T count simulation

[moses]

Reminds me of the psychiatrist watching his patient run into his office wearing nothing but Saran Wrap. The Dr. Cried out - I used to think you were crazy, but now, I can see you're nuts.

Austin Powers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TIpjUp-gDw

Like to live dangerously? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkzMA1jrm00


So, if I know my first card is a ten or and Ace, I could do some really freaky shit to "fool" the pit. Still, I rather rather know the next card still in the deck.

[DSchles]

It is not an advantage because you can make no action until after the second card is dealt. As much as you might want to stop the dealer after the first card is dealt so you can buy or sell your hand that is not going to happen. And if you did that many casinos would not even allow such a transaction anyway. The game must be viewed as segments from on possible action to another. We all know for betting it doesn't matter what spot you play. You all make a bet at the same time and can't make a decision until after all the cards are dealt. If they did allow you to take action after the first card is dealt, then getting an A or T as a first card would give you the advantage of taking an action based on that information. But that is not how the game is played. The next action after betting is offered after you get 2 cards and the dealer gets an up-card. You could say on average you are in good shape but that is of no actual value to you because you can't act on the information. What you propose is not how the game is played.There is no value for the first card as no action can be taken on that information. Only after you get your second card and the dealer gets an up-card do you get to act on the current information.

The cards dealt after betting and before playing decisions are made can be viewed as being dealt in any order or simultaneously and nothing changes since no action can be taken until the initial deal is completed. That is how the game of BJ is dealt and played. Is a second card a T make a first card 6 valuable? You can view the cards as dealt in any order. So why would the first card a and the second card a 6 be any different? Only after you see both cards and the dealers up-card does anything change for you.

You really are a piece of work. Do you actually think you need to explain to me how the game is played in real life? Despite all the nonsense above, your original statement is patently false. Suppose the dealer has just spread the first card to all players, when someone spills a drink all over the table, halting the deal immediately. You have $1,000 with an ace sitting in front of you. If you don't now regard that situation differently from having a six lying on the felt, then there is no hope for you. I can't help you. But, again, if you don't understand that, if we both step back from the table while the pit boss is mopping up with a towel, all the while preserving the cards, and I offer you, say, $400 for your hand, and you don't know why I would do such a thing, then you're the one with a problem, not me. Would you take the $400 for the six? And you actually think the two situations are identical, just because you haven't received your second card yet???? What's wrong with you?

Don

[Three]

Don, first off, you were the one to make an argument based on something that can't happen in actual play. You know that it makes no difference whether your cards are revealed first card first, second card first or simultaneously but you try to make an argument to the contrary and when called on it call me a piece of work. Is the T as a second card worth the same as a T as your first card if you can't act on the first card information? That is a rhetorical question. We all know it is. Would you make the same argument that a second card T is worth something special? No, because you have already seen your first card. It either makes a good hand or makes a bad hand. The same is true for the first card if you can't act on the information. Your first 2 cards should be viewed as being dealt simultaneously to avoid fallacies like this one. First card information has value only when you can act on it. In the case you describe you can act on it but that is something that can't happen in real life. You are just seeing half of a 2 card hand. You find out whether that T was good news or bad news when you see your second card and the dealer's up-card. I agree that if somehow you could act on the information before you get a second card the information would have value, but you can't. Viewing the game as divided into pieces that have no possible action is a slippery slope. The game is about using information the best you can from decision point to decision point.

[Freightman]

Don, first off, you were the one to make an argument based on something that can't happen in actual play. You know that it makes no difference whether your cards are revealed first card first, second card first or simultaneously but you try to make an argument to the contrary and when called on it call me a piece of work. Is the T as a second card worth the same as a T as your first card if you can't act on the first card information? That is a rhetorical question. We all know it is. Would you make the same argument that a second card T is worth something special? No, because you have already seen your first card. It either makes a good hand or makes a bad hand. The same is true for the first card if you can't act on the information. Your first 2 cards should be viewed as being dealt simultaneously to avoid fallacies like this one. First card information has value only when you can act on it. In the case you describe you can't. You are just seeing half of a 2 card hand. You find out whether that T was good news or bad news when you see your second card and the dealer's up-card. I agree that if somehow you could act on the information before you get a second card the information would have value, but you can't. Viewing the game as divided into pieces that have no possible action is a slippery slope. The game is about using information the best you can from decision point to decision point.

3, ask yourself this question. If you only got 1 initial card instead of 2, and that card was either a face or ace - would you double? I know I would, everyday of the week. Same principle applies.

[Three]

3, ask yourself this question. If you only got 1 initial card instead of 2, and that card was either a face or ace - would you double? I know I would, everyday of the week. Same principle applies.

You see, in order to give the T or A value you have to invent a decision that is not offered. My example of equating the first card to the second is valid without changing the game. It is the ability to act on the information that gives it value. The reality is you can't act on it in real play.

[Freightman]

Gronbog.

Don

May the Schwartz be with you.

[ShipTheCookies]

3, ask yourself this question. If you only got 1 initial card instead of 2, and that card was either a face or ace - would you double? I know I would, everyday of the week. Same principle applies.

I don't know why you guys even bother...

[Freightman]

You see, in order to give the T or A value you have to invent a decision that is not offered. My example of equating the first card to the second is valid without changing the game. It is the ability to act on the information that gives it value. The reality is you can't act on it in real play.

Guaranteed that if I knew my first card would always be a face or ace, I would make an absolute shitload of money. Since money, in the end, is the scorecard or measure of success - would that not be the ultimate test?

3, please don't defend your prior comments - don't charge head on from a position of weakness. Scratch your balls and think about it.

[Freightman]

I don't know why you guys even bother...

Some if this shit is fun. Besides, just finished lunch, with my wife, at my favourite French bakery cafe, and she's off shopping. Nothing better to do

[Ustonzen]

The way you keep saying french bakery makes me think that when you say wife you mean husband

[Freightman]

The way you keep saying french bakery makes me think that when you say wife you mean husband

You're on the wrong track. Is your wife Greek?

[Member Name Hidden]

My lady just called and declined lunch. She'd gained a pound and is blaming me. So I ask "what's for dinner"? She replied "I'm having a salad. You're getting "meatloaf" for the rest of the week." Hmmm. I suppose a Hot Dog stand is out of the question.

Geesh, narrow or one track minded people.

Try a CBD smoothie instead.

[Three]

Guaranteed that if I knew my first card would always be a face or ace, I would make an absolute shitload of money. Since money, in the end, is the scorecard or measure of success - would that not be the ultimate test?

Exactly. You have to be able to act on the information to make it valuable. In the case you site you get to act on first card information. If you could just play those first card T and aces that would have value. But the way the game is played first card T is just a half of a hand total that you might have a good feeling about. There is no way to use the information to your advantage while the dealer is dealing. In other words, with no way to make use of the information, it is a meaningless piece of partial information on your hand. Given a way to act on it that information has value. With no decision to act on it is a meaningless piece of partial information until you find out what your other card is. I don't understand why AP's would have such a problem with the concept of how information becomes of value to you when playing. Since you can take no action with the information until after you get your second card it is inconsequential. Your decision will be based on the 2 card total and the dealers up-card not what you first card was.