situation for me when my bet is already big. I still have to split in certain situations even though I risk a larger loss. I split more carefree for upcards 2-6. I know I can reduce the number of small cards that dealer can add to her pathetic upcard. The worst cases for me with a big bet: 8+8 or A+A against upcards T, A.
RLL123 if you watching, you can do like I do. Aint no shame how other players at the table react to your decisions.
February 26th, 2025 at 8:02:15 AM
permalink
I just do it robotically no matter how much I have out there when it comes to doubling down. If I am supposed to double down, I do. And in the situation I described above I lost a huge hand but still, I did what I should have done.
Where I pause is if I have a huge bet out there and get blackjack and the dealer has an ace up. I put the big bet out there because I expected to catch a 10, I know there are a lot of 10s coming, and hence...the dealer has a good chance of catching a 10 too. In such a situation I might take even money, even though normal deck composition and count I would not. I had a hand not too long ago where I did this and sure enough, the dealer did have it, and I collected thousands versus nothing.
Where I pause is if I have a huge bet out there and get blackjack and the dealer has an ace up. I put the big bet out there because I expected to catch a 10, I know there are a lot of 10s coming, and hence...the dealer has a good chance of catching a 10 too. In such a situation I might take even money, even though normal deck composition and count I would not. I had a hand not too long ago where I did this and sure enough, the dealer did have it, and I collected thousands versus nothing.
I tell you it’s wonderful to be here, man. I don’t give a damn who wins or loses. It’s just wonderful to be here with you people.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/
February 26th, 2025 at 8:07:05 AM
permalink
Quote: toolypIt could cost me a big chunk of my bankroll.
link to original post
Are you saying all bets are off when you're on your case bet? I am not arguing with you just asking.
Case bet certainly makes a difference in poker. "Pot committed."
I tell you it’s wonderful to be here, man. I don’t give a damn who wins or loses. It’s just wonderful to be here with you people.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/
February 26th, 2025 at 8:12:56 AM
permalink
Quote: gordonm888The EV of a double down bet takes into account both of these:
1. when the bet wins, the amount won is twice the amount that is won when simply HITTING
2. when the bet loses, the amount lost is twice the amount that is lost when simply HITTING
Because both of these are factored into the EV calculation, the Expected Value does indeed take into account that an additional amount of money is being wagered as part of a DOUBLE option.
When you are faced with a decision of whether or not to wager $100 in order to play a blackjack hand you need to consider:
- the probability of winning $200
- the probability of winning $100
- the probability of pushing, neither winning or losing
- the probability of losing $100
- the probability of losing $200
The EXPECTED VALUE combines all those probabilities of all those outcomes to inform you as to the wisdom, or cost, of making your initial bet and then playing according to basic strategy. The fact that basic strategy requires one to double down and wager more on certain situations is correctly factored into the Expected Value of your decision to play the game and make your initial wager.
link to original post
I guess, you also refer to my calculations. I said “If you doubled your bet in 10 plus situations and say won 5 of them. You won 1000 but your cost was 2000.” I was partially wrong but unintentionally.
When you win the double down they give you 200 plus your 100 initial bet. You add to your stack 300 after a winning DD hand. So the cost is 1000. You won 1000, you paid 1000 so you are even. No win, no loss.
You the counter make a profit if you win a majority of the plus counting situations. If not, you lose. Hence situations as those described by Lance Humble or even Ken Uston, the undisputed guru of card counting.
“I played full time for 22 consecutive days in some of the most favorable games I've ever experienced … At the end of 22 days, I was down $35,000 ... Two of the best counters I know played in Europe for 61 days, full time, and were down $30,000 ... The same two players dropped $156,000 in two weeks in Atlantic City in late 1979 in a highly favorable game.” (Ken Uston, “Million Dollar Blackjack”)
Easy to explain such bad runs. You cant win all count-favorable situations. Bad luck can throw at you many more losing situations than winning situations. A big bankroll is of the essence for any card counter. Kenny had it.
I urge any bj player here to put his momey where his mouth is (I ask the dawgs too). Wizard has a pure unbiased bj app on his site. It is always free and doesn’t trick you into playing for real money. it aint an online casino. I used it and I posted 2 screenshots. I won $1000 in an hour or so. You do the same thing. play with wizard online app using your favorite system. You don’t need to say anything about your system. Just post a screen shot with your result. Don’t be shy. Links to my screenhot and the link to Wizard’s bj player.
Card Counting Quirks?
