Basic Strategy

I am a beginner at the game of Blackjack.

My question is simple enough, Can I trust the Basic Strategy?

I'm sorry and I don't mean to make this a chore for you, but if you answer yes I would like to know the reasons that justify your assertion.

The reason I am so skeptical is that I don't believe the casino would teach a strategy that would in effect lessen its house advantage on any game.

And more importantly not only do I not believe in the findings of the basic stragegy or the so-called "rules of play" for Blackjack hands but I do not recognize the method in which the strategy was devised to be correct as one billion hands played,(simulated) randomly in my mind do not prove anything except the fact that you played a lot of blackjack. Your response would be much appreciated. Thank You!

The casino didnt create it, good math did. You can take any three card total (your two, and the dealer up card) and create every possible combination from the remaining 49 cards and find that basic strategy will yield the correct way to play that hand. What you must understand is that not every correct play will yield you a winner. It will maximize the rate of return for every dollar played. In every card total, you have what is called Expected Value (E.V.)for each action (hit, split, stand, double). For every dollar you play, BS is designed to return as much money as possible to the player and therefore suggests the best action to make to obtain the highest EV.

Take for example: 8,8 vs 10. BS says to split this hand. To the beginner, this would look like a bad play. In reality, it is a smart way to get out of a 16 vs. 10. Any smart player would rather play 100 hands of 8 vs. 10 than 50 hands of 16 vs. 10. The reason is because those 50 hands would cost you more money than 8 vs. 10.

BS was not necessarily generated as the result of a billion hands played. BS was the result of determining every possible hand that can be made from a three card total and then finding out which action will lead to the most money won or the least money lost.

Also, confident gamblers tend to play at a higher limit, and seldom slow down the game, all of which is beneficial to the casino making profits.

Remember, you are still playing at a disadvantage even playing perfect basic strategy. The casino is in it for the long run. If they can convince everyone to sit down and lose just .5- .75 percent, they are still making big money. And just a few BS "mistakes" by a casual player jump the house adv. by a few more percent. They just want you to sit down and play.

The big disadvantage for the casinos is the "intimidation factor" that table games represent to the occasional player. That's why casinos have "lessons" to teach the rules of the games, and game etiquette. Also the "friendly dealer" policy is designed to make you more comfortable with the games. They think you'll be less upset losing your trip bank if the dealer comiserates a little over your loss.

Play Basic Strategy and hope you end on the positive side of the Std Dev curve. And DON"T PLAY the 6:5 SD games ANYWHERE!

AceyDeucey wrote:
The reason I am so skeptical is that I don't believe the casino would teach a strategy that would in effect lessen its house advantage on any game.

And more importantly not only do I not believe in the findings of the basic stragegy or the so-called "rules of play" for Blackjack hands but I do not recognize the method in which the strategy was devised to be correct as one billion hands played,(simulated) randomly in my mind do not prove anything except the fact that you played a lot of blackjack.

First, the casinos did not invent Basic Strategy. Basic Startegy by players. Basically by Thorp, and later refined by Braun, Griffin, and others. He was inspired by the Baldwin group, which did the first study.

Second BS can be verified by simulation, but it is computed using Combinatorial Analysis. This means doing exact mathematic analysis to compute the probabilities.

Now sometimes casino personnel will advice you incorrectly on BS, and often that advice is incorrect. This is usually done ignorance, and not through an intent to deceive. Dealers will often give incorrect advice, because they don't any better. Just last week I saw someone splits 4s vs a 5, which is the correct BS for the DAS game I was playing. The dealer (and other players) told the player it was a mistake; he said "Never split 4s, 5s, or faces; anything that begin with an F". This is correct for non-DAS, but wrong in the DAS games which are the standard in this local.

Most players do not play proper B.S. (even though they think they do).
I agree that most dealers and managers are well-meaning when they give incorrect advice. They know that no matter what advice they give that the average player is still at a disadvantage. Remember, most dealers want you to win because they are playing for tips. Losers don't tip and they know this.
So believe in the math and believe in the basic strategy....but be aware that you are still playing at a disadvantage.

