T count simulation

[Three]

Often, your problem is the English language and the unclear manner in which you express yourself. (And no, repeating the same thing ten times doesn't make it CLEARER to someone; it just makes it more annoying.)

This was your original sentence (what it has morphed into since is quite irrelevant, because my argument hasn't changed since the beginning, while yours has): "It is a fallacy to view being dealt a T or A as a first card after you have already bet and can't change your bet as having an advantage . ..." (My emphasis at the end.)

So, this is a yes or no question that requires a one-word answer and not a dissertation (I dare you to answer in one word; you're totally incapable of doing that): If you have already made your bet and now see only the first card of your hand and it is an ace, do you have an advantage over the dealer at that precise moment in time, or do you not? Yes, you do, or no you don't? One word!

Don

Yes, since brevity has been asked of me I don't tend to explain the first sentence with follow up sentences so when my choice of English is poor in the initial post these problems occur. I knew what I meant and that is what I remember posting. I stated what I meant over and over and everyone seems to be ignoring that and focusing on the first statement that I chose my words poorly in. I should have said the knowledge that your first card is a T or A after you have made your bet can't be used to your advantage. A subtle difference in wording that totally changes what I wrote to what I meant and what I have been saying in every post after that one. I will change my initial post to reflect what I meant.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

" ... from the same guy that says at negative counts he has an advantage when tens come out and
that those are advantage rounds. Sure they're advantage rounds, but in the longrun you betting
into a negative count before the round starts."

Before leaping to criticize ~ one might consider that Three posts
often without identifying precisely what game he is referencing.

Do not waste your time speculating on what I am saying, just
conclude that your criticism stems from incomplete information.

[Three]

Actually you don't need to be able to change your bet to know that you have an advantage. If your first card is a T or ace, at that moment, you have an advantage over the dealer, regardless of what you bet. Being able to change your bet would increase your monetary EV, but the inherent advantage at that moment is not defined by that. It's defined as a percentage of your initial bet, whatever it was.

I know that. My initial post was worded poorly and caused confusion. I believe all my other posts were clear at expressing what I meant to say. The information can't be used to further your advantage. It is meaningless when it comes to information that you can use.

[Freightman]

" ... from the same guy that says at negative counts he has an advantage when tens come out and
that those are advantage rounds. Sure they're advantage rounds, but in the longrun you betting
into a negative count before the round starts."

Before leaping to criticize ~ one might consider that Three posts
often without identifying precisely what game he is referencing.

Do not waste your time speculating on what I am saying, just
conclude that your criticism stems from incomplete information.

And why is that?
Not my responsibility to be a mind reader. Just like it is not my responsibility to correct a dealer error in my favour.

[Gronbog]

I know that. My initial post was worded poorly and caused confusion. I believe all my other posts were clear at expressing what I meant to say. The information can't be used to further your advantage.

Yeah, I think that there's been a bit of typing at the same time going on.

[Joe Mama]

. Some of those guys still manage to lose 80% of the time.

You ought to make one of them your new best friend. What a gold mine, 80% win rate betting the opposite.

[Joe Mama]

Don S. suppose you have a $100 bet out. You get a 6 and the other player sitting next to you gets a 10 with a $5 bet out. Assuming it was okay with the pit. What would be your max offer to the guy to switch cards with you?

Let me take a stab at it, correct my thinking if I'm wrong.

Theory of BJ page 146, EV of Ten up is 13%: EV of 6 up is -18%.

$100 bet with 6 up is worth $82, $5 with Ten up is $5.65. Max offer should be $82 minus $5.65 = $76.35. i.e. accept $76.35 or greater from the $5 bettor.

[BoSox]

Let me take a stab at it, correct my thinking if I'm wrong.

Theory of BJ page 146, EV of Ten up is 13%: EV of 6 up is -18%.

$100 bet with 6 up is worth $82, $5 with Ten up is $5.65. Max offer should be $82 minus $5.65 = $76.35. i.e. accept $76.35 or greater from the $5 bettor.

Moses wrote:

" What would be your max offer to the guy to switch cards with you?"


Joe you are only switching cards not bets.

[Frank Galvin]

Let me take a stab at it, correct my thinking if I'm wrong.

Theory of BJ page 146, EV of Ten up is 13%: EV of 6 up is -18%.

$100 bet with 6 up is worth $82, $5 with Ten up is $5.65. Max offer should be $82 minus $5.65 = $76.35. i.e. accept $76.35 or greater from the $5 bettor.