Online Blackjack Free Game (Trainer + Learn To Count Cards) - Wizard of Odds
February 26th, 2025 at 8:22:07 AM
permalink
What would playing for an hour or two on a simulator prove? Millions of hands have proven BJ systems. If I play for an hour and lose all my DDs, does that tell me never to DD again? If I win all the DDs, does that show that my blackjack is superior to others?
The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
February 26th, 2025 at 8:42:26 AM
permalink
Quote: billryanWhat would playing for an hour or two on a simulator prove? Millions of hands have proven BJ systems. If I play for an hour and lose all my DDs, does that tell me never to DD again? If I win all the DDs, does that show that my blackjack is superior to others?
link to original post
But what would prove playing an hour or two in a casino and winning? You would toss the money to the waste basket because you didnt play an adequate number of hands? I’d love to be one of those who played successfully millions of hands and won millions of dollars! Our lives are too short to play billions of hands and prove blackjack systems. You and I don’t have that kind of bankrolls.
Consistency is what counts for me. If I do it consistently, my system works. I used Wizard’s bj simulator several times, one to a couple of hours – success every time. O f course I am more successful than in a casino. No human can count as accurately as the computer. And there is no heat in my place (except for the radiators).
Why don’t you try it? I mean run Wizard’s bj simulator and post a screenhot here. I wasn’t referring just to BS with DD. Playing bj in general with counting included. The dawgs too are encouraged. Instead of posting $100,000 chips, one screenshot would be worth 1000-fold. Lol.
February 26th, 2025 at 8:48:13 AM
permalink
You always double down on 11.
I lost okay, how could you say always?
I lost okay, how could you say always?
I tell you it’s wonderful to be here, man. I don’t give a damn who wins or loses. It’s just wonderful to be here with you people.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/
February 26th, 2025 at 8:50:35 AM
permalink
Success in BJ is done in the long run, not in an hour-long session.
The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
February 26th, 2025 at 8:51:07 AM
permalink
Quote: toolypBad luck can throw at you many more losing situations than winning situations.
link to original post
If you're getting 12s and 16s all night doesn't matter what the count is.
I tell you it’s wonderful to be here, man. I don’t give a damn who wins or loses. It’s just wonderful to be here with you people.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/
February 26th, 2025 at 9:09:31 AM
permalink
Quote: billryanSuccess in BJ is done in the long run, not in an hour-long session.
link to original post
I’m waiting for screenshots. Waiting for 1 million hands would take years and years and years. One billion would take thousands of years. Anyone here have the bankroll to cover 1,000,000,000 hands? Me either.
One screenshot is free and only takes a couple of hours. It’s fun too. So why would anyone decline?
February 26th, 2025 at 9:41:45 AM
permalink
Because most people don't have a few hours to waste.
What would you like me to take away from your screenshot?
We must have different ideas of fun.
What would you like me to take away from your screenshot?
We must have different ideas of fun.
The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
February 26th, 2025 at 11:05:39 AM
permalink
I'm not sure how to address all of these more recent comments at once so I'm choosing to reply to Gordon888 because his comment is the most applicable to what I intend to say.
Specifically, the following is not making sense for me: " 2. when the bet loses, the amount lost is twice the amount lost when hitting"
Take the 6,5 vs 6-up, if the BS recommendations are followed, this hand plays exactly the same when hit or doubled down on. So, the return per dollar bet should be the same for either play but the DD at 0.761392 is twice the EV as the hit option (0.380696). The act of doubling down though requires a doubling of the bet and thus the DD wins twice what the hit wins, but at twice the cost. Each option 'should' then have an EV of 0.380696 insofar as the numbers provided are concerned. Naturally, the DD option is the better play by far in this case, but again, this is a simple hand which would never be hit more than once in accordance with the Basic Strategy and thereby a simple example. But... the misleading EVs are apparent in all of the Double down EV comparatives that I have checked so far, not often by exactly double, but the EV for DDs is always more than for hits on a per dollar bet basis. Then too, some soft combinations which have the potential to win more hands when hit than when doubled down on have higher returns for DDs than for hits on a per dollar bet basis. This is not possible if "when the bet loses, the amount lost is twice the amount lost when hitting"
Specifically, the following is not making sense for me: " 2. when the bet loses, the amount lost is twice the amount lost when hitting"
Take the 6,5 vs 6-up, if the BS recommendations are followed, this hand plays exactly the same when hit or doubled down on. So, the return per dollar bet should be the same for either play but the DD at 0.761392 is twice the EV as the hit option (0.380696). The act of doubling down though requires a doubling of the bet and thus the DD wins twice what the hit wins, but at twice the cost. Each option 'should' then have an EV of 0.380696 insofar as the numbers provided are concerned. Naturally, the DD option is the better play by far in this case, but again, this is a simple hand which would never be hit more than once in accordance with the Basic Strategy and thereby a simple example. But... the misleading EVs are apparent in all of the Double down EV comparatives that I have checked so far, not often by exactly double, but the EV for DDs is always more than for hits on a per dollar bet basis. Then too, some soft combinations which have the potential to win more hands when hit than when doubled down on have higher returns for DDs than for hits on a per dollar bet basis. This is not possible if "when the bet loses, the amount lost is twice the amount lost when hitting"
February 26th, 2025 at 11:31:44 AM
permalink
Quote: RLL123Take the 6,5 vs 6-up, if the BS recommendations are followed, this hand plays exactly the same when hit or doubled down on. So, the return per dollar bet should be the same for either play but the DD at 0.761392 is twice the EV as the hit option (0.380696).
