The better bj expert books maintain that bad players at your table should not be a cause for concern; things will equalize in the long run.
However, reading the tourist vegas boards the knowledgeable bj players constantly whine about bad players taking the dealers bust card, etc.
Who right?
Who right?
The books.
Definitive enough?
Truth is, the clueless player is just as likely to take that card that would have made the dealers hand.
But people don't remember those times.
The only bad effect clueless players have is slowing down the game while they agonize over whether or not to hit their 13 vs dealer 10.
Some players, icluding supposed pro BJ players get upset at players using incorrect playing strategy, this is particularly true of the person sitting at 'anchor' or third base, who supposedly controls the game.
The 'missplay' of the cards assumes that the cards are in a particular order, and that a missplay will upset this.
As Parker points out this is an erroneous belief. The only other annoyance beside the main one Parker observed, (slow decisions), which therefore lower hourly rate, is the tendency of some bad players to split everything they see. During high counts when lots of tens can be present, splitting at generally inappropriate times eats up extra cards, sometimes reducing the number of high count rounds to be played from that shoe. Obviously card eating during negative counts is beneficial to us.
I personally would be happy for players to make bad decisions such as not hitting, (ie not taking cards during high counts) say 13 v 10, but I would also like them to make this decision relatively quickly. Any player at your table negatively affects your hourly rate, as they slow down the game, and you get less hands during positive counts.
A true BJ pro should be concerned with the speed of the game, thus try and play with as few other players as possible, & also consider the speed at which the other players make their decisions.
As Parker also pointed out, players usually only do 'post-mortems' of others decisions when their own hand lose. If they observe there would have been no difference their mouth stays shut, if they observe with 20-20 hindsight that had you have played differently they would have won they whinge.
As most players do not count, or even know how to make basic strategy plays like hitting soft 18 v 9,10,A; or hitting 12 v 3, you will find yourself often abused for making even basic correct plays. Obviously the situation worsens when you make advanced strategy plays such as standing on 15 v 10 during a high count or hitting 12 v 5 in a low count.
If abused I sometimes use the line, 'Sorry mate, were not all professionals like you.' having a quiet laugh at their ignorant expense.
The whining is just that, whining. Learn to put up with it, gamblers are the biggest whiners you can meet. They cannot blame themselves for their inability to hold onto their money so they look for a scapegoat.
People easlily retain memory of the bad things, and quickly forget the numerous good things. For example, I'm on 3rd base and I hit my hand causing the dealer to bust. So to these ploppies, I played "correctly" because I made the dealer bust. Next round I hit again, but this time I "took" the dealer's bust card. So now I'm a bad player, to them I played "incorrectly" only because I should have left the bust card for the dealer (like I should have known this fact before taking the card).
Which play do you think they will remember...when I "saved" them or when I "screwed" them.
Over-all, my decisisons (or anyone else;s decision) will balance out 50-50 as to hurting or helping the dealer...but the ploppies will only remember the decisions that made them lose money.
This is called selective memory. It happens in many walks of life. Like my last job, I was usually always 10 minutes early. But the one day a week that I'm a few minutes late, the boss makes a comment about how late I am as I walk in. He only remembered the day I'm late, and not the days I was early.
It says something about percentage play.
Also, if you reconstruct a round:
example:
Box 1 should have hit hard 20
Box 2 should have split
box 3 should have done "blah blah"
etc, etc
then the dealer would have busted.
"Whoo hoo BIG DEAL"
It is not going to change the fact in the following rounds the dealer will get a certain percentage of blackjacks, hard 21, hard 20, hard 19 etc
If there were no bad players, the game of Black Jack would not exist.
So why complain about them?
Just search the net and post what you find in the way of a ridiculous ploppie progressionist text before Puiu posts it claiming this is his own work.
Just be sure you label it with something like:
Stealing it before Puiu does.
Simulating Puiu!
I think you get the idea readers ;-)!
Of course the books are correct . . . up to a point. Of course their mistakes profit us just as often as they cost us (in the looonnng run), but when the play of the tourists begins to annoy, distract, and frustrate you to the point that you are not playing your best game then thier play has a huge impact on how you'll do. Get up and leave. Take a few deep breaths and play at another table or another casino. I can only take so much of their hitting stiffs and doubling twelves and slowing down the game with oddball plays and hesitation before I say 'color me up.'
High count comes along so I throw out $200 and tuck my stiff against dealer's four. First base doubles down on his twelve and draws a face. Third base also stands on his stiff. Dealer flips a four in the hole, hits with a six and then a facecard to bust. If first base had played wisely, I would have lost - a $400 swing. It all evens out in the end. Of course, first base was a whiny snot who intimated that we needed to tip him since he saved us. I gave him a tip - I told him to quit doubling on hard twelves.
Jimbo
Years ago I ran a series of sims with 6 players at a 6-deck table, Atlantic City rules at the time (DA2, DAS, Split out to 3 hands, late surrender, hole card dealt but not checked until the end of the round).
The purpose was to see if there was any way to benefit from the like-card bunching which existed in the now-obsolete "stutter shuffle." Thus, in the first sim, all 6 players were mostly playing BS, but making the certain kinds of "mistakes" or "bad plays."
The result of this first sim was that the first player benefitted significantly, the second player was about even, and each player did significantly worse than the one to his right. On a graph, in terms of money won/lost, it was virtually a straight line down from the 1st baseman to the 3rd baseman.
So I ran a second sim, with only the first 2 players making the "mistakes," and the other 4 players playing perfect basic strategy.
