Randall Morris: For Don

[Randall Morris]

In the book "Las Vegas Blackjack Diary" Ian states that one of the myths of blackjack is that" When the count is high the counter wins the majority of his hands". He then states 4 true reasons why the player benefits. The dealer is more likely to bust with a ten rich deck. Ian says nothing about this being an advantage to the player. What is your opinion on this? Rantana

[Titaniumman]

My copy of Las Vegas Blackjack Diary is by Stuart Perry, not Ian or even his sister, Ina.
:-)

It is true enough that when the count is high, the dealer is more likely to have a stiff hand when his up card is a small card. It is also true that the dealer is more likely to bust a stiff hand in a high count.

I haven't done any studies, but it would seem to me that the above two points are negated by the fact that the dealer is also more likely to have a pat hand in the first place so that he won't be hitting and busting.

This would support the statement that the player still loses the majority of the hands even when the count is high. I do, however have a problem with that statement that I will get to at the end of this post.

It is commonly stated that the advantage for a player in a high count is his ability to take advantage of 3:2 payouts on naturals, doubling down, splitting, insurance, and refraining from hitting.

My problem with Perry's statement is that if an advantage player is going to take advantage of all the strategy options, have a larger bet out in a high count, and still lose the majority of those hands in the high count...

...it would seem that the player is still going to lose money.

[Don Schlesinger]

> My copy of Las Vegas Blackjack Diary is by
> Stuart Perry, not Ian or even his sister,
> Ina.
> :-)

Right.

> It is true enough that when the count is
> high, the dealer is more likely to have a
> stiff hand when his up card is a small card.
> It is also true that the dealer is more
> likely to bust a stiff hand in a high count.

So far, so good.

> I haven't done any studies, but it would
> seem to me that the above two points are
> negated by the fact that the dealer is also
> more likely to have a pat hand in the first
> place so that he won't be hitting and
> busting.

Also correct. Bottom line: there is very little difference between the overall busting percentage of the dealer at a count of, say, zero, and at a count of, say, +5 or +10, but, in fact, overall, the dealer breaks slightly less in those high counts than in the lower ones.

> This would support the statement that the
> player still loses the majority of the hands
> even when the count is high. I do, however
> have a problem with that statement that I
> will get to at the end of this post.

In single deck, I believe the player begins to win more hands than he loses at a count of about +5 or so. In shoe games, it is a much higher +8 or +10. In shoe games that offer surrender, it is never.

> It is commonly stated that the advantage for
> a player in a high count is his ability to
> take advantage of 3:2 payouts on naturals,
> doubling down, splitting, insurance, and
> refraining from hitting.

True.

> My problem with Perry's statement is that if
> an advantage player is going to take
> advantage of all the strategy options, have
> a larger bet out in a high count, and still
> lose the majority of those hands in the high
> count...

> ...it would seem that the player is still
> going to lose money.

No, it wouldn't. Doubling a hand counts as ONE win, but you win twice as much as usual. Getting a natural counts as ONE win, but you get paid 3 to 2. Winning an insurance bet (saving your original bet) doesn't count as a win at all, but you save an important loss.

In short, it is easy to see how you can lose the majority of hands you play yet still win money through bet variation and the rules of the game.

Don

[Titaniumman]

[Zenfighter]

www.bjmath.com/bjmath/conseq/streak.htm

It?s been done with Norm?s software.

Regards
Z

[Titaniumman]

I wonder why some of the numbers jump around. Check around TC +25 and higher.

[Norm Wattenberger]

> I wonder why some of the numbers jump
> around. Check around TC +25 and higher.

These are ultra-extreme counts.

1. At extreme counts, there are very few hands so the standard error is very high.

2. Some extreme counts are very unlikely because of the way we calculate true counts.

3. Some extreme counts can only occur with unusual subsets of remaining cards. With those subsets, the count is a very poor indicator of results.

Counting is designed to predict results in the vast majority of situations ? not the ultra-extreme counts.

BJStats

[Titaniumman]