DVD Talk
Blackjack Question [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Blackjack Question


Original Desmond
08-13-07, 01:50 AM
Now it's not that hard to learn the basic strategy of blackjack. I consider myself a pretty decent blackjack player, i am overall probably over 10 grand up on my local casino lifetime.

Now i have had my biggest wins when playing on a table full of consistent good players all doing the right thing. No weak links.

Now most blackjack websites state that how the other players on your table play has no effect overall on you. If you get someone who does silly things like pull on 16 against a 6, sometimes it will help you, sometimes it will hurt you.

I know in theory this is right, but i just hate playing on a table with anyone who plays this bad. There are some line ball decisions for sure (e.g. 12 against a 2) but pulling on 14,15 or 16 against 5 or 6s is just suicide and it does seem to hurt the table much much more than it helps.

What are your thoughts on other players on your table and how they play ?

Red Dog
08-13-07, 07:41 AM
I find it annoying - at the least the really stupid plays. I've only left a table once when someone was really playing stupidly - like not hitting 16s vs. 10 and then hitting 16s vs 4s and 5s. The more borderline plays, it doesn't bother me because I don't strictly do everything the 'book' says either (for example, splitting 8s vs. 10).

I actually tend to play more double-deck cards-down BJ now, so you don't even notice. Unfortunately, finding 3:2 on this is becoming harder and harder. Barbary Coast offered it but Harrah's changed it to 6:5 when they took over. Bastards.

mkdevo
08-13-07, 10:22 AM
i personally like playing at an empty table, one on one with the dealer..

DVD Josh
08-13-07, 10:49 AM
i personally like playing at an empty table, one on one with the dealer..

Same here, although, I have moved position in front of stupid players.

Red Dog
08-13-07, 10:52 AM
I hate playing alone at a table - goes way too fast. I like a full table particularly if your group of friends can grab a whole table.

El Scorcho
08-13-07, 11:16 AM
Playing alone at a table against an asian dealer is a death sentence.

I don't really care what other people on the table do. I know my hand's EV doesn't change regardless of what they do and as long as I remind myself of that, I'll be ok.

Red Dog
08-13-07, 11:27 AM
Playing alone at a table against an asian dealer is a death sentence.



That is a truism, for sure.

devilshalo
08-13-07, 08:13 PM
Same here, although, I have moved position in front of stupid players.
I find this doesn't help either because the morons end up taking the dealers' cards anyway. :mad:

movieguru
08-14-07, 12:33 AM
The cards are drawn at random so it really doesn't matter what the other player are doing. If you're a math wizard and want to count cards and base your decisions on statistics of the cards that are out of play vs still in play, than you would want to play last at a table where everyone hits on everything and reduces the number of cards that are in play.

Thrush
08-14-07, 12:45 AM
Just play your hand and don't worry about what other people do. It makes no difference in the end. You just notice it more when it affects you negatively. When someone takes the dealers bust card everyone gets pissed and calls them out. However, it happens just as often that someone's poor decision (standing on 16 with dealer showing an 9, taking a bad hit etc) affects the outcome of the hand in a positive way but those usually go unnoticed. Especially if they happen on earlier streets. Either way its silly to get upset over something that essentially doesn't matter.

Gambit
08-14-07, 03:12 AM
The cards are drawn at random so it really doesn't matter what the other player are doing. If you're a math wizard and want to count cards and base your decisions on statistics of the cards that are out of play vs still in play, than you would want to play last at a table where everyone hits on everything and reduces the number of cards that are in play.
Wouldn't you want to play first? The bet that you made is based on the count of the cards at the end of the last deal. If you play last, the count could be significantly different.
Of course, then you have to sit back and watch the bad play of others after you "impacting" the dealer card and have this psychological distraction impair you from making the right plays yourself...

Red Dog
08-14-07, 07:49 AM
Just play your hand and don't worry about what other people do. It makes no difference in the end. You just notice it more when it affects you negatively. When someone takes the dealers bust card everyone gets pissed and calls them out. However, it happens just as often that someone's poor decision (standing on 16 with dealer showing an 9, taking a bad hit etc) affects the outcome of the hand in a positive way but those usually go unnoticed. Especially if they happen on earlier streets. Either way its silly to get upset over something that essentially doesn't matter.


Yeah, but I also get upset because people are basically willingly handing the house their money when they play like a fool when all they have to do is take a few minutes to learn the basic strategy (or buy one of those strategy cards).

I actually don't mind people who play poor strategies - just be consistent about it - like the people who never take a card when they have hard 12 or above. That's fine. It's the wild no rhyme-reason play that is annoying.

starman9000
08-14-07, 08:44 AM
Wouldn't you want to play first? The bet that you made is based on the count of the cards at the end of the last deal. If you play last, the count could be significantly different.



Im no number whiz, but that doesn't make any sense to me. You bet and play your hand based on the current count of cards, not on the count at the end of the last deal. If you play at the end of the table you have the potential of seeing 5+ more cards that would do nothing but increase your knowledge of what is left for you and the dealer.

