Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 29

Thread: HOLLYWOOD: I'm really annoyed by this

  1. #14
    Robert V. Lux
    Guest

    Robert V. Lux: You need to be consistent

    > I am not quite sure what you mean by
    > "Never let a dealer play your
    > hand."

    > A dealer who is playing your hand for you is
    > an advantage situation. You will get at
    > least 1 "second chance" play. That
    > is, there will be one time when she gives
    > you a card you didn't want, and you can
    > "Send it back".

    Though, consider this: You will only be able to take advantage of such situations once, or at maximum a very few times, each session. If you point out that you "didn't want the card", the dealer will be more carefully when serving your future hands, and will not play the hand for you.

    Also, you need to be consistent. You cannot accept a numerous number of "unwanted cards", and then insist on having non-favoring cards sent back.

    Besides, as a counter, you want to be invisible. You need to camouflage yourself. No attention is good attention. Action as proposed above, to let the unwanted cards increase your advantage, will not only increase your hourly win rate (though, at a very low rate), but also alert the casino staff. As I said: "No attention is good attention."

    > Suppose you have a 16 v 10 that you are
    > going to stand on. Dealer gives you a 2
    > before you waive off. Do you take the card,
    > or do you say "don't play my hand for
    > me." I hope it is clear that keeping
    > the card is better mathematically. Of
    > course, if you break, then you should
    > definitely point out that you didn't want
    > the card.

    As I stated above; If you've accepted, i.e. 7 unwanted cards, and finally refuse to accept it when it's not in your favour, the casino personell will smell a rat. The dealer won't forget the 7 hands, which you accepted.

    Best regards, Robert V. Lux

  2. #15
    MathProf
    Guest

    MathProf: Analysis of 15 v 7

    Let us analyze the 15 v 7 case. First, from Cac's EV tables we that the Evs are approximately -0.48 for Stand and -0.37 for Hit. Now consider two alternative scenarios.

    Scenario A, we play the hand straight. We have a negative EV of -0.37.

    Scenario B is against a dealer who does not wait for our signal, and hits the next player. If the next card is 2,3,4,5,6, we immediately complain and we get to pull out of the hand. So have a push. If the next card is anything else, we stand on our 15, with a conditional EV of -0.48 This happens about 8/13 of the time. So our total EV under this scenario is (5/13)*0 + 8/13*(-.48) = -.27 This is better than playing it straight!

    So you see even here, we are better off with the impatient dealer who doesn't wait for a signal.

    > Your point provides the answer that I was
    > prepared to give to MathProf.

    > Dealers rarely "play your hand for
    > you" by hitting a hand that you might
    > want to stand on. On the contrary, they
    > often "pass you by" by playing
    > your hand for you by standing on a hand
    > that, in fact, you might want to hit (case
    > in point, above).

    > I am suggesting that you avoid such
    > situations by ALWAYS giving a signal and by
    > never permitting the dealer to simply pass
    > you buy without your stand signal. That way,
    > you are less likely to have her do what she
    > did to you. Because, as Prof fails to
    > realize, there are two sides to the story:
    > it's great with 16 v. 10 when you get the
    > deuce, but when it's 15 v. 7 and she passes
    > you by, you do NOT have the right to the 6.
    > They won't back up the cards.

    > I respect your opinion, Prof, but I'll
    > continue to do it my way. I don't EVER let
    > the dealer play my hand for me -- ever. And
    > the first time he/she does it, I politely
    > tell him/her, "please don't make my
    > decisions for me or assume what I'm going to
    > do." They never do it again.

    > Don

  3. #16
    HOLLYWOOD
    Guest

    HOLLYWOOD: Re: What I would do

    > This Happens

    > This type of thing does happen. Dealers are
    > under pressure to make hands per hour. If
    > they know you are a BS player, or an
    > approximation, they will sometimes not wait
    > for a signal from you.

    > There are players who attempt to pull
    > various scams in this situation. We see a
    > lot of them in Detroit. Since the casinos
    > are relatively new, they push the envelope
    > against what they see inexperienced
    > personnel. The casinos know that these are
    > scams, and this type of behavior will draw
    > more heat than counting.

