Source of the claim that more high cards benefit players

[A_Riot]

Perhaps it's a dumb question for more experienced players, but I've searched for the source of this claim, that most card counting in blackjack is based on, but have never found it. More high cards than low in a shoe would tend to lead to higher ranked hands for anyone playing including the dealer would it not? How do you know it won't just help the dealer in some scenarios, like one on one, etc? Is it simply a belief or did someone at some point run billions of simulations and find it to be generally true that more high cards will benefit the players more than the dealer?

[Norm]

It's explained in every decent card counting book, and quadrillions of hands have been simmed.

[DSchles]

Perhaps it's a dumb question for more experienced players, but I've searched for the source of this claim, that most card counting in blackjack is based on, but have never found it. More high cards than low in a shoe would tend to lead to higher ranked hands for anyone playing including the dealer would it not? How do you know it won't just help the dealer in some scenarios, like one on one, etc? Is it simply a belief or did someone at some point run billions of simulations and find it to be generally true that more high cards will benefit the players more than the dealer?

Ask yourself the following: 1. When you get a blackjack, what is the payoff? When the dealer gets a blackjack, how much of your wager do you lose? 2. Can you double down? Can the dealer? 3. Can you take insurance? Can the dealer? 4. With lots of high cards remaining, can you stand on your 16s and 15s? Can the dealer?

Not every reason, but, hopefully, enough to answer your question. And, you don't need sims for any of the above, just a little logic and common sense.

Don

[A_Riot]

Ask yourself the following: 1. When you get a blackjack, what is the payoff?

It's 3:2 where I've played. But how am I assured of getting more blackjacks than the dealer when the count is high? A dealer blackjack causes every player to lose so unless you are playing one on one, a dealer blackjack is far more detrimental to players than the benefit of a 3:2 payout, surely.

When the dealer gets a blackjack, how much of your wager do you lose?

I lose all my wager, as does every other player at the table, so the house benefits from a dealer blackjack far more than my 3:2 payoff benefits me when I get one, depending on how many players there are. If the count is high, and players are increasing their bets and the count ends up benefiting the dealer's hand instead of yours, it's even more deleterious it seems to me. Hence my original question.

2. Can you double down? Can the dealer? 3. Can you take insurance? Can the dealer? 4. With lots of high cards remaining, can you stand on your 16s and 15s? Can the dealer?

All that assumes the conclusion though, that a higher count benefits players more than the dealer. I can double down, but if I lose that bet because the count is high and the dealer gets a great hand because of that, I don't follow how I am any better off. I can stand on 15s and 16s, but if the dealer is also getting higher ranked hands due to the count being high, I'm more likely to lose those hands. I've not found any reasoning or logic that stipulates a high count automatically benefits the player over the dealer since the cards come out randomly to everyone.

Not every reason, but, hopefully, enough to answer your question. And, you don't need sims for any of the above, just a little logic and common sense.

Don

I appreciate your response!

[Gramazeka]

Help for you-

https://www.blackjackinfo.com/commun...o-system.9660/

https://www.blackjackinfo.com/commun...uestions.9666/

[Norm]

The basic principle behind counting is the fact that high cards, particularly aces and tens, are better for the player and low cards, particularly 4s, 5s and 6s, are good for the dealer. Aces and tens can give the player Blackjacks, and tens are better for doubles. Low cards are good for the dealer, because unlike the player, the dealer must hit stiff hands (12-16) and low cards are safer. Tens break all stiff hands. Clearly if we remove all the aces, we cannot receive a Blackjack and our odds are worse.

https://qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage68.htm

[kcchiefsfan1982]

It's 3:2 where I've played. But how am I assured of getting more blackjacks than the dealer when the count is high? A dealer blackjack causes every player to lose so unless you are playing one on one, a dealer blackjack is far more detrimental to players than the benefit of a 3:2 payout, surely.



I lose all my wager, as does every other player at the table, so the house benefits from a dealer blackjack far more than my 3:2 payoff benefits me when I get one, depending on how many players there are. If the count is high, and players are increasing their bets and the count ends up benefiting the dealer's hand instead of yours, it's even more deleterious it seems to me. Hence my original question.



All that assumes the conclusion though, that a higher count benefits players more than the dealer. I can double down, but if I lose that bet because the count is high and the dealer gets a great hand because of that, I don't follow how I am any better off. I can stand on 15s and 16s, but if the dealer is also getting higher ranked hands due to the count being high, I'm more likely to lose those hands. I've not found any reasoning or logic that stipulates a high count automatically benefits the player over the dealer since the cards come out randomly to everyone.



I appreciate your response!

Forget Blackjack...


What if you got paid 3/2 on a coin toss. Heads, you get $150 and tails you lose $100, on 100 flips.

You will probably win close to 50 flips and lose close to 50 flips...and come out $2,500 up (it won't be exactly this result, but that is where the math leads)

I one setting though, you are absoultely NOT guaranteed to win the blackjack battle.

[21forme]

you are absoultely NOT guaranteed to win the blackjack battle.

If you play correctly and play enough hands you are.

[A_Riot]

Forget Blackjack...
What if you got paid 3/2 on a coin toss. Heads, you get $150 and tails you lose $100, on 100 flips.

Sure, but who is going to take the other side of that bet? No one I know otherwise I'd be over there flipping coins right now

You will probably win close to 50 flips and lose close to 50 flips..>.and come out $2,500 up (it won't be exactly this result, but that is where the math leads)

Of course, but the payout would be 1:1 not 3:2 though. As far as I can tell, playing perfect basic strategy leads to slowly losing unless you can find an edge with card counting, betting schemes, or some other means. Since that's based on the claim that high cards favor the player and low cards favor the dealer, I wanted to see if I can find the mathematics behind the claim, as it's not intuitive to me, since all players, dealer included, will get better 2 card hands with a high count, at which point the dealer stands on many hands getting 20s and blackjacks and never gets a stiff hand to draw a high card and bust on. I've certainly experienced this in real life. I've watched dealers win repeatedly, even with a very high count, because it just so happened that the dealer got the best of what was left in the shoe not the players, so wanted to find out what the reasoning behind it is.

For instance, if you make the dealer just another player who can make all their own decisions like players instead of hitting on 16 and standing on H17, etc, wouldn't a high count benefit them in the same manner as the players? In that case, the dealer has the same advantage as players do when the count goes high, along with the enviable advantage of playing last. So is the fact that the dealer hits 16 and stands on 17 what gives the players the advantage of a high count or is it something else? I don't know so I ask.

[A_Riot]

Clearly if we remove all the aces, we cannot receive a Blackjack and our odds are worse.

Yes, and I've played Spanish 21 where the tens are removed. The first time I heard that I thought who would play blackjack with the tens removed given they are required for a 3:2 payout with an ace. But then it occurred to me that with more lower cards, perhaps you are also slightly less likely to bust when taking that 3rd or 4th card as well. Spanish 21 strategy seems to indicate this is the case by always hitting 12s, almost always hitting 13s, etc. So I wanted to see how this claim can be proven using mathematics or some algorithm, and also find or figure out how much a high count favors the player.

https://qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage68.htm

I found and read that during my searches. What I was wondering about is this part:

Above we see the Effects of Removal table from Peter Griffin’s The Theory of Blackjack. Griffin calculated the change in the odds when you remove a card from a single-deck game. We see from the table that removing an ace decreases the player edge by a further .61%.

Fair enough, but wouldn't it do the same thing to the dealer's odds as well? Obviously they will also get blackjack fewer times if an ace is removed, so it's not intuitive to me how removing an ace can hurt the players but not hurt the dealer's odds as well. If I get fewer blackjacks I lose a little bit of money since I'll reap the benefits of a 3:2 payout fewer times, but for the dealer, they gain a lot more money when they get a blackjack since the entire table loses, so a missing ace seems to hurt the dealer more in terms of lost winnings. Hopefully that makes some sense.

[A_Riot]

Thanks for the links. I understand that with more high cards, blackjacks are more likely which has a better payoff leading to a benefit, but that seems wiped out when the dealer gets a blackjack and takes the entire table's money. For instance, imagine a high count resulting in me getting a blackjack on round one. The next round another player gets a blackjack. On the third round the dealer gets a blackjack. I made 3:2, another player made 3:2, but the dealer made out like a bandit! To make it fair, it almost seems like whenever any player gets a blackjack the entire table gets paid.

I get no benefit if another player gets a blackjack, even though the house still pays, in fact it's bad for me, since they've used cards I can no longer use to get a blackjack. But the dealer gets a huge benefit every time they do. So in this scenario, assuming 5 players with $100 bets, the house will pay $150 to me and the other player for our blackjacks for a total loss of $300, but will rake in $500 for their blackjack. With a high count, this scenario could occur a few times in a row, and sure a couple players got their 3:2 payouts, but the dealer got all the money on the table every time they score a blackjack. It's this kind of thing that puzzles me regarding a high count being better for players than dealers. To me it seems that a high count favors all players including the dealer and vice versa.

[Secretariat]

Thanks for the links. I understand that with more high cards, blackjacks are more likely which has a better payoff leading to a benefit, but that seems wiped out when the dealer gets a blackjack and takes the entire table's money.

First, you should reread post #3.

Now, why do you care about other players and the “entire table money”?

Prior to the deal, your odds to get a blackjack (or any hand) at any count are the same as the dealer.

Overall, you will get a blackjack approximately every 21 hands but you will get more at high counts.
So will the dealer and the other players. The dealer will bust more often on his stiffs at high counts. You can also insure at high counts when dealer is showing an ace.

Now think playing solo. If you play heads up you will get half of the blackjacks at that table, and not one third, one fourth or one fifth depending on the number of players. But overall it still will be one BJ every 21 hands for you. It may become one BJ every 17 hands, 15 hands or better at high counts.

That’s part of the reason why we all dream of that huge plus count with nobody else at the table.
It’s like having a delicious large pizza to yourself. No need to share.

[Norm]

The dealer does not get 3:2 on a blackjack. The dealer can't insure, split, or double. The dealer can't bet more when the count is favorable. The dealer can't make any decisions at all based on the count. Other players don't matter.