The result was that the first 2 players did the same has in the first sim, but the other 4 players all did about the same and all did significantly worse than they should have playing pure BS.
So I ran a third sim, with only the 3rd player making the "mistakes," and the first 5 playing perfect BS.
The result was that the first 5 players did exactly as well as they should have playing BS, and the 3rd baseman (to use an unscientific term) just got *killed*!
My conclusion, which I have used successfully *many* times in real-life situations, is to keep "bad" players to your left.
Bad players to your right DO hurt you! Bad players to your left, even in the assumed-to-be-crucial "anchor" spot, do NOT hurt you.
I know this post is going to draw a lot of fire and riducule from the math purists, but I say, "ignore them."
Instead, the next time you go to a casino, don't play at first -- just watch what goes on at a table with 1 or more bad players and keep track of the effects of their mistakes.
This will release their souls from the grip of the evil that contaminates them and compels them to behave badly in financial circumstances. Also, they deserve it.
No court could convict you. Trust me.
that if I make a lot mistakes at the end they will all balance out?
Right?
Chame Itho
I am not saying this to offend you, and it strays from the blackjack subject of this thread, but,
Like my last job, I was usually always 10 minutes early. But the one day a week that I'm a few minutes late, the boss makes a comment about how late I am as I walk in. He only remembered the day I'm late, and not the days I was early.
Many jobs require that all employees are present during required normal work hours. There are two reasons for this.
The first is that many jobs require that all or most employees to be present for the company to accomplish its function. In other words, if Employee A's work goes to Employee B for further processing, and then on to Employee C for further processing, if Employee B is late, it creates a problem for the whole department.
The second reason is that equitable rules must be established for all employees. That is why company policies are written. If the policy states that an employee can be late only so many times in a given period, the supervisor must administer discipline per the policy fairly.
Furthermore, many employees may have a travel time that varies depending on traffic or other variables. If an employee's commute to work takes twenty to thirty-five minutes each day, the employee should leave for work probably forty-five or fifty minutes before work to be reasonably sure of making it to work on time. This means that the employee is liable to be frequently as much as twenty or thirty minutes early to work to make sure that they are regularly on time.
I do not know about the last job you held, but as a manager, I can say that I do not know of any company that would tolerate an employee being late to work once a week. If the employee was late that frequently, either they would have to start coming in early enough to prevent that situation, move closer to work, or progressively be disciplined until they were terminated from the job.
In this case, being early does not help, but lateness hurts the function of the company.
Parker, many authors copy other info from books to a certain extent. Also most authors know much about theory but have little table experience and the long term results of actions by bad players at the tables. Under certain conditions bad players can significantly effect my game(i dont mean by only slowing it down either). Under play all conditions bad players wont hurt or help you (as the good book says)..but if you are a frequent wonger (which I am)many bad players(depending on their plop-strategy) can definitely harm your game.
Care to list a few reasons why this phenomenon might exist under certain conditions when I venture the tables?
...hint(not in the books).
I was late once a week, but what about the 4 times a week I was early? You probably believe that being early only means that I wasn't late...right?
If I had a company and an employee was 10 minutes early 4 times a week, and 3-5 minutes late once a week, I would be grateful that I'm getting 35-37 minutes a week free from him.
Besides, I wasn't working in some corporate clone job, I was working autonomously on an in-house project. There was no link with other people waiting for me to do things, etc. I finished the damn thing before the deadline anyway.
The boss was a real bastard...he expected me to work overtime with no extra pay or time-in-lieu to make up for it. He was one of the worst people I ever worked for. I quit after I completed that project.
Besides, I just gave that example to show how people have selective memory. I didn't mean to start a thread about workplace practices.
BTW, I disagree with you about leaving so much slack time to insure that we get to work on time. 20 or 30 minutes early multiplied by 5 days a week adds up to a lot of extra hours at the end of the year. This would be a good strategy for someone that wants to kiss ass to get promoted.
If I came in 30 minutes early, it would be only fair that I should be able to leave 30 minutes early. But of course you probably wouldn't agree with that. Why should I sacrifice my time for a company? The CEO's make millions a year in their salaries and bonuses. If I was on a gravy train like that, yeah sure I'll come in 20-30 minutes early. But since I get paid by the hour, my time belongs to me.
Hex, I don't buy the "bad" players taking the dealer's bust card theory. Those "bad" players are probably good solid BS players, counters using indices, shuffle trackers, hole card experts, etc... These are the players who will hit most all 16s even though any "expert" knows it will probably bust. They'll also hit a "solid" hand like A7. My personal observation on the players who don't play strict BS, or are outright hunch players, is that they normally don't hit enough. If anything these unknowledgeable players have the effect of not taking the dealer's bust card. Hit 'em hard, The Side
>>However, reading the tourist vegas boards the knowledgeable bj >>players constantly whine about bad players taking the dealers bust >>card, etc.
I'd say these so-called "knowledgeable" bj players are not so knowledgeable after all, if they whine about and believe that bad players cause them to lose. A beginner at third base is just as likely to take a high card as he is a low card when he hits his hand. He isn't counting, he has no idea what the next card is. And the dealer's hole card can be anything on any one particular hand. No one knows if the next card will make or break the dealer until after the hand is dealt. People that replay the hand after it is over should get a life, quit blackjack and take up solitaire.
You deal the deck sequentially. I deal the deck arbitrarily. We both don't know what's comming out. We both get a random stream of cards.
Therefore, it makes no difference. Guessing what to choose and what not to choose is preventing nothing. You will receive what probability dictates in time.
Would be interested in hearing if others would substantiate this claim. Whatsay Mr May? Zen?
CIT