On a $1 bet:
-hit has an EV of 38¢
-double has an EV of 76¢
-hit has an EV of 38% of all money bet
-double has an EV of 38% of all money bet
using 0.76 has the advantage of showing that the EV for doubling also doubles the EV relative to hitting. As you've been so desperate to point out, it has the disadvantage of not showing what the EV is for all money bet. You may prefer those bottom bullet points to the top ones. But it shouldn't be confusing. Since you disagree with the commonly used values, you are free to use different ones. That's something I do all the time
February 26th, 2025 at 11:34:44 AM
permalink
Quote: RLL123Each option 'should' then have an EV of 0.380696 insofar as the numbers provided are concerned.
link to original post
(heavily truncated)
By adjusting the basis from the original to the original + double bet amount, the logical comparison between hitting and doubling does not inform us whether we should hit or double in order to win as much as possible on this hand.
Best of luck!
May the cards fall in your favor.
February 26th, 2025 at 11:38:02 AM
permalink
Quote: DieterQuote: RLL123Each option 'should' then have an EV of 0.380696 insofar as the numbers provided are concerned.
link to original post
(heavily truncated)
By adjusting the basis from the original to the original + double bet amount, the logical comparison between hitting and doubling does not inform us whether we should hit or double in order to win as much as possible on this hand.
Best of luck!
link to original post
If the numbers were both 0.380696 then a rational BJ player would be indifferent between the options. But since even this guy agrees doubling is better, the only answer is that it’s because the EV for doubling is higher.
There’s nothing more to the OP than either true confusion or strange smoke and mirrors. I lean towards the latter as he fails to engage on any level with the issue.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
February 26th, 2025 at 12:01:16 PM
permalink
unJon: "By adjusting the basis from the original to the original + double bet amount, the logical comparison between hitting and doubling does not inform us whether we should hit or double in order to win as much as possible on this hand."
Anyone unable to understand that doubling wins double in a nominal sense is not likely to be concerned with a 'per dollar bet' analysis. IOW, your suggestion implies that the EVs are not accurate to allow for an idiot factor.
Anyone unable to understand that doubling wins double in a nominal sense is not likely to be concerned with a 'per dollar bet' analysis. IOW, your suggestion implies that the EVs are not accurate to allow for an idiot factor.
February 26th, 2025 at 12:06:53 PM
permalink
Quote: RLL123unJon: "By adjusting the basis from the original to the original + double bet amount, the logical comparison between hitting and doubling does not inform us whether we should hit or double in order to win as much as possible on this hand."
Anyone unable to understand that doubling wins double in a nominal sense is not likely to be concerned with a 'per dollar bet' analysis. IOW, your suggestion implies that the EVs are not accurate to allow for an idiot factor.
link to original post
That’s a misquote. I didn’t say that Dieter did.
Again, it’s not a “per dollar bet” analysis. It’s a “per original dollar amount” bet analysis.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
February 26th, 2025 at 12:10:13 PM
permalink
Quote: unJonAgain, it’s not a “per dollar bet” analysis. It’s a “per original dollar amount” bet analysis.
link to original post
End of confusion.
February 26th, 2025 at 12:31:15 PM
permalink
Quote: ChumpChangeQuote: unJonAgain, it’s not a “per dollar bet” analysis. It’s a “per original dollar amount” bet analysis.
link to original post
End of confusion.
link to original post
Wanna bet?
The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
February 26th, 2025 at 12:50:56 PM
permalink
Quote: billryanQuote: ChumpChangeQuote: unJonAgain, it’s not a “per dollar bet” analysis. It’s a “per original dollar amount” bet analysis.
link to original post
End of confusion.
link to original post
Wanna bet?
link to original post
Only if I can double down…
It’s a dog eat dog world.
…Or maybe it’s the other way around!