    > Now let us the specifics of your situation.
    > If I understand correctly, the RC was +6
    > after the 99 vs. 6 had appeared. Does this
    > mean 2 above pivot? I am not an expert on KO
    > indices, but that strikes me a weak double.
    > This is a lot of gain to be made doubling A9
    > at counts that are very high, but this is
    > probably marginal. With a big bet, the
    > Certainty Equivalent may even be negative
    > (in other words, the RA-index may be
    > higher.)

    > In my opinion, doubling A9 is a very High
    > profile play. Up there with splitting 10s.
    > For cover reasons, this is a play that I
    > avoid. I certainly not do it in a marginal
    > situation. In addition to everything else,
    > you are also eating an additional card in a
    > high count situation.

    > Once the 10 came out, your RC is even lower,
    > and the play is more marginal. Now if you
    > protest here, I do not think that they will
    > give you the 10! They may want to burn the
    > 10. This would be a disaster, and something
    > to avoid. If the dealers hole card is not
    > exposed, they will probably allow to take
    > the next card for you double-down.

    > However, this is going to draw a lot of
    > attention to your play! No matter what
    > happens, the game will slow to a crawl
    > because the dealer will wait for VERY clear,
    > and obvious signals from you. The boss is
    > likely to stand right there to make sure
    > that this does not happen again. Plus, you
    > have announced that double on 20! They may
    > figure you are a card-counter, or a cheater
    > who is trying to advantage of the house, or
    > a counter who cheats, which is the worst
    > possible image to have.

    > In your case, I would have not protested
    > this particular play. If it was a different
    > play, I would do otherwise. If it were 16v10
    > and the dealer hit me and busted the hand, I
    > would have said "I don't want that
    > card." and forced them to take it back.

    In KO, using 6 decks.
    +4 is the pivot.
    It's where almost all of your indices kick in.

    Except for insurance which is +3 and 16 vs 10 is -4.
    Bet increases begin at -4 using KO system.

    Regards,

    Hollywood

  4. #17
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Analysis of 15 v 7

    > So you see even here, we are better off with
    > the impatient dealer who doesn't wait for a
    > signal.

    Hindsight is wonderful. If you're able to know all of this, in a split second, while seated at the table, I applaud you. Personally, I'm not able to do that, so I'll stick to playing my own hands all of the time! :-)

    Don

  5. #18
    Cyrus
    Guest

    Cyrus: He should protest

    "This is going to draw a lot of attention to your play!"

    Yes, but a big bet is a big bet. He should protect it, all things considered.

    "No matter what happens, the game will slow to a crawl because the dealer will wait for VERY clear, and obvious signals from you."

    If he chooses to stick around and play on, then that is obviously something to consider. But it shouldn't be too tough to navigate the dealer quickly and efficiently. Unless the dealer starts doing it on purpose, the game should not necessarily "slow to a crawl".

    "You have announced that double on 20! They may figure you are a card-counter, or a cheater who is trying to advantage of the house, or a counter who cheats, which is the worst possible image to have."

    ..Or maybe a player who sees the deal going against him and decides to take advantage of the dealer slipping (or sleeping) on the job. I've seen non-advantage players calling for more blatant plays than doubling on A9! How about splitting a low pair against an Ace, will that do? "Why, you should have asked me, m'am, I'm the last player, how do you know I'm not splitting those 4's??"

    The dealer is supposed to pay a little closer attention to the last player to act, before dealing to his own hand, that's all there is to it. (The above doesn't mean that the player will get away with the ruse, or that they will not burn the card that was dealt. But, in my mind, there's no way the player shouldn't protest.)

    --Cyrus

  6. #19
    Cardkountr
    Guest

    Cardkountr: Re: I'm really annoyed by this

    > and it's not the first time it happened.

    > I'm sitting at a table and i'm getting
    > beaten up pretty bad. Just waiting for my
    > turn. Finally the count goes my way and I
    > start my bet escalation. I was flat betting
    > $100.00 and i'm now up to $500.00. The
    > dealer gives me a pair of 9's against her 6.
    > Using KO, the count is plus 6. I split the
    > 9's and get an ace on the first one for a
    > total of 20. With a count that high I wanted
    > to double on that.
    > The dealer never gave me a chance to give a
    > hand signal. Without hesitation she hit the
    > 2nd 9 with a 10. So i'm sitting with a 20
    > and 19 the dealer pulls 21 and the rest is
    > history. A $3000.00 swing. (if i'm allowed
    > to double)

    > I was really upset and didn't feel I could
    > do anything about it.

    > WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE?

    > Hollywood

    I can appreciate your frustration. Since you are a regular player in the pit where the eye is most always watching and the pit critters have little else to do but observe the game, I wouldn't have called attention to the play.

    If you had stopped her after receiving the 10 but before she completed her hand, they would not have backed up the card for your double anyway. Generally they would either burn that card and give you the next card for the double or given you the option to back out of the hand, which you wouldn't do since you had a soft 20.

    If you could have gotten your chips out there to double the A9 before the dealer passed it by and hit your split 9 is one thing, but to complain about it after the dealer has completed her hand with a 21 would have caused the pit critter and possibly the pit boss to intervene. Then the question in their mind becomes why you wanted to double, especially if you are not known to have done that in the past.

    I don't see anything to be gained by saying anything as it could cause them to watch you more closely and potentially affect your longevity in that club. And with only 13 clubs in AC most of them owned by only 3 corporations, you don't have much "wiggle" room once you're identified as a counter.

    The best that you can do is chaulk it up to experience and in the future always be ready to quickly double by having your chips in your hand.

    Just one opinion.

    May all the dealers blackjacks occur while you're in the bathroom!!

    Card.

  7. #20
    Cyrus
    Guest

    Cyrus: This is not the point!

    Your analysis does not address the issue of "implied (negative) odds" down the road, when she will pass you by when you wanna make an unusual, big-bet play. When you have the opportunity to split tens or double soft 19 and she passes you by, it's gonna hurt.

    I already pointed this out in my post titled "An important qualifier".

  8. #21
    MathProf
    Guest

    MathProf: Maybe he will get lucky

    > Yes, but a
    > big bet is a big bet. He should protect it,
    > all things considered.


    > The dealer is supposed to pay a little
    > closer attention to the last player to act,
    > before dealing to his own hand, that's all
    > there is to it. (The above doesn't mean that
    > the player will get away with the ruse, or
    > that they will not burn the card that was
    > dealt. But, in my mind, there's no way the
    > player shouldn't protest.)

    > --Cyrus


    I think you are trying to disagree with my post, where I said:

    In your case, I would have not protested this particular play. If it was a different play, I would do otherwise. If it were 16v10 and the dealer hit me and busted the hand, I would have said "I don't want that card." and forced them to take it back.

    My policy was to protest if it will save real money, but not to cause trouble for the sake of causing trouble. But you disagree with this? Would you protest if the play only saved a penny? Or if it saved it a dollar? Or would protest just our of principle. Your comment about the "big bet" leads me to believe that the cost of the misplay is a factor in your decision.

    Now I pointed out that this was a marginal play. I even questioned whether there was any gain in the play at all, if we were not below the index. No one seems to even addressed that point.

    So I decided to look into it. Here is the data which I computed for doubling A9 v 5, at various KO counts. 0 is the Pivot point. This is pre-formatted, but the last time I did this here, it didn't quite come out right)

     
    RC N Gain SE-Gain DeltaVar CritFrct
    0.0 158.0 -0.0389 0.00439 2.82 -0.028
    1.0 155.0 -0.0189 0.00415 2.82 -0.013
    2.0 136.0 0.0095 0.00425 2.82 0.007
    3.0 90.0 0.0384 0.00595 2.82 0.027


    My data shows that the index is +2, and that the gain there is only 1%. After the Ace comes out, we are at +1, and my data show that this double is an incorrect play which costs us money. After the 10 comes out, the double costs almost 4%. This is 4% of a big bet, which is a non-trivial loss.

    A disclaimer should be made here. I checked with SBA, to see what index it. It seems to have an index of +1. I am not sure why the discrepancy, although a difference like this is not unusual. But note that we do agree that pivot (after the 10 was removed) the play is negative.

    Now for this marginal play, you want to him protest. Should he ask for a tape review? What is they say they want to review the tapes, to see if he gave the signal. This is not the usual procedure, but I have it seen it done. I once saw a casino withhold correcting a $50 payoff error until after the tape was backed up.