Here are several plays that imo most players make that deviate from B.S. Please note that I am listing plays that I believe MOST players make...I'm not including things like split 10's and double H12 that a majority of average players stay away from.

Refusal to hit S18 v. 9 or 10.
Refuse to double S18 or S17 (even against a 5 or 6).
Doubling S13 v. 2 or 3. Even S16 v. 2. (most dealers think these are good soft-doubles I believe and look at me strangely when I don't do them)
Refuse to split 9's (even against 5 or 6).
Refuse to hit 15 or 16 v. 10. Or worse, refuse to hit 15 or 16 v. 7.
Split 2's or 3's vs. 2-3.
Refuse to hit 12 vs. 2 or 3.
Refuse to split 8's.
Refuse to double 11 vs. 10.
Always double 8 v. 4-6.
double 9 v. 2
double 10 v. A

And the one that I think may cost the player the most $$..... (drum-roll please)...
Always taking "even-money" on 21 when dealer shows an Ace. I think that easily 3/4 of all players take "even-money".

If you truly want to be a B.S. player and minimize your losses to .5% then you need to get a strategy card and STICK TO IT.
If you listen to the other players at the table or the dealers and make any of these above mistakes then you are costing yourself money. If you make all of these mistakes (as I believe a majority of players do) then you are probably putting yourself at a 1.5% - 2.0% disadvantage.

BTW - I love the dealers who tell you "Look...I've been a dealer for 10 years so i know how this game works. Do you really want to double that S18 against my 6? You're going to mess up a 'winning' hand."

(vs. 2 or 3)

Are you just talking about single deck?

I think that's the right play on 2 decks or above.

I was about to post the same thing... you split 2's and 3's vs 2-7 in multiple decks I believe....

But back to Acey Deucy's post, Combinatorial Analysis is the thing you're not considering. Yes you will often see BS that is justified by something like 400 billion hands. But this is just a easy way to do it, because it is already known that it yields the same results (with a large enough sample size) as Combinatorial Analysis. The math is right. No way around it. BS is the only way to play.

It is H17/S17 and DAS that effects splits, not number of decks.

If we want to get precise, both affect it. But you're right, it is primarily the ability to DAS that dictates the proper play with 2's and 3's.

I would like to thank any and all persons for their timely responses and have them know that their comments were helpful and convincing.

My next problem is probably common to all beginngers in that I want to progress too fast. I have studied the BS(I only didn't believe in it), to the point where I feel I know the rules fairly well for single and multiple deck games with standard variations such as DAS,H17,surrender,etc. I would like to move to a level one counting system and I have evaluated some of the more popular ones such as the K-O, High-Low and Canfield Expert but have found the High-Opt more to my liking. However the book is somewhat outdated and incomplete for my purposes. I'm not certain but I believe I have read that new revisions improving the strategy numbers have been made perhaps by Matthew Wilding or someother person but would you know if this is availible, and from where can I get it? I would also be intersted in full multiparametric playing charts.

My ambitions are to play single-deck with a five card(A2789) side count hopefully enjoying a ninety plus percent PE and near perfect BC.
My other goal is to use a traditional ten-count for insurance (I have devised my own system which I shall not reveal for fear of ridicule, but perhaps at a later time for feedback). Is a multiparameter count really necessary to win, is it worth it, the extra effort and the Ten-count(Roberts +1,-2) is it needed for exceptional IC considering a full five card multiparameter count plus the primary count?

But my question is simple, "Am I going too fast?" and be honest because I would believe you. Personally I feel that I am going at a pace that is right for me because I am very avid, eager and earnest about the game but I will heed your advice if it seems reasonable.

And speaking of Lance Humble is he still alive, I think he is. Does he still run his Internation Gaming in Toronto? Is the High-Opt II availible and for what price?

For any of the experts (maybe including Matthew Wilding), what is his reputation(Matthew Wilding), and how could I contact him if he is meritorious for I have a card counting system for single or double deck which I hope to evaluate. It is actually a level 3 balanced, ace neutral six card multiparameter count somewhat modified from Wong Halves and the Gordon(DHM) system. I am very interested to see how it plays.

