Cross-Posted because I think that everyone should know:
"Playing Blackjack to Win: A New Strategy for the Game of 21"
Roger Baldwin, et al
Estimated arrival date: 09/18/2008
With apologies to Mr. Christopher Hitchens but the prevailing consensus is that most bonafide pros are now playing Spanish 21 and refuse to expend their precious time pursuing meager profits with a second rate game like blackjack. It is just no longer worth the effort and neither is the literature that supports it. Times can and do change. Nothing is written in stone but who didn't know that?
Spanish 21 can be an A.P. opportunity - for those following the advice found in the "Pros Guide to Spanish 21" by Katarina Walker.
However, if you had read the book thoroughly you would know that the game's rules are not the same everywhere. With very few exceptions, the game is only presented (in the U.S.A.) with a low enough e.v. in the Pacific NorthWest casinos.
The book is highly recommended otherwise.
You are very correct though, about the rapid transmogrification of blackjack.
so he can dismantle this site or at least rename it SBJ21.com. While I certainly agree that blackjack opportunities are not as good as they once were, the game isn't dead yet. I'll take your word on Spanish 21 and the book, but I still think the future is poker. You don't have to worry about casino countermeasures (if Spanish 21 AP play catches on, those players will face the same hurdles as bj players now)and in poker you don't have a built in house advantage (I know, the rake) and despite some bad beats, the better player usually wins.
what the typical "basic" player strategy was in the pre-four horsemen era. What were the major differences...or were all players just all over the road when it came to strategy.
bigplayer,
I haven't, but I understand he presented a rather poor B.S. that was probably a reasonable approximation of how players used to play.
Dog Hand
Sorry... I gave the wrong title in my previous post.
Scarne's New Complete Guide to Gambling, the revised 1974 edition, contains the follow B.S. for the then-typical SD, S17, DA2 game (starting on pg. 377):
Hard Hands
1. Stand on hard 12 or more vs. 5 or 6
2. Stand on hard 13 or more vs. 2-4
3. Stand on hard 16 or more vs. X and A
4. Stand on hard 17 or more vs. 7-9
Soft Hands
5. Stand on soft 19 or more vs. 8-A
6. Stand on soft 18 or more vs. 2-7
Splits
7. Never split 4's, 5's, 6's, or 9's
8. Split 8's vs. 2-8 or A
9. Split 7's vs. 5-7
10. Always split A's
11. Split X's vs. 5 or 6
12. Split 2's & 3's vs. 2-7
Double Downs
13. Always DD on 11
14. DD on 10 vs. 2-9 & A
15. DD on 9 vs. 2-6
16. DD soft 12-soft 17 vs. 6
Overall, not as terrible as I would have guessed, but recall that this is the edition that appeared AFTER Beat the Dealer: I suspect the earlier edition's B.S. might have been a bit worse.
On the other hand, Scarne claims that the house edge is a whopping 5.90% to 6.35%... and we thought 6:5 was bad!
Also, he states that he often splits X's vs. X "for a 7 7/13% advantage on each hand"... huh?
Finally, he gives a method of using chips to keep a running count of the number of X's and A's that have been played. No wonder he was barred from playing BJ at all Nevada casinos!
Hope this helps!
Dog Hand
10. Always split A's
16. DD soft 12-soft 17 vs. 6
Soft 12?
I have to agree with Revereman. I have pretty much given up on blackjack. On my biannual pilgrimmages to lv I have been playing the occasional bj table just for giggles, but have devoted most of my time to limit hold'm and no limit tournaments. Blackjack may not be dead, but it's on life support. Sad to say, but there you are.
Don't you just delight in people who aren't afraid to conduct a reality check whenever they feel it's in order?
... "Culbertson, Morehead, and Mott-Smith are recognized authorities on card games, and their blackjack strategy is almost certainly better than most."
From the book Culbertson's Card Games Complete, Greystone Press, 1952, written by those three authorities:
"To draw one card down to eleven is unmise. To split any pair but aces is probably unwise, and to split fours, fives, nines or tens is surely unwise. Aces should be split if the rule permits.
"When the dealer's face-up card is a seven or higher, or an ace, a count of 15 or lower should be hit; 16 or higher, stand. When the dealer's face-up card is a six or lower, except an ace, stand on 14 or more, and hit anything lower. The ace, however, should be considered as counting one unless counting it eleven will make the count 18 or better."
According to Baldwin et al, the house advantage against the above strategy (adding some reasonable assumptions) is 3.62%.
Also from Culbertson's Card Games Complete, "In no other game that has been played for high stakes over so many tears has there been less analysis of the science of play than in blackjack. The only available guide to strategy is empirical; no one has more than his opinion on which to estimate the advantage of the dealer."
Thanks, ET Fan for your usual accuracy, precision and regularity, wherever your voice is heard. I'm sure many, like me, appreciate. NB
,,,,,
respond to posts with nonsense.
So what do you think has a better future for players--blackjack or Spanish 21?
Do you believe there are no playable blackjack games in Las Vegas, Connecticut, or Atlantic City?
Not being a wiseguy at all. I assume you really mean "win-able". I'm off to Vegas next week. I have my copy of CBJN. I marked off several games that I feel I have a shot at. Maybe 15-20% of the clubs in town. I'm looking for other definitions of what's "win-able", besides my own way of looking at it. I should say that I don't have the bankroll to play the $100+ limit tables. Thx
...would mean that it is something an AP would not waste time with because his/her time is better spent doing something else. "Playable" is just the opposite. It's really about the bottom line; making $ in return for your time and efforts.
That's a quote from Doyle Brunson. Gorgon, you say that the better player usually wins. Yeah, eventually I guess, if they haven't perished already from the interminable waiting waiting waiting.
How many out there are like me: bored shitless with the mind-numbing tedium of poker. Endlessly waiting for a hand reasonable enough to punt. Meanwhile, listening to the often mind-numbing drivel of some other players downloading from a vast database of confused crap, boasters and roasters, for the sake of it, and because they can.
Then there are the Billy the Kids, Wyatt Earps and Two-Ton-Tonys that kill you with their eyes, and would love to shoot you in the back because you finally won a hand (at their expense.)
In my opinion poker attracts darker psyches, so I'm sticking with
the endless action game for now, the game with all the X's present:
Blackjack. ALL the hands are seen at BJ!