February 26th, 2025 at 3:19:27 PM
permalink
Quote: RLL123unJon: "By adjusting the basis from the original to the original + double bet amount, the logical comparison between hitting and doubling does not inform us whether we should hit or double in order to win as much as possible on this hand."
Anyone unable to understand that doubling wins double in a nominal sense is not likely to be concerned with a 'per dollar bet' analysis. IOW, your suggestion implies that the EVs are not accurate to allow for an idiot factor.
link to original post
You should be just as able to divide the stated EV numbers by two for your purposes, if you believe that is more suitable.
May the cards fall in your favor.
February 26th, 2025 at 3:31:42 PM
permalink
LOL, 3 comments in a row saying, "end of confusion" and that was established from the start. ThatDonGuy was the first to state that it is only the initial bet on DDs and splits factored in, and his was the very first response to my original comment. Others came along and provided further support to that and yet here we are 4 days later, and some are still missing the point. And I am still a little confused.
So, yet another extreme example that might make this math problem easier to understand:
Mr. Player draws 8,8 vs a 6-up, he splits and draws another 8, he splits again and draws yet another 8, he doubles down and gets a 10, and this happens on all four 8s. He has four 21s and the dealer busts. His initial bet was $1 but his splits and doubles added $7 to his initial bet. He wins $8, so if I understand the EV process correctly, this hand equates to a return of 7.000000, or, a return of $7 per the initial dollar bet. So, in juxtaposition to that hand, if that same hand had been lost on all four double downs the EV should balance out to zero. But if only the initial bet is held against that loss, the EV would only be -1.000000. So, the EV would thereby balance out to 7.000000 minus -1.000000 which equals 6.000000 and then that, divided by the two hands comes to 3.000000. But in reality, Mr. Player has neither won or lost anything. If my math is correct though... the Basic Strategy faithful would be led to believe that splitting 8s is a better play than it actually is.
Again though, I am not disputing that the EVs are calculated on the initial bet, my contention all along has been that the EVs on Double Downs and Splits are misleading.
So, yet another extreme example that might make this math problem easier to understand:
Mr. Player draws 8,8 vs a 6-up, he splits and draws another 8, he splits again and draws yet another 8, he doubles down and gets a 10, and this happens on all four 8s. He has four 21s and the dealer busts. His initial bet was $1 but his splits and doubles added $7 to his initial bet. He wins $8, so if I understand the EV process correctly, this hand equates to a return of 7.000000, or, a return of $7 per the initial dollar bet. So, in juxtaposition to that hand, if that same hand had been lost on all four double downs the EV should balance out to zero. But if only the initial bet is held against that loss, the EV would only be -1.000000. So, the EV would thereby balance out to 7.000000 minus -1.000000 which equals 6.000000 and then that, divided by the two hands comes to 3.000000. But in reality, Mr. Player has neither won or lost anything. If my math is correct though... the Basic Strategy faithful would be led to believe that splitting 8s is a better play than it actually is.
Again though, I am not disputing that the EVs are calculated on the initial bet, my contention all along has been that the EVs on Double Downs and Splits are misleading.
Last edited by: RLL123 on Feb 26, 2025
February 26th, 2025 at 6:53:19 PM
permalink
That’s much less simple of an example, but it does highlight the confusion you have about what EV means.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
February 26th, 2025 at 7:01:45 PM
permalink
Quote: toolyp
...Basic strategy is valid for flat betting only –except for DD and SP (occurring 1 in 10 hands)...
That is not so. Basic Strategy is a playing strategy and has nothing to do with how much you bet. Without information on the current composition of the shoe/deck, it's the best you can do when making your play decisions.
When you are counting you play a strategy based on the count. There's yet another type of strategy called Counter's Basic Strategy, which requires no playing index memorization but biases the plays towards the hands with the most money on them, which for a counter will also have a surfeit of Tens and Aces. A CBS works pretty well but it really should be tailored for the particular game you are playing, which requires simulations and research.
February 26th, 2025 at 8:25:27 PM
permalink
LOL!!!Quote: MDawgI just do it robotically no matter how much I have out there when it comes to doubling down. If I am supposed to double down, I do. And in the situation I described above I lost a huge hand but still, I did what I should have done.
Where I pause is if I have a huge bet out there and get blackjack and the dealer has an ace up. I put the big bet out there because I expected to catch a 10, I know there are a lot of 10s coming, and hence...the dealer has a good chance of catching a 10 too. In such a situation I might take even money, even though normal deck composition and count I would not. I had a hand not too long ago where I did this and sure enough, the dealer did have it, and I collected thousands versus nothing.
link to original post
Card counters know why this is a BIG LOL.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
February 26th, 2025 at 8:44:06 PM
permalink
A card counter must needs have a decent memory. What I do requires a perfect memory and goes well beyond mere counting.