Okay last thing. I don't want to offend anybody, certainly not the host of this site as it is such a great honor to use and I commend him on its creation but I was just wondering and I hope this doesn't come as a shock to anybody or maybe I'm such a fool and I'm wrong but I believe Stanford Wong is just a pseudonym and respectfully I say the man isn't chinese or even asian. Am I right or just foolhardy?

Okay I'm sorry I got ahead of myself, last thing I promise. I appreciate the many responses to my previous question adressing the Blackjack BS and as I said before they have been very helpful in availing me to be able to more completely understand the Basic Strategy and its inception and refinement. But while I am convinced and do not wish to dispute any of your comments made as I am certain you know more about the game than I do, I am either a die hard skeptic or just someone who needs to do for myself what others had done for me, I would like to see the results in clear black and white and verify their findings for myself because it would make me more confident allowing me to evaluate what chances I have in a so-called "even game". I ask which sources of information I should refer to and which do you recommend; a work by Edward Thorp, his " Beat the Dealer" or other publications, Julian Braun's "The Development and Analysis of Winning Strategies for Casino Blackjack" or "How to Play Winning Blackjack", Richard Epstein's "Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic", Edward Gordon's "Optimum Strategy in Blackjack" or "The Casino Gambler's Guide" By Allan Wilson? From where are they availible?

Also what programs or computer software would allow me to test the basic strategy and hopefully re-create the results, will it also simulate play for divising different counting strategies including strategy indexes for multiple rules variations and games? "Professional Blackjack Analyser" By David Smith, "Blackjack Count Analyser" By Stanford Wong(a computer scientist) or some other program of equal power for a lesser price because if you notice this is only the Free BJ message board and I can still hardly afford it, but it is none the less wonderful.

Some answers: Forget about multi-parameters, multi-side count, in combination with a perfect insurance 10 count nonsense.
No one, and that means Nobody, would even dream about using such a beast. I guess every beginner quickly gets over this phase. Try learning a simple one level count, practice it, and try using it in real conditions. At this point you are similar to an infant, who is unable to walk or even stand, asking for advice on advanced starting block techniques for use in Olympic Track and Field competition.

I don't even know if learning a one level count at this point is what you need. You still feel the need to have software "test" basic strategy? How would you go about "testing" it, and would you recognize valid results?

Here is a simple example:
I tell you the odds of flipping heads using a fair coin are 50%. You don't agree with this math, and get some software to test this. You simulate flipping a coin 1,000,000,000 times. The math predicts that you will get 500,000,000 heads. The computer simulation shows 489,482,127 heads. Is the math wrong? Are the odds of getting heads not 50%? Is the software flawed?

When you can answer these questions about the coin software, then you could evaluate some basic strategy testing software, but by then you will probably realize it is not necessary.

And, yes, Stanford Wong is a pseudonym. The real Stanford Wong actually died several hundred years ago, and the current Stanford Wong is actually a clone planted here by space aliens, who have some strange inter-galactic feud with the alien species that really owns all this planet's casinos.

Some of the stuff you want to try is possible (especially on single-deck)...but only after you really know what you are doing.
You would be better off getting in a couple of years of experience at a level-1 count and using any extra energy (that you would otherwise want to use on side-counts) into cover and act and finding a way to spread a bit more. Maybe you can try an ace side-count also, which I don't think is that tough...after you really get the +/- thing down cold.

Almost any new counter will Look like a counter. You need to get to the point where you don't look like you are counting at all. If you can make it look like you have no interest in the cards at all and can chat with the other players, the dealer and the pit-boss, eye a couple of cocktail waitresses, etc. and then still keep an accurate count...then, maybe, you can consider adding another side-count to your game. Although I would recommend going back and getting even better at everything else again and then another time after that before taking that next step.