Gambit
08-14-07, 11:38 AM
Im no number whiz, but that doesn't make any sense to me. You bet and play your hand based on the current count of cards, not on the count at the end of the last deal. If you play at the end of the table you have the potential of seeing 5+ more cards that would do nothing but increase your knowledge of what is left for you and the dealer.

You have to put your bet down before the next set of cards are dealt. So whether you play first or you play last, you will have seen ALL of the cards dealt from the last hand. It would be great if you could just sit back and wait to see the dealer's card and all the other player's cards before you put your bet down, but it doesn't work that way.

Now keep in mind that the "count" is important to help you determine what to wager. As far as I know, you don't alter whether you hit or stand based on the count. It's not like they are going to deal all the way to the bottom of the deck so you can figure out something like "the rest of the cards are all high, I'll just stand on this 16 to the dealer's 10".

So what I am saying is, if you play first, then you will be playing cards as close as possible to the count from the last hand and according to the bet that you just put down.

starman9000
08-14-07, 12:05 PM
I guess I really don't get blackjack then. I thought the "count" dealt with keeping track of what cards were dealt, not just the number of cards dealt. But even if it is just an actuall count of the total number, I still don't see how you would benefit from playing first, as all you would have to do is add the number of cards in front of you no matter where you sit.

El Scorcho
08-14-07, 12:18 PM
I guess I really don't get blackjack then. I thought the "count" dealt with keeping track of what cards were dealt, not just the number of cards dealt. But even if it is just an actuall count of the total number, I still don't see how you would benefit from playing first, as all you would have to do is add the number of cards in front of you no matter where you sit.

The "count" is simply a barometer that lets you know if a deck is high-card rich or low-card rich at any given point. Some counting systems consider 6, 7, and 8 as neutral cards and consider 2-5 as low and 9-face as high (aces counted seperately). Others consider 8 as neutral and 2-7 as low and 9-face as high.

Low cards are good for the dealer so whenever the "count" (which is nothing more than a delta between high and low cards) is favorable, the bets go up. Only in extreme circumstances will seeing the other players hands on the table alter the actions of the counter when it comes time to hit or stand.

An example of an extreme circumstance would be seeing a deck is low card rich and then seeing 15 low cards come out in a row on the table, shifting the count to a heavily high-card rich deck when it comes to you and you're showing 16 versus a 9.

starman9000
08-14-07, 12:22 PM
Thanks scorch, that makes more sense. It still doesn't mean sitting in first position would be of any advantage right? Just that in an extreme situation, it's possible for playing later to be beneficial.

El Scorcho
08-14-07, 12:58 PM
Thanks scorch, that makes more sense. It still doesn't mean sitting in first position would be of any advantage right? Just that in an extreme situation, it's possible for playing later to be beneficial.

That's my take on the situation. Then again, most card counters like to play with very few players on the table to begin with.

Gambit
08-14-07, 01:02 PM
So the advantage of playing first is that it minimizes the chance of the "count" being altered as much. So let's say that at the end of the last hand your count was high (player favorable) and you put down a larger bet. If you play first, then you are playing close to this count. But let's say you play last and a whole bunch of people are playing in front of you and they burn a whole bunch of cards out of the deck. Well, now the "count" potentially has shifted much lower so the hand that you are playing with the bet that you placed down is not really in line with the "count" any more. Does that make sense?

In the grand scheme of things, maybe this is fairly insignificant. But if you are truly playing using a card-counting approach as if you were going head-to-head with the dealer, it seems like the closest you can get to that is to play first.

starman9000
08-14-07, 01:07 PM
So the advantage of playing first is that it minimizes the chance of the "count" being altered as much. So let's say that at the end of the last hand your count was high (player favorable) and you put down a larger bet. If you play first, then you are playing close to this count. But let's say you play last and a whole bunch of people are playing in front of you and they burn a whole bunch of cards out of the deck. Well, now the "count" potentially has shifted much lower so the hand that you are playing with the bet that you placed down is not really in line with the "count" any more. Does that make sense?

In the grand scheme of things, maybe this is fairly insignificant. But if you are truly playing using a card-counting approach as if you were going head-to-head with the dealer, it seems like the closest you can get to that is to play first.


That would be irrelevant though, the count changes for you in that situation even if you are in the front of the pack, you are just limiting your ability to adjust to a changing count. (In your scenario, the count still changes for you in the 1st position, even though the cards are dropped after yours)

Gambit
08-14-07, 01:25 PM
Oh, I fully understand that the count has changed because the other players at the table have been dealt their initial cards as well before you start playing. I am just saying that you minimize the number of cards being dealt out of the deck, and hopefully the impact on the count before you play.

As for limiting your ability to "adjust", again as Scorcho pointed out, it would be very rare if at all where you would deviate from how you play your hand based on the cards played ahead of you.