Seems like a logical approach to solving the problem. I merely wonder if you additionally need to multiply both results ($82.00 and $5.65) by the applicable HE at the moment.

Don?

PS - We have travelled so far away from the OP’s reason for this thread. I’m shocked!

[DSchles]

Just about everything I've seen above is wrong and doesn't make any sense. But, in case others may want to weigh in, I'll wait till tomorrow to respond.

Don

[BoSox]

Players first card up if it is not a ten value card or an ace there is zero chance of getting a bj with the bonus payout 3/2 or heaven forbid 6/5. No chance at a even money bj. If your first card up is any of these cards 2,3,4 5,6,7,8 there is a zero chance for having a two card 20. That leaves only six ranks of cards that can accomplish the feat, subsequent the edge. I would like to add a first up card showing a 2,3,4, 5, 6, and sometimes a 7 "soft 18" often requires hitting, and re-hitting if the dealer is holding a strong card. Any time you hit there is a chance to bust, a distinct disadvantage.


Sometimes with a max bet out and you have that ten or ace first card, it often seems like an eternity before you see that next card, even though it is in seconds or fractions of.

[DSchles]

"It" happens Frank. Consider your last thread. Lots of things to worry about in this world. That probably shouldn't be one of them.
Dang, it's the middle of the day in NYC. C'mon Don S. You're doggin' it.

You're right. I actually wanted to think about this, because, as it turns out, it's more of an intriguing problem than you may have imagined at first. And when I'm through explaining, it will fun to see the response. First, let's remind everyone of the problem:

"Suppose you have a $100 bet out. You get a 6 and the other player sitting next to you gets a 10 with a $5 bet out. Assuming it was okay with the pit, what would be the proper offer to the guy to switch cards with you?"

By way of pertinent information, Theory of BJ, page 146, e.v. of Ten up is 13%, while e.v. of 6 up is -18%.

So, here is my analysis. If the two players switch cards, there is a shift in e.v. for each player of 31% (the big bettor goes from -18% to +13%, and vice versa for the small bettor). But those percentage shifts are worth very different dollar amounts to each because of the difference in the bet sizes. So, the $100 bettor gains $31 in e.v., while the $5 bettor loses only $1.55 in e.v. And, therein lies the problem.

The big bettor could say to the small bettor, "I'll give you the e.v. that you're forgoing, if you'll switch with me. Here's $1.55." But, the $5 bettor has every right to respond: "Wait a minute; if we switch, you're going to gain $31 in e.v. Why should I settle for $1.55?" And so, we have an apparent dilemma.

The problem is that there's a missing piece to the story: the casino!! As things lie, the casino stands to gain $31 - $1.55 = $29.45, if they don't switch. So why on earth would the casino stand by and let them switch cards without being compensated for the loss in their e.v. that would occur if the switch takes place? For that switch to ultimately be mathematically fair to all THREE parties involved, the big bettor should not only pay $1.55 to the small bettor, but he should also pay $29.45 to the casino! Together, that's the entire $31 that he would profit from the switch.

But, here's where the plot thickens. Moses wrote: "Assuming it was OK with the pit. ..." So, instead of worrying about whether the casino needs to be reimbursed for its generosity, let's just take Moses at his word and assume that the casino blesses this transaction for FREE! Now what??? Well, here's where the math gives way to good old fashioned bargaining, because there really is no "right" answer. The big bettor might begin by offering the $1.55, but the little bettor ought to tell him to go stuff it. The big bettor might then counter with: "You have $5 up. The largest payout you could possibly get would be $7.50 for a blackjack (forget about splitting tens), and that has only a 1/13 probability. Giving you $7.50 would, therefore, be overly generous on my part." And that would probably be true. Except that the small bettor knows this is worth $31 to the big bettor, so maybe he still holds out for even more!

Again, there's no right answer. But I think if I were brokering the deal, the final transaction would come in somewhere between $5 and $15.

I had fun with this. Your turn!

Don

[moses]

Excellent Don. Very enjoyable and thought provoking read. Word travels fast throughout a casino like wildfire. Even at $5, the red bettor believes he is getting a bargain. Especially if you explain blackjacks are like 1 in 21? Word would spread that this idiot is offering a fin to $5 bettors to switch certain cards with him. Soon you'd be surrounded by people with a perception of taking from an idiot. In reality, they'd be sitting next to a genius. I wonder if the pit would figure it out?