Originally Posted by A_Riot
why stop at just one table???...this "nonsense" goes on in the pit, entire casino.....when you count, you try to win ALL the money they have, pal...that's what try to I do...good luck!!!...lmfao
Oh not what I mean.
One is learning by asking questions and taking the answers from knowledgeable players, not by arguying every answer like the one questionning IS the one in the know.
Join in March 2023, "a riot", you could have just choosen "a trouble maker".
G Man
Sure. When I get a blackjack, I only win my hand, but when the dealer gets one, they win all hands. I can never win all the money on the table no matter what I do but the dealer can. So to my thinking, if there is a high count, and this ends up helping both the dealer and players get blackjacks, it's disproportionately punishing for all players at the table. If the dealer gets two blackjacks in a shoe, I've lost both hands as has everyone else, and if the players get two blackjacks in the same shoe, one each for two players, we are now behind, having lost two blackjacks to the dealer and only won one each. So it seems dealer blackjacks are far more deleterious to the table than player blackjacks are beneficial to them.
The dealers plays robotically, I understand, and can't benefit from knowing what's left in the shoe. But if the count goes low favoring the dealer, should a player also play robotically like the dealer? If a low count benefits the dealer, and you play like the dealer does, does that benefit the player at all?
I've never quite understood this. Since what remains in the shoe matters, wouldn't other player's cards matter as well at least to some degree? For instance, with a table of 5 players, if the first three players got blackjacks and I did not, then the count will go low. If I got one of those blackjacks instead, the count would remain the same, but there's obviously a difference in my winnings despite the count being the same. So even though the two different scenarios made no difference to the count, one benefited me and one didn't. So it would seem to me that other player's blackjacks actually hurt me because they are taking aces I could have used. That leads me to believe playing one on one, or all the hands at a table might be an advantage you wouldn't have with random players. Hopefully that is clear.
Do you find this post helpful? You find two people answered yes. What a joke!
Email: [email protected]
Here's the problem, and I realize I'm just wasting my time, but I'll try once more. You came here with a preconceived notion of why high cards shouldn't really favor the player any more than the dealer. Several people here patiently and competently explained to you precisely why you were not seeing or understanding the concept. I was one of those people, and I explained why high cards favor the player. It isn't possible that you didn't understand what was written, which has led everyone to conclude that: a) you're a troll, or b) you're stubborn and like to argue rather than to learn. Either way, it won't make you very popular around here.
READ what people have written, but don't respond. Just read until you understand. Don't read with a mind to telling some of the finest experts in the game what they're missing and why you're really the only one who understands.
Don
Betting wise that's true. I can't bet with other players only the dealer. But I've certainly found that what other players do can influence my hand and outcome. If I was playing one on one or playing all the hands, I am the only one who can have any influence on my hand and outcome which intuitively seems to my benefit.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks