BS advantage??

I just ran through some calculations to find a player's advantage, using an initial house advantage of .40% (6 deck, DA2, DAS, no surrender), and using the frequencies of hands played at each TC value (at 75% penetration). I found similarly to the GameMaster (blackjack school in left frame) that it takes about a 1-12 spread to achieve a 1% advantage over the house. Something interesting that I noticed was that using flat betting, a player has a .03% advantage over the house. Does this mean that someone who plays perfect basic strategy with flat betting actually has a miniscule advantage over the house, or did I compute something wrong? I was always under the impression that someone who does not count CAN NOT make money playing blackjack. This says theoretically that someone can, though it is not a substantial amount of money. When people say that someone can not make money playing BS, do they mean, "The player does not have a positive expectation," or do they mean, "The player can not make enough money to consider playing blackjack as a professional"?

---Homer J...

I just ran through some calculations to find a player's advantage, using an initial house advantage of .40% (6 deck, DA2, DAS, no surrender), and using the frequencies of hands played at each TC value (at 75% penetration). I found similarly to the GameMaster (blackjack school in left frame) that it takes about a 1-12 spread to achieve a 1% advantage over the house. Something interesting that I noticed was that using flat betting, a player has a .03% advantage over the house. Does this mean that someone who plays perfect basic strategy with flat betting actually has a miniscule advantage over the house, or did I compute something wrong?

It sounds like you made a mistake, somewhere. I'm trying to imagine the calculation that starts with "an initial house advantage of .40%," and winds up with "a .03% advantage over the house." It's almost as if you are saying mathematics is an inexact science! Perhaps if I could see more details.

I was always under the impression that someone who does not count CAN NOT make money playing blackjack.

Who told you that?! :~) Dealer error is a whole study unto itself. Stanford Wong wrote a book entitled "Winning Without Counting."

This says theoretically that someone can, though it is not a substantial amount of money. When people say that someone can not make money playing BS, do they mean, "The player does not have a positive expectation," or do they mean, "The player can not make enough money to consider playing blackjack as a professional"?

One or the other, or both, depending on the context.

L:U:C:K
ETF

the figure of .03%, if it is possible it is the combination of flat betting and using every index availiable (not basic strategy) that evens out the game. Just because you are flat betting doesn't mean you are playing basic strategy.

To elaborate a bit, I took an initial house advantage of .40%, given the table conditions, then added .50% to the player's advantage for each increase of 1 in the TC. This is what the GameMaster states is the change in advantage (approximately) with each incremental increase in the TC. I then found the frequency of hands played at each TC, given 75% penetration. I then assumed the player was flat betting, and took the summation of frequency*advantage to find the player's expectation. For example, at a TC of +1, the player has a .10% advantage (-.40+.50), and the frequency of hands played at this count is 13% (again as stated by the gamemaster). Therefore, I multiplied .0010*.13=.00013. I added these values for all TC's, and came up with .00003, or .03%. Please tell me if I am doing something wrong, or if I am making any vast assumptions. I could very well be wrong, as I am only going on what others have said. I would like to hear if this is correct, or if not, the correct answer to the problem I am trying to solve...

-- Thanks, Homer J.

"Please tell me if I am doing something wrong, or if I am making any vast assumptions."

You are doing something wrong and you are making some vast assumptions! :-)

The approximate increase of 0.50% per TC is for the card counter only! No such advantage is magically bestowed on the BS player!

Don

This is probably stupid, but it just crossed my mind. Has anyone calculated the result of a flat-bettor using BS + maybe just the I18 indices?

How much closer would such a player get to an even expectation?

The approximate increase of 0.50% per TC is for the card counter only! No such advantage is magically bestowed on the BS player!

The cards know who's playing? :)

Seriously, though, the gains from playing deviation can only be
a small percentage of this amount, right? There is still a significant increase per TC for anybody. The non-counter just doesn't have this information. The original poster (correctly) equates a flat-bettor (who makes no playing variations) to a BS player.

My guess is that the original poster forgot to include negative TC values in his sum.

Lefty

To elaborate a bit, I took an initial house advantage of .40%, given the table conditions, then added .50% to the player's advantage for each increase of 1 in the TC.

and how much did you subtract for each decrease of 1 in the TC?

He uses -.4 for everything zero and below. So he is just piling stuff on one side of the see-saw. No wonder it tilts.

BJRM assumes use of the I18. For any game you choose, just make the bet scheme flat betting, and you will see the difference between non-counting BS EV and play-variation BS EV.

Don

You're correct. I misunderstood the original question.

Obviously, even without counting, BS is fine, if you know to play just the positive counts!

Sorry for the confusion.

Don

I just thought I might ask you for the quick answer. It's not important enough for me to buy a program just to satisfy an idle curiosity.

I foolishly lumped together counts of 0 and under, because that is what was done on the page I was looking at. I suppose it was wishful thinking on my part. :)

what you can do is figure that the -1 frequency is roughly the same as +1, -2 roughly the same as +2, etc. You can see that things will balance as you continue to put equal weight on each side.