September 20th, 2010 at 5:34:38 AM
permalink

Thanks.

I know of basic strategy, and it wasnt invented 300 years ago..or was it.. the game was the same, therefore the calculations were the same to determine the profitability of the game.

I appreciate your suggestions.

At our local casino, all the cards go straight back into the machine after each and every hand, basically eliminating any use for card counting, as all the cards are available all the time..And if Im the first player to recieve the cards, i believe I have the best odds, as the deck is untainted by loss of cards.

Please forgive me, but which part of my math is too simplistic or incorrect in the above example regarding playing 16?

law of averages states that the above conclusions will occur that many times with those plays.

Some hands have better margins, some are losing hands.

I'm just trying to illustrate that example, and if you can comment on it that would be great!

If a dealer had to hit on 17, that would be great as it means more chance to win:)

blackorange

I know of basic strategy, and it wasnt invented 300 years ago..or was it.. the game was the same, therefore the calculations were the same to determine the profitability of the game.

I appreciate your suggestions.

At our local casino, all the cards go straight back into the machine after each and every hand, basically eliminating any use for card counting, as all the cards are available all the time..And if Im the first player to recieve the cards, i believe I have the best odds, as the deck is untainted by loss of cards.

Please forgive me, but which part of my math is too simplistic or incorrect in the above example regarding playing 16?

law of averages states that the above conclusions will occur that many times with those plays.

Some hands have better margins, some are losing hands.

I'm just trying to illustrate that example, and if you can comment on it that would be great!

If a dealer had to hit on 17, that would be great as it means more chance to win:)

blackorange

September 20th, 2010 at 7:12:42 AM
permalink

I will try and be polite- but if you believe that by getting the first cards gives you the best odds then you need to start from the beginning in your understanding of probability, statistics, etc. My using the term 'basic strategy' includes the sometimes not inherently apparent plays one must use to maximize your chance for winning. Do you split 6's against a 7? Will you double a soft 18 against a 5? Choosing the incorrect play gives the house a slightly greater advantage. You are correct in that at your casino you cannot count cards if it is a constant shuffle. Dealers never hit a hard 17, but there are some places where they hit a soft 17. That is to the dealer's advantage, not the player's. And as I said, there is no one basic strategy. Since there are different rules which are played, there are by definition different basic strategies. Rules that can change are- number of decks, BJ paying 3/2 versus 6/5, how many times can you split, on what totals can you double, can you surrender, do you get a bonus for obtaining 6 cards, etc.

September 20th, 2010 at 7:26:52 AM
permalink

While you can't average the blackjack points values like you suggested in your first post (both your options are wrong), I think for your purpose you should always count ace as 1. You won't be applying your calculations to hands that are less than 11 anyway, since you can't bust if you can still count an ace as 11.

So, count an ace as 1, use 13 cards, and average = 85 / 13 = 6.54

I hope you don't lose too much money trying to reinvent blackjack strategy...

So, count an ace as 1, use 13 cards, and average = 85 / 13 = 6.54

I hope you don't lose too much money trying to reinvent blackjack strategy...

Wisdom is the quality that keeps you out of situations where you would otherwise need it

September 20th, 2010 at 8:39:52 AM
permalink

I believe that getting the first cards gives one the most consistent probabilitys. Yes, if one happens to be last player, there could be 30 cards on the table, and one may very well be able to spy an opportunity to deduce wether they are inn a good position or not. However one could also be lead to believe that nearly all the good cards are on the table, and play differently. I would rather play with an unadultered deck, knowning that that every 13th card is an ace, no more or less, regardless of how many decks.

By apparent plays, do you mean standing while still on a low value, or drawing cards while on a high value? that would seem to be counter-intuitive, yes.

With regards to splitting 6's against 7's, or doublings, these are decisions to maximise winnings. While we all want this, that is not the course of this particular thread/query.

I am only concerned here with the calculation of the win itself.

Yes, I appreciate that a dealer throwing on soft 17 is to the house advantage.

Regarding number of decks, I feel that more decks means less change to the ratios, so if one card is taken out of a thousand, it has less impact than 1 from 100. #/2 pays better than 6/5, but again im only interseted atm in calculating winning angles, not the maximising of funds. That is for a different thread.

And yes if the casino does have a 0.5 advantage or whatever they publish, and that therefore anyadvantage in doubles et is the only to forge ahead, then yes, those things matter.

How is the casino edge calculated?

By apparent plays, do you mean standing while still on a low value, or drawing cards while on a high value? that would seem to be counter-intuitive, yes.

With regards to splitting 6's against 7's, or doublings, these are decisions to maximise winnings. While we all want this, that is not the course of this particular thread/query.

I am only concerned here with the calculation of the win itself.

Yes, I appreciate that a dealer throwing on soft 17 is to the house advantage.

Regarding number of decks, I feel that more decks means less change to the ratios, so if one card is taken out of a thousand, it has less impact than 1 from 100. #/2 pays better than 6/5, but again im only interseted atm in calculating winning angles, not the maximising of funds. That is for a different thread.

And yes if the casino does have a 0.5 advantage or whatever they publish, and that therefore anyadvantage in doubles et is the only to forge ahead, then yes, those things matter.

How is the casino edge calculated?

September 20th, 2010 at 8:52:08 AM
permalink

Thanks

I see that wether if I chose 1 or 11, it's still valued at 85 for the deck over 13=6.54.

Now I can estimate wether one will be over or under this quantity.

Thanks. Now i have my answer.

Haven't lost a cent yet.

Not going to a casino till I see whats going on.

Yes, of course I don't need to account for this while I'm under 11.

A question that relates to a previous poster: If the dealer is on 5, and the question is wether to double or split or whatever, how can one project the likely outcome of the dealers (indeed anyones) progress from a 5?

My math current math says that a dealer will get 21.5 on average.

I see that wether if I chose 1 or 11, it's still valued at 85 for the deck over 13=6.54.

Now I can estimate wether one will be over or under this quantity.

Thanks. Now i have my answer.

Haven't lost a cent yet.

Not going to a casino till I see whats going on.

Yes, of course I don't need to account for this while I'm under 11.

A question that relates to a previous poster: If the dealer is on 5, and the question is wether to double or split or whatever, how can one project the likely outcome of the dealers (indeed anyones) progress from a 5?

My math current math says that a dealer will get 21.5 on average.

September 20th, 2010 at 8:55:02 AM
permalink

The casino edge is calculated by figuring out, using best strategy, how much you would expect to lose over an infinite number of hands, divided by how much you bet. So if you bet $100 and best strategy would have you getting $99 back, then the house edge is 1%. You can see on the wizardofodds.com website various house edges for different blackjack rules, or for craps, roulette, etc. The importance of YOUR hand being hard or soft cannot be understated. You would never hit a hard 17, and would always hit a soft 17. There are situations where you might double a soft 18, while you of course would stick with a hard 18. And i reiterate- getting the first cards is no better or worse than getting the last cards while sitting at a table. If you cannot be convinced of that then i would surmise that the rest of your understanding of the game will be limited, too.

September 20th, 2010 at 9:00:36 AM
permalink

A question that relates to a previous poster: If the dealer is on 5, and the question is wether to double or split or whatever, how can one project the likely outcome of the dealers (indeed anyones) progress from a 5?

My math current math says that a dealer will get 21.5 on average.

the 21.5 average is irrelevant. what is relevant is the frequencies of the discreet possibilities-

17 18 19 20 21 bust.

it is easily figured out, if i had the time or inclination- i am sure someone will respond with the exact odds.

As far as 'whether to double or split or whatever?' the answer is called BASIC STRATEGY,

My math current math says that a dealer will get 21.5 on average.

the 21.5 average is irrelevant. what is relevant is the frequencies of the discreet possibilities-

17 18 19 20 21 bust.

it is easily figured out, if i had the time or inclination- i am sure someone will respond with the exact odds.

As far as 'whether to double or split or whatever?' the answer is called BASIC STRATEGY,

September 20th, 2010 at 9:04:20 AM
permalink

if you believe that by getting the first cards gives you the best odds then you need to start from the beginning...

THanks forthe quick reply.

But, you stated here that my opinion of the benefit of the 1st cards to be errenous, while you later state that it makes no difference..

Do forgive me for my laziness re soft and hard hands... Im not thinking so well at 1am... Im quite soft in the head with somethings..

Yes, we really only want to know the dealers potential to land in the sitting zone, I totally agree.

I understand that 'basic strategy' relates to 'what to do when thins look good', but, I want to know, how are these things calulated to see that it looks good.

So, I probably need to see the math you mention. Surely there is acres of it on the web. Perhaps you may be so inclined as to direct me to a possible site that deals with such matters. I would not think to suggest that you type it all out for me long form..

Perhaps you know of a few choice links..

What I really want to know is the margins on winning and losing, not the money margins relating to choices of doubles, BJ payous etc..

They are a separate matter for now.

cheers

THanks forthe quick reply.

But, you stated here that my opinion of the benefit of the 1st cards to be errenous, while you later state that it makes no difference..

Do forgive me for my laziness re soft and hard hands... Im not thinking so well at 1am... Im quite soft in the head with somethings..

Yes, we really only want to know the dealers potential to land in the sitting zone, I totally agree.

I understand that 'basic strategy' relates to 'what to do when thins look good', but, I want to know, how are these things calulated to see that it looks good.

So, I probably need to see the math you mention. Surely there is acres of it on the web. Perhaps you may be so inclined as to direct me to a possible site that deals with such matters. I would not think to suggest that you type it all out for me long form..

Perhaps you know of a few choice links..

What I really want to know is the margins on winning and losing, not the money margins relating to choices of doubles, BJ payous etc..

They are a separate matter for now.

cheers

September 20th, 2010 at 9:19:45 AM
permalink

Start with the wizardofodds.com site. I am not skilled enough to do a basic strategy mathematical analysis for blackjack. I will try and be clearer- there is no advantage to getting the first cards, and no disadvantage, either.