And a person with a bad memory probably couldn’t excel at either.
And a person with a bad memory probably couldn’t excel at either.
I tell you it’s wonderful to be here, man. I don’t give a damn who wins or loses. It’s just wonderful to be here with you people.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/
February 26th, 2025 at 8:48:32 PM
permalink
He just means it’s a correct index play to take even money on a BJ when the count is positive enough.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
February 26th, 2025 at 8:52:12 PM
permalink
Of course.
But why can’t I have a little fun with A.Wolf while he tries to grasp the/my point.
But why can’t I have a little fun with A.Wolf while he tries to grasp the/my point.
I tell you it’s wonderful to be here, man. I don’t give a damn who wins or loses. It’s just wonderful to be here with you people.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/
February 26th, 2025 at 10:58:18 PM
permalink
This thread reminds me of the EB Roulette thread. One person talking in circles and the rest of the forum chasing.
February 26th, 2025 at 11:05:41 PM
permalink
(aggressively abbreviated!)
Quote: RLL123Again though, I am not disputing that the EVs are calculated on the initial bet, my contention all along has been that the EVs on Double Downs and Splits are misleading.
link to original post
You say you are being misled.
If you do not want to select the most lucrative course of action, where would you prefer to go?
May the cards fall in your favor.
February 27th, 2025 at 7:08:41 AM
permalink
I'm just trying to better understand the game. And at this point it seems to me that if my last example is flawed in some way that someone here could rather easily explain why? Do you actually know that the BS is in fact the "most lucrative course of action". Do you understand the math behind the BS or are you just mimicking what you have been convinced of? Can you show in mathematical terms how the EVs on DDs and splits are calculated using only the initial bets?
And I never said that I am "being mislead", I said that the BS is misleading.
And I never said that I am "being mislead", I said that the BS is misleading.
February 27th, 2025 at 7:17:29 AM
permalink
https://youtu.be/jCF-Btu5ZCk
This video is a pretty good explanation of the math.
May the cards fall in your favor.
February 27th, 2025 at 8:00:00 AM
permalink
So, you have no direct answer to my challenge regarding what is wrong with my hypothetical comparing the multiple splits on 8s?
February 27th, 2025 at 8:11:31 AM
permalink
Quote: RLL123So, you have no direct answer to my challenge regarding what is wrong with my hypothetical comparing the multiple splits on 8s?
link to original post
How many splits will you get?
May the cards fall in your favor.
February 27th, 2025 at 8:17:29 AM
permalink
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: toolyp
...Basic strategy is valid for flat betting only –except for DD and SP (occurring 1 in 10 hands)...
That is not so. Basic Strategy is a playing strategy and has nothing to do with how much you bet. Without information on the current composition of the shoe/deck, it's the best you can do when making your play decisions.
When you are counting you play a strategy based on the count. There's yet another type of strategy called Counter's Basic Strategy, which requires no playing index memorization but biases the plays towards the hands with the most money on them, which for a counter will also have a surfeit of Tens and Aces. A CBS works pretty well but it really should be tailored for the particular game you are playing, which requires simulations and research.
link to original post
BS has a lot to do with flat betting. It means your bet is constant throughout. The ratio is 1 to 2 simple betting to double down. DD loses 2 extra hands (in 100) compared to hitting. But all successful DD hands are paid double.
So our bet is 1 throughout the 100-hand session. But what happens if we vary our bet? We can bet 5 in some situations. We lose several hands of 5. That alters the EV significantly against the player. Cos nothing guarantees you gonna win, not lose, your DD hands when your bet is bigger.
There you have it. The basic strategy was designed with constant in mind. It is assumed the BS player always bets the table minimum. The only times the player increases his bet is double down and splitting situations.
As I said, if my bet is higher than the minimum, I dont DD every hand recommended by the BS for that action. I already make more money (if I win). If I lose the hand after a DD, I can only downscale my EV. Cos I’m always mindful that hitting offers better protection against a loss. In this case I go with the probability. In the case of a minimum bet I go with maximizing EV.
Now, strategy for counting is a totally different beast. It alters BS dramatically sometimes, either to maximize EV, or to minimize losses. Pick your poison. No matter what, you can still lose big. See above the case of guru Uston. Shit happens. Maybe that was the main point of the OP.
Btw–where is your screenshot? Show me how you win, assuming you always double down.
February 27th, 2025 at 8:26:26 AM
permalink
How about doubling for less? All the kool kids are doing it!
The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
