moses

[moses]

First timer here. Cutting cards. I hear the term "cut thin to win." I only play single deck blackjack one on one against the dealer. Recently, I'd lost the first hands of a deck 8 straight times. So I ask the dealer to cut. He cut the cards as thin as possible. I one the first hand from his cut so I kept tipping him $1 for each cut. He only lost once and won at least 8 before he was relieved. Since then, I've been cutting the cards thin but with not nerely the su ccess of this dealer. I notice the dealers say I must cut anywhere from 5 to 8 cards. Do it really make a difference? if so. Why?

[RS]

Doesn't matter. Just a coincidence.

[Finrod]

Moses, your post is clearly in the incorrect area of the forum. Maybe a moderator can relocate the post. To add to RollingStoned's comments, the placement of the cut card by yourself or the dealer is completely inconsequential to results unless you have information about the order of the cards in the deck. The results you comment on in your post are normal variance and have nothing to do with placement of the cut card. That being said, if you are card counting, the dealer's cut does make a big difference on results, but not for the reasons you suspect. A card counter wants the dealer to cut off as few cards as possible to allow for longer playing time at high counts with tight count precision near the end of a shuffle.

[moses]

Moses, your post is clearly in the incorrect area of the forum. Maybe a moderator can relocate the post. To add to RollingStoned's comments, the placement of the cut card by yourself or the dealer is completely inconsequential to results unless you have information about the order of the cards in the deck. The results you comment on in your post are normal variance and have nothing to do with placement of the cut card. That being said, if you are card counting, the dealer's cut does make a big difference on results, but not for the reasons you suspect. A card counter wants the dealer to cut off as few cards as possible to allow for longer playing time at high counts with tight count precision near the end of a shuffle.

Thanks for info. Yes. I'm counting on a ratio basis. Single deck only. On average, my system makes about $200 over 1,000 hands played at $10 table in the casinos. Playing the exact same situation on Norm's game at home usually nets $500 to $700 over 1000 hands with 67% penetration. The only difference is in the cut and penetration. Profits are substanially more on hands 5,6, and 7 and very difficult to remain even on first two hands of the deck. It seem as though 9s-10s-As come out early at the casino so I spend most of my day swimming upstream through negative decks trying to stay even. I stand on 16 on the first hand to avoid getting too negative early. Hence, i have 10,6 dealer has 10up. I hit and get a ten and dealers hole card is 10. Bam, I down 4 to 1 with 6 hands left to play. But standing gives me a 10 to start my next hand with.

[moo321]

Please do not gamble anymore. You are doing many things wrong, and believing in several superstitions that are not correct. Stop, go get some good books on counting, and consider coming back in 6 months or a year.

[moses]

I'm not trying to learn many games or find a general concept over millions of hands. Just trying to perfect the game of single deck blackjack one on one against the dealer. I have options the dealer does not - such as splitting or doubling down. I also have the option of having my potential break card be the first card of my next hand. This is an important advantage and not able to be factored in to simulations. Thorpe's book talks about ratios as opposed to point counts. My problem is not losing money but avoid getting banned by winning too much in a single session. The idea of counting is useless without a sound financial plan and strategy. May as well play basic strategy. Few books offer sound advice in money managment. Knowing which cards have been played and remain is invaluable. The 8 is generally treated as a silent card or one with no value but its very important when doubling down or holding a 12 or 13 against 2,3. It all comes down to math. Discipline. Luck is nice too.

[Norm]

This is an important advantage and not able to be factored in to simulations.

This is, of course, quite absurd.

[MidniteToker]

Just trying to perfect the game of single deck blackjack one on one against the dealer.

You may be trying, but you're not using tools that make any sense at all. You say "it all comes down to math and discipline", but you stand on 16vT off the top, completely disregarding the math.

If you don't have the right approach, it doesn't matter how hard you try, you'll still get it wrong.

[moses]

Again, we are talking single deck one on one against the dealer. I'm standing only against a 10 or A. Only 16 cards can improve 16 (2,3,4,5) to 18-21. 30 cards will break it. 28 cards are a nice to start my next hand. Its tauntamount to those playing 2 hands (at double the minimum) at the beginning of the deck. Hence, you can't look at the 2nd hand until you've finished playing the first hand. Also, its unlikely you'll have 10-As at the end of the deck for big bets if you are using them up and break cards early in the deck. We are talking profit. I will take winning 42 to 45% of my minimum bet hands for winning 60 to 70% on big bets any day of the work. Key is putting oneself in the situation more often.

[moses]

Really? How does an Ace help you with an 11? 8 will get you 19. Abusrb is doubling a bet when you do not know if you have at least a 50% chance of winning.

[MidniteToker]

Good luck with all of that.

[moses]

... even better which often happens. Then I'm up 1-0 as opposed to down 0-1 by hitting. And the odds are still in my favor of getting a positive card for my next hand. The idea came to me by noting the Silver Fox chart of always standing on 16 against at even count. However, I hit 16 again 10 later in the deck...Always on the last hand.

Understand, I'm not disputing the validity of the math. I'm talking about two unknown cards 1.) the hole card which I can't control 2.) the next card in the deck which I can control...either take it now or take in later - in one on one. It just appears the math logic of standing greatly outweigh hitting - in this situation.

My play is based on the hope the dealer will get me 7 rounds to view consistently. If dealers is shuffling 5 rounds or less then hitting 16 on the 1st hand probably makes more sense. But the idea of even playing against a dealer that shuffles that often is not prudent.

[moses]

Thank you kind sir.