El Scorcho
08-14-07, 01:33 PM
This discussion of playing 1st or playing last is really quite irrelevant since, as I stated, most dedicated card counters will never play on a table with 6 others on it.

starman9000
08-14-07, 01:39 PM
Yeah, that's the key. Although, would it behoove counters to play at the same table together? (position wouldn't matter again)

Gambit
08-14-07, 01:42 PM
Is card-counting even viable any more? Has the measures taken by the casino pretty much negated any potential advantage gained from card counting?

On a side note, if at all possible, I will take the last seat at the blackjack table.

El Scorcho
08-14-07, 02:43 PM
Is card-counting even viable any more? Has the measures taken by the casino pretty much negated any potential advantage gained from card counting?

On a side note, if at all possible, I will take the last seat at the blackjack table.


It still is on the rare-but-sometimes-found single deck and double deck games that pay 3:2 on blackjack still. However, casinos started being run by number-crunching accounting majors and figured out that people love blackjack and will always continue to play it, even if they dropped the blackjack payouts down to 6:5 instead of 3:2.

I prefer to sit in the middle of the table, btw. I hate the end seats because they usually put the adjacent tables so close together that it turns into a real bitch getting into and out of a seat.

Gambit
08-14-07, 03:00 PM
It still is on the rare-but-sometimes-found single deck and double deck games that pay 3:2 on blackjack still. However, casinos started being run by number-crunching accounting majors and figured out that people love blackjack and will always continue to play it, even if they dropped the blackjack payouts down to 6:5 instead of 3:2.

I prefer to sit in the middle of the table, btw. I hate the end seats because they usually put the adjacent tables so close together that it turns into a real bitch getting into and out of a seat.
Yes, that adjacent table thing is sometimes a pain. But it's that whole psychological thing. I can't stand to see the player in last position play incorrectly and take the dealer's bust card and doom the rest of us at the table. Yeah, I know it doesn't matter, but it still bugs.

starman9000
08-14-07, 03:33 PM
Yes, that adjacent table thing is sometimes a pain. But it's that whole psychological thing. I can't stand to see the player in last position play incorrectly and take the dealer's bust card and doom the rest of us at the table. Yeah, I know it doesn't matter, but it still bugs.

But then you have the pressure of being that guy, and I think a lot people tend to get annoyed with him even if he makes the right play. :)

El Scorcho
08-14-07, 03:37 PM
I especially love it when someone bitches at you for making a basic strategy play at 3rd base because they, in fact, do not know basic strategy.

Gambit
08-14-07, 04:44 PM
But then you have the pressure of being that guy, and I think a lot people tend to get annoyed with him even if he makes the right play. :)
Well, as far as I can tell, no one has said anything to me (to my face anyway) about making the correct basic strategy play. However, on more than one occasion, I have been complimented for making the right play that resulted in me losing the hand, but also giving the dealer the bust card that she wouldn't have gotten and winning it for the rest of the table.

And even if they get annoyed, better them than you right? -biggrin-

NotThatGuy
08-14-07, 05:48 PM
It just pisses me off. I don't like dumb people, unless they are on stupid videos.

-p

Original Desmond
08-15-07, 04:19 AM
bad plays do ruin the ambience on a table, that is the most important thing

DVDKrayzie
08-17-07, 12:58 PM
The "count" is simply a barometer that lets you know if a deck is high-card rich or low-card rich at any given point. Some counting systems consider 6, 7, and 8 as neutral cards and consider 2-5 as low and 9-face as high (aces counted seperately). Others consider 8 as neutral and 2-7 as low and 9-face as high.

Low cards are good for the dealer so whenever the "count" (which is nothing more than a delta between high and low cards) is favorable, the bets go up. Only in extreme circumstances will seeing the other players hands on the table alter the actions of the counter when it comes time to hit or stand.

An example of an extreme circumstance would be seeing a deck is low card rich and then seeing 15 low cards come out in a row on the table, shifting the count to a heavily high-card rich deck when it comes to you and you're showing 16 versus a 9.


Why would you count 9s as a high card? the point of keeping track of the 10s and aces is that the blackjacks pay 3:2 and there are an equal # of 2-6s as there are 10s and As so you know when the deck composition favors you (many 10s and As left) or the dealer (many shit cards left). When you're done counting a deck, the total should equal 0.

Table position desnt really matter because you're betting on the cards before they come out. It would only be beneficial to be on 3rd base when you're deciding whether to hit one of the close hands, the count just turned to shit due to the cards dealt, and you want to use the 4-5 rule (Stand on 16 Vs a 10 if your 16 consists of 4s and/or 5s or the table composition shows a lot of them) or the Dr. pepper rule (hitting a 10-2 Vs a 4, but not hitting 7-5,9-3,8-4).

Also it's not usually good to play at a full table because dealing out a full 7 hands can seriously alter your count in just 1 round and can instantly turn your favorable shoe/deck into an unfavorable one

and no bad plays dont change a damn thing. When the idiot hits his 16 vs a 5 and pulls a 5 everyone calls him a hero, the next time they do it and get a 10 they call him an idiot