    So the sky backs up the tape. They see all these low cards come out, his bets jump up, and then he tries to double A9. Just the kind of publicity we are looking for.

    But maybe he will get lucky. Maybe they look at the tape, think he might be counting, and then do a more thorough review. Maybe they have really sophisticated software, and it will conclude that his A( double was premature, and therefore a "sucker" play.

    I don't know if this is the strategy that you are aiming for. It seems a bit too cute for me.

  9. #22
    Mr.X
    Guest

    Mr.X: Look at the EV, not the $3,000

    Yours is certainly is a frustrating situation, but the way I look at it, it really wasn't nearly as costly as you think. The implication is that it cost you $3000. I'd say it really cost you little or nothing.
    MathProf has pretty much nailed what I was going to say, but I'll add on my 2 cents-
    IMO, the way to look at this is in terms of EV, and future cost. Right off the bat, a soft 20 DD is one of 2 plays I avoid regardless of the count (10 splitting is the other). My experience is it causes much more heat and unwanted attention than it's worth. So, as MathProf has pointed out much better than I ever could, DD the A9 is not a good idea, AT THE TIME YOU HAD TO MAKE THE DECISION, e.g., before you saw the ace.
    My other point is, at the time you had to make the decision, your EV for DD A9 is not very much, as MathProf expertly points out. THAT, imo, is the "cost" of not being allowed to DD. That, minus the long term cost of the possible heat caused by the unusual A9 DD, which would probably mean negative EV.
    One can go crazy if you consider that a ploppie making a BS error cost you a large bet here and there. But that's not the way to look at it. Look at the EV, and heat potential. I strongly agree with MathProf here.

  10. #23
    ET Fan
    Guest

    ET Fan: Well ...

    > Your analysis does not address the issue of
    > "implied (negative) odds" down the
    > road, when she will pass you by when you
    > wanna make an unusual, big-bet play. When
    > you have the opportunity to split tens or
    > double soft 19 and she passes you by, it's
    > gonna hurt .

    ... I think the gain in EV for being able to duck out of any stiff vs. 7-8-9 is probably greater than both those plays put together. But you do have a point.

    My problem with MathProf's analysis is I just don't see that many dealers passing by basic strategy hits like that. And when they do, I doubt many pit bosses would let you just fold the hand, even assuming the dealer would fess up to the error in front of her boss.

    I'd love to hear any RL stories where a play similar to this worked.

    I can think of a few exotic cases where a presumptuous dealer will likely help the player. But it's hard for me to believe the plusses outweigh the minuses.

    I like taking advantage of dealer errors, but I don't like the attention centered on *me* when they happen. ;-)

    ETF

  11. #24
    Cyrus
    Guest

    Cyrus: No stories

    "I doubt many pit bosses would let you just fold the hand, even assuming the dealer would fess up to the error in front of her boss.

    I'd love to hear any RL stories where a play similar to this worked."


    Why do we go with the assumption that the pit is/should be a hostile place ? Would cases where the boss didn't even have to be involved do ?

  12. #25
    Cyrus
    Guest

    Cyrus: Down the road apiece

    "Now I pointed out that [doubling A9v5] was a marginal play. I even questioned whether there was any gain in the play at all, if we were not below the index. No one seems to even addressed that point."

    No, and I want to thank you for addressing it yourself so analytically, in any case.

    But the point is not that hand, as I tried to make clear from the get-go! It's the big-bet plays down the road, where the hurried dealer may bypass you. And, oh yes, I must've made penny-foolish plays in my life to drive home a point to the dealer, only to assure that I'd be pound wise.

    Would you analyze the missed gain of standing on TTv6 instead of splitting 'em? (Should you even care to?)

  13. #26
    ET Fan
    Guest

    ET Fan: Anyone else?

    I meant to put it to the open board. I'd really be interested to hear if anything similar to MathProf's analysis has ever occurred in RL.

    Why do we go with the assumption that the pit is/should be a hostile place ?

    Hostile? How so?

    Would cases where the boss didn't even have to be involved do ?

    If it actually happened, sure, why not? I thought letting a player fold a stiff hand without intervention from the pit could be a firing offence, but I'm always willing to learn.

    ETF

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.