Disregard Proper Basic Strategy?

[mushin]

So what I was thinking is...

If the game you play has a house advantage of .44% based off the rules and you play 100% perfect basic strategy that is what you can expect. However if someone were to decide.... hey... I'm never going to double, or split, or the are never going to hit 16 vs 10 then they give up the advantage (Which is already accounted for the in house edge) those plays give the player with a net result of higher house advantage. In the case of an index play... that play adds to the players advantage... thus decreasing the house advantage. So if you decide to not take insurance for example during a count that justifies it... you are giving up the advantage of that index play. While this does not reduce your advantage below what it would have been had you not included it in your indices there is an opportunity cost to not making the play. I was not taking into account bet size or anything else. However the "cost" of not making a basic strategy play or the opportunity cost of not making an index play are indeed a factor of your bet size. Surrendering a $15.00 hard compared to a $150 hand is a large difference in dollar amount $7.50 vs $75.

[MJGolf]

I thought all of this arose from an initial question on this thread and another of doubling or not doubling. Taking into account a discussion on risk adverse indexes or making the correct decision on play based upon an index (or a couple higher count/risk adverse one)..........isn't that a different question than "whether you should double or not double v. what the strategy calls for"? I guess it's a question of semantics and differences. I'm sure that most of us, despite the various answers are closer to agreement than it seems. But I still think that in the extreme circumstances mentioned in some of the examples, we are still really talking about "overbetting" situations in relation to one's bankroll. Not trying to get argumentative, just trying to understand when it's really "correct" to make a wrong play? Not a risk adverse variation but an incorrect play to protect your bankroll.

[mushin]

I did not get the impression it was about risk adverse in the post but rather about not doing the correct play to preserve bankroll because you could not afford it. I agree too that the root problem would be over betting your bank roll.

[BoSox]

But I still think that in the extreme circumstances mentioned in some of the examples, we are still really talking about "overbetting" situations in relation to one's bankroll. Not trying to get argumentative, just trying to understand when it's really "correct" to make a wrong play? Not a risk adverse variation but an incorrect play to protect your bankroll.

A few points: I am not referring to any basic strategy plays here, or any deviations in BJ Attack 3. I am referring to an added thirty to forty obscure deviations that I periodically use. I learned these plays before the first BJ Attack book came out. I still remember them today. In previous discussions in years past (on Green Chip) experts such as Don S have said some deviations might gain you the value of a couple of hot dogs over your life time.

Again, I am properly bank-rolled and consider myself a much better player, and pick my spots rather than taking chances on coin flips. That is why I have added at least one more true count (based on the numbers in Professional BJ by Wong) before I consider making the obscure deviation play. My objective on those obscure plays is to appear to be more of an inconsistent gambler, not for the extra few dollars I will make In the long run. Mushin and MJGolf, why can't you see this?

BoSox

[trey.95]

I was asked a question about why basic strategy increases your odds and after giving my reason my uncle had said "well if you play by the exact same rules as the dealer then why is his odd better than yours". And the only explanation I had is that the casino has way more money to lose I'm assuming. But I can't really understand why it's not 50/50 if that was your BS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NotEnoughHeat]

I was asked a question about why basic strategy increases your odds and after giving my reason my uncle had said "well if you play by the exact same rules as the dealer then why is his odd better than yours". And the only explanation I had is that the casino has way more money to lose I'm assuming. But I can't really understand why it's not 50/50 if that was your BS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are two main factors, as far as I know, when it comes to the difference between player and house advantage. The first is the fact the the dealer has to play in a particular way, that is, always hit 16 and under (and potentially s17) among other things. I haven't read an independent source on this, but it seems intuitive to me that this benefits the player and not the house. The second, and biggest factor is the fact that player acts first. This is crucial. Consider the four combinations of player/dealer bust/no-bust. The player and dealer have the same odds (not including the rules that the dealer has to follow) to win when neither bust. However, in all cases where a player busts, the dealer wins. Even if the dealer busts as well, the hand is not a push, it is still a loss.

[UK-21]

I was asked a question about why basic strategy increases your odds and after giving my reason my uncle had said "well if you play by the exact same rules as the dealer then why is his odd better than yours". And the only explanation I had is that the casino has way more money to lose I'm assuming. But I can't really understand why it's not 50/50 if that was your BS.

The answer is that the player and house play by two different sets of rules, ie the dealer must draw to 17 whereas the player can stand on a lower score, the house doesn't have the option to splt to two hands, double down etc when it's favourable to do so, and of course the house loses one and a half times the wager on a snapper. All of these advantageous rules provide the player with a hefty benefit. But . . . the fact that the dealer always plays last negates all of this and more, and leaves the house with it's modest edge on the game.

If you adopt the strategy of "mimic the dealer" (as one of Mrs UK's friends does when he visits LV) you'll be giving up all of the advantages from the options only the player has, and will be at around a 7% disadvantage to the house. I've given up trying to get the message across, and breaking through the mindset of "if I play how the dealer does I shouldn't lose". Look up the EV for hitting on a 16 -v- dealer 6.

Tell you uncle I wish him good luck from this side of the pond.

[trey.95]

Ok that makes sense, thanks for the help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Three]

A few points: I am not referring to any basic strategy plays here, or any deviations in BJ Attack 3. I am referring to an added thirty to forty obscure deviations that I periodically use. I learned these plays before the first BJ Attack book came out. I still remember them today. In previous discussions in years past (on Green Chip) experts such as Don S have said some deviations might gain you the value of a couple of hot dogs over your life time.

Some indices exist but are almost worthless due to the counts poor correlation to the play.Like HILO splitting 2,2 or 3,3 v 8. The m-value is very close to zero so deviation opportunities should happen very frequently the time but your count can't identify them. If for 2,2v8 you counted the 8 and 9 as -2 and the 2 though 5 as +1 you would split often and accurately as a strong index. The same is true for 3,3v8 and the tags 6, 7 and 8 as -1 and 2, 3 and 4 as +1. The trouble is HILO has little to no correlation to the play and either doesn't count the key cards or counts some of them but wrong. As it stands you would only split with max bet out and you would be guessing more than anything. There would never be enough increase in EV to justify the extra money placed at risk. If you used EV maximizing indices for all the doubles and splits that would have an index your RoR would go up or if you kept RoR the same you would make smaller bets at the same count which cost you more money then the gain from these weak index plays.

Now to some with gargantuan BRs that can handle the added variance and play on teams that get huge numbers of plays in a short time the only factor is the gain in EV. They play enough combined hands to get to the increased n0 quickly and they still play wit essentially a 0 RoR. Not too many in that situation though.

I was asked a question about why basic strategy increases your odds and after giving my reason my uncle had said "well if you play by the exact same rules as the dealer then why is his odd better than yours". And the only explanation I had is that the casino has way more money to lose I'm assuming. But I can't really understand why it's not 50/50 if that was your BS.

It is pretty simple. the dealer plays after you. If you bust you lose. If the dealer busts you still lose if you already busted. It is like shooting an arrow at a target and the guy that gets closest to the center wins. If you shoot first and miss the qualifying ring you lose. But the dealer only loses if you hit the qualifying ring and he misses it. If you both miss the dealer wins.