Percentage of hands players will win at positive counts

[seriousplayer]

I've doing some read ups on card counting lately and I was looking at the simulations Norm posted in Blackjackincolor.com section on "Win/Loss/Push Data". Then I looked an article from "Casino City Times" titled "What's the Advantage of Card Counting in Blackjack?". But anyways the data on the column "percentage of hands player will win at this count" does not match what is in Blackjackincolor.com. Is there anything wrong with the information I am reading from Casino City Times? May someone please review it and see what is the discrepancy?

I've posted the link to both of the articles for you to review.

Casino City Time Article:

http://krigman.casinocitytimes.com/a...blackjack-5335

Blackjackincolor Data:

https://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount5.htm

[Freightman]

I only read 1 line on the casino city article - some bullshit about true +2 winning 50.35% of the time. Understand that you will never win long term 50% plus if hands. Your expectation of the next hand is always a loss.

Simply put, card counting is profitable because the higher the true count, the greater the success probability of splits, doubles and Blackjack's. Go with the qfit article.

[DSchles]

Some people exclude pushes when citing win-loss percentages. If you do that, you do win more than 50% of resolved hands, in shoe games, at true counts of +5 or higher, depending on rules (for example, no surrender). So, it simply isn't true that "your expectation of the next hand is always a loss." And even if you include the possibility of a push, although you will no longer win more than 50% of the hands, at TC >+4, you will win more hands than you lose.

The problem with Norm's chart is that it permits surrender. At higher counts, you surrender at least 5% of all hands, and they all count as a loss, so this skews the results.

Don

[seriousplayer]

I only read 1 line on the casino city article - some bullshit about true +2 winning 50.35% of the time. Understand that you will never win long term 50% plus if hands. Your expectation of the next hand is always a loss.

Simply put, card counting is profitable because the higher the true count, the greater the success probability of splits, doubles and Blackjack's. Go with the qfit article.

I think what Norm has left out in the card counting study are

1. Insurance- The gain for proper waging of insurance at positive counts.
2. Surrender- The gain for surrendering as density of tens increases.
3. Dealer's Chance of Busting at positive counts. The dealer will bust more frequent with a ten density. There has been a blog by Norm regarding Dealer Blackjack Bust Rate but it doesn't take into consideration the bust rate at positive counts.

https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/en...unt-and-Upcard

[Three]

It looks to me like he looked at the win/loss percentage otherwise known as EV and added or subtracted half that value from 50%. If so, when he said percentage of hands a player will win at this count he meant % of money won on your bets and the remainder of the 100% was percentage of money lost on all bets rather than hands won and lost. The difference between these 2 percentages would be that counts EV. If that assumption is right it shows at minimum he doesn't understand the terminology he is using.

Then he says something like this:

For instance, with excess high cards to be drawn, it's better to stand on 16 versus a dealer's 10 than to surrender or hit.

Well we know it is better to hit nut it is not better to surrender. It sounds like he is using reference material he doesn't understand to make statements. Tread with caution.

I think what Norm has left out in the card counting study are

1. Insurance- The gain for proper waging of insurance at positive counts.
2. Surrender- The gain for surrendering as density of tens increases.
3. Dealer's Chance of Busting at positive counts. The dealer will bust more frequent with a ten density. There has been a blog by Norm regarding Dealer Blackjack Bust Rate but it doesn't take into consideration the bust rate at positive counts.

1) See the last index in this link. It is the EV per TC in graphical form for insurance:
https://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer3.htm

2) Depends on the matchup but many matchups are in Norm's link above.

3) I have seen Norm's info on this. I will try to find it. Look at the third graph on this page:
https://www.blackjackincolor.com/useless2.htm

As you can see the bust rate goes down as you move away from near neutral TC's. The dealer busts weak hands more at a high TC but gets those hands less. The net is a lowering of overall dealer bust rate.

[Norm]

I think what Norm has left out in the card counting study are

1. Insurance- The gain for proper waging of insurance at positive counts.
2. Surrender- The gain for surrendering as density of tens increases.
3. Dealer's Chance of Busting at positive counts. The dealer will bust more frequent with a ten density. There has been a blog by Norm regarding Dealer Blackjack Bust Rate but it doesn't take into consideration the bust rate at positive counts.

https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/en...unt-and-Upcard

Huh? Why would I leave this stuff out?

[Norm]

Some people exclude pushes when citing win-loss percentages.

There's that. But, there's also the fact that Krigman's number are just plain wrong.

[Freightman]

Some people exclude pushes when citing win-loss percentages. If you do that, you do win more than 50% of resolved hands, in shoe games, at true counts of +5 or higher, depending on rules (for example, no surrender). So, it simply isn't true that "your expectation of the next hand is always a loss." And even if you include the possibility of a push, although you will no longer win more than 50% of the hands, at TC >+4, you will win more hands than you lose.

The problem with Norm's chart is that it permits surrender. At higher counts, you surrender at least 5% of all hands, and they all count as a loss, so this skews the results.

Don

Well, I guess it's true only for some people,. Further, its simply not true, only for some people, that your expectation for the next Hand is a loss, depending on the rules, such as no surrender. I believe that's what you are saying.

Holy shit, let's revise the chart further. Farting alternate Wednesdays will tweak the results even further. This is great. If we tweak enough, we can prove the existence of Bigfoot. Let's now add some more semantics.

How about an answer based on standard interpetation - out of 100 typical hands, on a long term basis, including ties, with or without surrender, will the player ever win more than 50% of the hands? Was that not the question that was asked? Are you not the one who is continually bitching about unnecessary bullshit being introduced in threads? But I guess that's true, only for some people.

[seriousplayer]

1) See the last index in this link. It is the EV per TC in graphical form for insurance:
https://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer3.htm

The chart doesn't display the advantage for doubling down on A,9 vs 5 and 6 which is a profitable play.

[Phoebe]

The problem with Norm's chart is that it permits surrender. At higher counts, you surrender at least 5% of all hands, and they all count as a loss, so this skews the results.Don

We can in practice consider surrender as a loss. No ?
Where can we find a complete study ?
Or at least, @ TC=0 or on average.

[DSchles]

Well, I guess it's true only for some people,. Further, its simply not true, only for some people, that your expectation for the next Hand is a loss, depending on the rules, such as no surrender. I believe that's what you are saying.

Holy shit, let's revise the chart further. Farting alternate Wednesdays will tweak the results even further. This is great. If we tweak enough, we can prove the existence of Bigfoot. Let's now add some more semantics.

How about an answer based on standard interpetation - out of 100 typical hands, on a long term basis, including ties, with or without surrender, will the player ever win more than 50% of the hands? Was that not the question that was asked? Are you not the one who is continually bitching about unnecessary bullshit being introduced in threads? But I guess that's true, only for some people.

The above is aberrational nonsense. For every counter on the face of the earth, the expectation to win the next hand is greater than it is to lose the next hand, in shoes, if the TC >=+5. For SD, that true count is even lower, as Moses indicated. The one provision is no surrender.

is that clear enough for you to understand it? Your above post is just plain stupid. Not like you and ill becomes you. Don't write drivel.

Don

[Three]

The chart doesn't display the advantage for doubling down on A,9 vs 5 and 6 which is a profitable play.

I tried to get Norm to add more but he said these are the only interesting ones. I would expect a simulator generating indices to have a graphical summary of the raw data for the entire sim for each matchup. That doesn't mean they all do or that even some do but you might want to ask DogHand about what can be done with Norm's software.

[Three]

at a $25 single deck table,

the RC was positive, but hadn't reach tc 2.

Why not just say the RC was +1 and there was more than 1/2 deck left to be dealt.