I think you have some terrific enthusiasm and I think that your skeptism on B.S. is actually healthy. Most ploppies believe in their own version of B.S. / superstition and refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary, "I never split 8's because it doesn't work for me" or better yet, "I don't care what the card says, why would you hit a soft-18??" (essentially saying that the basic-strategy card must be incorrect because, IN THEIR OPINION, 18 is a good hand).

Intelligent individuals are the ones that realize that they themselves do not necessarily have all the answers and they seek qualified sources to educate them. They are willing to learn and maintain an open mind.
This is essentially what most counters do...they believe in the math and the authors who cite the proper staistics.

For the record though, I do employ several different side-counts and am working on even more multi-parametric stuff now to add to my game. I am aware that most players on this site will agree with SOTSOG's view that it's not worth the effort. Even the esteemed Stanford Wong states so directly in the latest edition of PBJ when clarifying why he removed the tables for Ace side-count.
But I wanted to make my case anyway just to offer a differing opinion.

I currently use a level-1 count with side-Aces and also side other denominations as they come out ("All 4 of the 8's have come out. Will want to appropriately adjust my decision to hit 12 v. 2 or 3.") And I don't think it needs to be considered that tough...

If you asked me right now to name 100 D-I colleges and their sports nicknames I could probably do it without a problem.
I could probably still name most of the state capitals.
When I was 7 years old I went to "Bible camp" and memorized all of the books of the bible in order (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, etc.).
I find myself able to sing the words to a song on the radio that I'm certain I haven't heard for several years.
I still know all the contents to the Big Mac, in order, from that stupid 1980's commercial (Two All Beef Patties, Special Sauce, Lettuce, Cheese, Pickles, Onions on a sesame seed bun!")
I think I have a better than average memory but I wouldn't call it spectacular by any stretch (when I get home to record my results I can't remember if I won 25 units or 35 units, har-har...and I still can't remember the name of the new guy at the office in the next cubicle).
Basically, If you truly want to program your brain to learn all these wacky numbers then it can be done...eventually.

To quote from Griffin's Theory of Blackjack, "The ability to keep seperate densities of Aces, sevens, eights and nines as well as the Einstein point count itself is not beyond a motivated and disciplined intellect. The memorization of strategy tables for the basic Einstein system as well as proper point values for the seperated denominations in different strategic situations should be no problem for an individual who is so inclined."

I feel ya on this part Acey, but have you delved into the topics of ROR and bankroll requirments? All the side counts in the world won't help you if you have a $100 bankroll and a $50 max bet :)

> Okay last thing. I don't want to offend anybody, certainly not the host of this site as it is such a great honor to use and I commend him on its creation but I was just wondering and I hope this doesn't come as a shock to anybody or maybe I'm such a fool and I'm wrong but I believe Stanford Wong is just a pseudonym and respectfully I say the man isn't chinese or even asian. Am I right or just foolhardy?

With respect, I reckon AceyDeucey is just a pseudonym and your not a backgammon variant or even a board game. Am I right? ;-)

I guess you're right and I should probably slow down and I will but I cannot promise that I will completely forget about multiparameter card counts and I hope you will not forget about me as I value your advice along with all others who have contributed to answering my posts very much.

I also agree with you on the matter of the flipping of a fair coin over many independent trials, for the results seem reasonable given the standard deviation, and if it is truly this straight forward with the basic strategy than I shall have no reservations in employing it.

But moving on to a level one point count I think I have settled on the High-Opt I, but, (and please bear with me as I have stored up many questions because I was reluctant to use this online forum for fear of ridicule) I have just read a book somewhat recently pubished that to me seems very controversial in that in it introduces a very unconventional, non-traditional counting system which I have never heard of before. In essence it doesn't count the ratio between high and low cards or even tens but keeps track of what the author calls the "core" cards saying they have the greatest effect on the deck. His argument was strong and well supported while being a radical departure from the accepted guidelines of card counting strategies, needless to say I found him very convincing and was wondering about the merit of such a system. If you think it could have possibilities I would be able to provide more information including the title, author and even my basic take on the system so you may answer after a better analysis of the system, but I would be interested in a second opinion and welcome any comments.