OldCootFromVA: Designing/defining a ploppy

[OldCootFromVA]

I've decided to break this off the "not playing BS thread," as it is truly a subject unto itself.

The best way to determine if "bad" players at the table have any adverse effects on the other players, or if my original, limited, finding that "bad" players adversely affect players to their left, is to create a sim of a "bad" player, then plug him in to various seats at a simmed table, and see what happens.

Everyone is different, and each of us notices different things and weighs things differently; so I thought a collective effort to "define" a bad player would be better than just one individual's input.

Here are a few of my own suggestions:

1) will not hit a 16 regardless of dealer's card because "you can't help a 16;"

2) "a Ten always follows an Ace;" so will not hit many 3-card soft combos (e.g., 4-8-A vs 9) because "a Ten is sure to come");

3) will not make soft doubles;

4) will not hit soft 17; or hit soft 18 vs 9-A;

5) stands on soft combos because of confusion over the value(s) of the Ace (e.g., stands A-5 vs 4 because he thinks all 16s are alike).

Please feel free to add your own, and suggest deletion of any of the above.

The goal here is to narrow this down to 2 or 3, or 4 at most, of the most typical ploppie traits so we can design/define the "archtypical ploppie" for the purpose stated above.

[Dog Hand]

OldCootFromVA,

Below are a few more suggestions:

6) Will not split 9's against any upcard, since "18 is such a good hand!"

7) In DAS games, doubles on 4-4 vs. 6 (or 5), rather than splits.

8) Doubles ANY hand with a hard total of 11 or less vs. 6, since "The dealer almost always busts with a six showing."

9) Will not split 8's vs. an ace or face.

Dog Hand

[Victoria]

My definition of a ploppy is a bit different from yours.

The ploppy to me is the guy that gives every player constant unasked for bad advice, is obnoxious to anyone who does not play his warped version of voodoo basic strategy, and of course he plays just the way you guys describe. He is the self proclaimed expert at the table who does not know a thing about blackjack.

The people you described, in my opinion, do not deserve the negative meaning of the word ploppy. They are simply the sheep. The unknowing, unmotivated losers who we should all respect and hope they continue playing blackjack. Without these people donating their money to the casinos, there would be no money for us to withdraw. Their purpose is to lose so we can win. We should respect that. Call them amatuers, call them losers, call them dumb but do not be negative and call them ploppies. Save that for the big mouths among them, like the guy who yelled at me yesterday because I split 9's against a six, landed up winning four bets but caused him (in his dumb opinion) to lose.
Oh yes, add to your ploppy superstition list: Blackjack is a team sport!!! (Guess I am a bad team player)

Victoria

Victoria

> OldCootFromVA,

> Below are a few more suggestions:

> 6) Will not split 9's against any upcard, since
> "18 is such a good hand!"

> 7) In DAS games, doubles on 4-4 vs. 6 (or 5), rather
> than splits.

> 8) Doubles ANY hand with a hard total of 11 or less
> vs. 6, since "The dealer almost always busts with
> a six showing."

> 9) Will not split 8's vs. an ace or face.

> Dog Hand

[ToAnyOne]

I would just like to say that such a sim should be geared a lot more towards what happens in the high counts, because that is where we are more vulnerable.
ex: would you play at a table with a player you know always plays mimic the dealer? ... you know what will happen every time the counts gets to where you want it.
OTOH how would you like to play with someone who uses a never bust strategie.
Just some thoughts.

TAO

[Sun Runner]

> The ploppy to me is the guy that gives every player
> constant unasked for bad advice, is obnoxious to
> anyone who does not play his warped version of voodoo
> basic strategy, and of course he plays just the way
> you guys describe. He is the self proclaimed expert at
> the table who does not know a thing about blackjack.

This guy is just an ass. He probably is an ass at home and at work as well.

> The people you described, in my opinion, do not
> deserve the negative meaning of the word ploppy. They
> are simply the sheep.

Sheep? Of course, but the term ploppy is already entrenched and pretty much understood universally. OldCoot started off well describing them.

Next step up the ladder, I think, would be a civilian; one who plays BS well and is just looking to be entertained while losing as slowly and painlessly as possible, hoping to score some comps.

Several weeks ago I was pondering a term for a new breed of emerging player .. a 'daddy-o.'

