See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 38

Thread: Odd observation - Playing PS = losing more when count high

  1. #14


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    We lose more hands with soft doubles against 2,3,4,5,6 than when we don’t double.
    We lose more hands with hard doubles against 7,8,9,10 than when we don’t double.

    We make more money by doubling, even by winning fewer hands, because the sum total of our wins versus losses exceeds the value of our wins when we don’t double.

    I erroneously stated that we won more hands in higher counts by doubling and splitting. 21forme made a valid po8n5 on defensive splits, citing that we are still overall losers, but that we lose less.

  2. #15


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Mickey View Post
    This may not be the one you're eluding to, but [insurance opportunities] would certainly also be another edge an AP would have during high counts, yes?
    The value of insurance is lost on ploppies. Flatbetting all hands, blindly insuring against all dealer aces, is a windfall for the house, I think around 8%.

    Proper insurance play is the most valuable index we have. We will insure against dealer aces when we have our largest bets out, when, in theory, there is the highest probability of dealer BJ.

  3. #16


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Thanks. Brain fart on my part. I knew that you win more money but not more hands. This is in response to post #14.

  4. #17


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by BoSox View Post
    Thanks. Brain fart on my part. I knew that you win more money but not more hands.
    You know it alright - it’s instinctive. but you may not realize it. The logic is simple.

    Whenever you double, you’re limiited to 1 card. However, if you get a shit card when otherwise, you would be entitled to more cards - that’s where the difference is.

  5. #18


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    We lose more hands with soft doubles against 2,3,4,5,6 than when we don’t double.
    We lose more hands with hard doubles against 7,8,9,10 than when we don’t double.

    We make more money by doubling, even by winning fewer hands, because the sum total of our wins versus losses exceeds the value of our wins when we don’t double.

    I erroneously stated that we won more hands in higher counts by doubling and splitting. 21forme made a valid po8n5 on defensive splits, citing that we are still overall losers, but that we lose less.
    Your point makes no sense, and your original statement doesn't have a flaw in it; it's correct as it stands.

    The question, obviously, isn't whether you can win (any money at all) more hands by not doubling than by doubling: that's always a given! How can being restricted to a one-card draw ever allow you to win more hands than if you can hit as many times as you like??

    You're not even understanding your own objection. You DO win more doubles and splits (percentagewise) in higher counts than in lower ones. What would make you think otherwise??

    Don

  6. #19


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Freightman, Don S. just texted me that your flaw is that you utilized Us instead of Is. Diogenes

  7. #20


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Your point makes no sense, and your original statement doesn't have a flaw in it; it's correct as it stands.

    The question, obviously, isn't whether you can win (any money at all) more hands by not doubling than by doubling: that's always a given! How can being restricted to a one-card draw ever allow you to win more hands than if you can hit as many times as you like??

    You're not even understanding your own objection. You DO win more doubles and splits (percentagewise) in higher counts than in lower ones. What would make you think otherwise??

    Don
    I’ll reread what I wrote, but Im not sure you read it right.

  8. #21


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    I’ll reread what I wrote, but I'm not sure you read it right.
    You wrote: "Higher counts are beneficial for higher number of blackjacks, and for higher success rates on doubles, splits, and doubles after splits."

    Every word of that sentence is correct.

    Don

  9. #22


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by BoSox View Post
    Freightman, I will take a failure on your test. Besides I am expecting 9 to 12 inches of snow, followed up with up to a half inch of ice, then an arctic blast of cold from Canada.
    BoSox, be careful on any ice. Old man winter finally did me in. I fell last week on ice and cracked my rib. It hurts like hell when I try to get in or out of bed. The only position I can sleep in is flat on my back. I went to my doctor and he thought the x-ray showed no break, but the next day the doctor called back after the radiologist reviewed the x-ray. The radiologist thinks there is probably a slight fracture.

    I was all set to go out there and do some yopper scooping this weekend, but decided to put it off for a few more days since I found out about the possible fracture.

  10. #23


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    You wrote: "Higher counts are beneficial for higher number of blackjacks, and for higher success rates on doubles, splits, and doubles after splits."

    Every word of that sentence is correct.

    Don
    That is exacty what I wrote, and we both know that is correct. Now, where the discrepancy lies is the issue, regardless of count, are those hands where we fail to double, catch a crap card where we would not be allowed to take another card after doubling, and where can take another card because a double was not made.

    So, for example, not doubling 10v8, catching a 3, allows us to improve our hand and hit again. Now, there is a further issue of semantics, but I dont think it necessary to confuse the shit out of everybody,

  11. #24


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Midwest Player View Post
    BoSox, be careful on any ice. Old man winter finally did me in. I fell last week on ice and cracked my rib. It hurts like hell when I try to get in or out of bed. The only position I can sleep in is flat on my back. I went to my doctor and he thought the x-ray showed no break, but the next day the doctor called back after the radiologist reviewed the x-ray. The radiologist thinks there is probably a slight fracture.

    I was all set to go out there and do some yopper scooping this weekend, but decided to put it off for a few more days since I found out about the possible fracture.


    Get the snow peeler - ideal for UP winters.

  12. #25


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    That is exacty what I wrote, and we both know that is correct. Now, where the discrepancy lies is the issue, regardless of count, are those hands where we fail to double, catch a crap card where we would not be allowed to take another card after doubling, and where can take another card because a double was not made.

    So, for example, not doubling 10v8, catching a 3, allows us to improve our hand and hit again. Now, there is a further issue of semantics, but I dont think it necessary to confuse the shit out of everybody,
    No, I think Don is correct...

    Firstly, higher counts means that you are MORE likely to catch a ten on your double. You can sim it to find out exactly what percent at what count. The dealer is also more likely to catch a ten on their hit. That is why you have indices to double in higher counts, where you wouldn't in lower counts. 10v8 is a BS play, but 9v7 isn't. At a certain count you'd double your nine, because you are likely to get a 10.

    Second, although you can do whatever you want with your hand, the dealer HAS to hit a stiff. So you're going to stand more, but they are going to hit or stand depending upon the rules regardless of the count. This also helps your doubles.

  13. #26


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    To the OP, your sample is too small. You will often have your biggest losses at high counts, because one, you're betting more, and two, just because the "good" cards are coming out, they are landing in front of the dealer instead of you. Fortunately, you will also have your biggest wins at these counts as well, and in the long run your wins will (should) be greater than your losses. Variance is a fickle friend.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Losing entire bankroll at very high counts
    By Ptc in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-20-2018, 03:25 PM
  2. Losing big on high counts
    By Blitzkrieg in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 08:55 PM
  3. Seemore Scagnetti: Losing in high counts....
    By Seemore Scagnetti in forum Blackjack Beginners
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-01-2005, 08:25 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.