A 'daddy-o' was one who heard a tale about how BJ can be beat but is un-willing to actually fully learn BS. None the less, he was taught a weak advanatge play on the drive up to the casino and upon arriving starts betting his meager roll expecting a signifigant and immediate payoff because he can't other wise find any other job he is currently qualified for. I assumed he would fall somewhere between ploppy and civilian but was not sure. Not being a math geek myself, I assume he could easily fall below ploppy in terms of actual negative expectation.

OldCootfromVa -nice to see you posting some here. Welcome to the oasis.

[OldCootFromVA]

> My definition of a ploppy is a bit different from yours. <

Apparently. To me, a "ploppy" is a non-expert player who simply plops his money down and hopes for the best but expects to lose. There are other (and far less polite) terms for the kind of player you describe.

But more to the point, what I'm looking for here are the most common "bad" plays which result in either "too many" or "too few" cards being used, which is the only way "bad" plays could affect the hands of other players and/or the dealer.

I have to admit that, for myself, having convinced myself that the "bad" plays made by other players does not affect me sitting at 1st base, the only attention I've paid to other players hands for many years is to see which cards are in them.

This is why I'm looking for input from others, who may be more sensitive to incorrect plays.

[OldCootFromVA]

I'll take that as:

10) Mimic the dealer;

11) Never hit anything that could break;

I've never seen (10), and almost never seen (11).

I guess I'll have to compile a list, and put them up for a vote.

Perhaps the greatest problem here will be one of consistency: the character who only sometimes doubles 12, seemingly regardless of the up-card, when his "gut" tells him to; and the player who sometimes stands 14 vs T and sometimes hits it, depending on his/her "gut."

[AutomaticMonkey]

It's from Harry Potter and all it means is a person without magical abilities. It's not meant as an insult. They don't know we are among them and we have a responsibility to keep it that way, for our mutual protection.

Definition of Muggles

[Wolverine]

12) Won't hit soft 17 (A-6 or any other combo of A-X-X adding to 7 or 17) ever.

I just got done playing with a player who "hates to split" so didn't split 3's twice against dealer bust cards (5 and 6), but this is pretty rare. I wouldn't say it happens too often, unless others have noticed the same thing.

13) Never doubling (same idiot I just mentioned about the 3's) ANY hand.

My 2 cents. I like sharing the plays I've seen out there.

[Coug Fan]

This seems like overkill for your purpose. Why not just have the player make completely random decisions with no strategy whatsoever. Just have a 50/50 chance of hit/stand, split/no-split, double/no-double, surrender/no-surrender, etc.

The point is to see whether the playing decisions of one player impact the results of any other player. The specific strategy should not matter as long as that strategy does not change based on the count.

[Myooligan]

And I like Automatic Monkeys goal of hooking a ploppy up (I like both names). Maybe we could have an Adopt-a-Plop program where ap'ers find covert ways to help out other players at their local casino. We oughta be able to come up with something, considering the creativity we exhibit when it comes to drafting up new advantage play techniques.

[OldCootFromVA]

> This seems like overkill for your purpose. Why not
> just have the player make completely random decisions
> with no strategy whatsoever. Just have a 50/50 chance
> of hit/stand, split/no-split, double/no-double,
> surrender/no-surrender, etc.

> The point is to see whether the playing decisions of
> one player impact the results of any other player. The
> specific strategy should not matter as long as that
> strategy does not change based on the count.

While I see your point, I don't agree. This would tend to even out over, say, 100,000,000 rounds. Besides, if we're going to go to all this trouble, we might as well be as accurate (read: representative) as possible.

One pattern I do see emerging: the most common errors tend to result in the taking of "too few" cards rather than "too many." E.g., not hitting stiffs, not splitting, not hitting certain soft combos, etc. OTOH, not doubling could, tho probably wouldn't, result in the player taking more cards.

On average, one would think this would tend to hurt in low count situations but help during high counts. And since we have more $$ out on high counts, it "should" help more than hurt. But speculation like that is worth about what it costs to post it.

[Myooligan]

> This seems like overkill for your purpose. Why not
> just have the player make completely random decisions
> with no strategy whatsoever. Just have a 50/50 chance
> of hit/stand, split/no-split, double/no-double,
> surrender/no-surrender, etc.

Or you could start with the extreme case, a reverse-basic strategy player. If that doesn't change your ev, these other adjustments probably won't either, like Coug Fan says.

But, if you do get a positive result, why not zero in on specific deviations from bs, ie, have a player who plays bs except never doubles; another who deviates from bs only in that he never hits soft 18, etc. This will allow us to bitch with much more sophistication than the typical plop, ie instead of "Thanks for losing my $100 for me," we can say, "Thanks for costing me $.0000427, pal."