KillerDearlers:"It only works on this side of the table!" Players: But why?

Let's see if APs can give some good answers for the above referenced question. We all are familiar with these situations: Say Hilton Dealers had killed players with crazy good cards hands after hands. Players frequently asked Hilton dealers if dealers' lucks continued when they played blackjacks at Harrah's after work. The dealers always said that crazy lucks only worked on the dealer's side of the table, and that the crazy lucks in cards stopped mysteriously as soon as they're off duty. In fact one of the dealers lost his home to a casino because he had pushed his luck after work too many times. So guys, what are your 2 cents about "It only works on this side of the table?"

1. The house has a >1% advantage against many ploppies (even before the tokes). The house also has an (approximately) infinite bankroll.

2. From the dealer's perspective, getting to act last makes the difference (obvious to us...talking about what the dealer sees and feels). They can draw out and win, or they can win with a 14 without taking a card by watching the table bust out. The dealer sees both of these events as wildly successful. Needless to say, standing on 14 against a face card (and no knowledge of the hole card) doesn't work so well from our side of the table.

I don't think I completely understood your second point Engineer, although I do think the dealer playing last has a little bit to do with it.

But here's the real reason I think dealers seem luckier: when they draw to a good hand, they can wipe out multiple players at once (up to the entire table). When a player gets a good hand, he only wins his own bet.

Both player and dealer have the same odds of turning a stiff into a pat hand, but the dealer's luck just has a bigger effect on a full table.

The dealer playing last has a lot to do with it; I believe Engineer's point was that it's not unusual for the entire table to bust when the dealer is just holding a 14 if he/she is showing a 10.

Because the dealer plays last, the players will lose more often than the dealer whether they are counting or not. The player can make up the disadvantage, though, but getting 3/2 on blackjacks, splitting, doubling down, etc.

Human memory is also selective, and understandably so; the time you doubled down on a 10 against a dealer 6 and pulled another 10, then the dealer flipped over a 10 and you were counting your money only to lose when the dealer pulled a 5 is much more memorable than the time you were dealt a 19 against a dealer 18.

Let's see if APs can give some good answers for the above referenced question. We all are familiar with these situations: Say Hilton Dealers had killed players with crazy good cards hands after hands. Players frequently asked Hilton dealers if dealers' lucks continued when they played blackjacks at Harrah's after work. The dealers always said that crazy lucks only worked on the dealer's side of the table, and that the crazy lucks in cards stopped mysteriously as soon as they're off duty. In fact one of the dealers lost his home to a casino because he had pushed his luck after work too many times. So guys, what are your 2 cents about "It only works on this side of the table?"

A dealer who wipes out a table is no more "lucky" than anyone else. He doesn't possess any magical powers.

Your past posts seem to indicate you have a belief in the supernatural. The truth is that "luck" is governed by mathematical principles, not supernatural ones. A series of "lucky" events in the past does not translate to an increase in the probability of "lucky" events in the future.

Say, for instance, you bet heads on the flip of a fair coin. The first ten flips are heads. Did you have "good luck"? Yes (past tense). Are you "lucky"? No (present tense). Will you have "good luck" on the next flip? Maybe and maybe not (future tense).

I put "luck" and "lucky" in quotes, because the mathematical term is "variance." You can substitute "good luck" and "lucky" with "positive variance."

There are reasons why dealers seem to make "miracle hands" more often than players make them. Of course, the most obvious is the fact that you lose if you bust even if the dealer busts in the end. But another reason is the fact that the dealer must hit to 17, either soft or hard, depending upon the rules. While there are many times you will stand on a stiff hand and not draw additional cards, the dealer must hit the stiff if there is still a hand in play. So, you are going to see more 5, 6, or even 7 card "miracle hands" from the dealer than you will see from players. Then you can consider the fact that there are many hands you will double down, subsequently drawing only one card. The dealer doesn't have that option, so when you double your 11 and get an ace, you're stuck with that hand. When the dealer hits an 11 with an ace, he must draw and draw again until he is pat. Same thing with splitting aces. You split and must accept one card on each ace in most casinos. The dealer must hit the ace pair until he's pat, and a hand with two aces is far more likely to produce a "miracle draw" than many other hands. It pretty much boils down to the fact that the rules of the game which force the dealer to draw while offering more options to the players are such that "miracle hands" are more likely to be seen on the dealer's side of the table.

Just some things to think about.

Get all this superstitious crap out of your mind. All those scenarios that you've seen or heard of are just the way things happen to happen. It's all just pure variance of mathematical odds.

The only "Killer Dealers" I've seen are the ones that look like Angelina Jole and have a bod like Tyra Banks.

As for Blackjack Dealers, they all have the same chance of winning and loosing to a given player.

I bitched about a certain sands dealer cheating. Where is he now?

Harris works at Showboat

..... terterterterte

Irish, brown hair, slightly bald on top, five feet seven inches tall, 40 years old, 160 pounds?

He's a good guy, a bit paranoid though. Never won a dime on his watch.

Tom & Michael? Where have they gone after Sands' closing? By the way, Doug was reported of serious illness and was out of work for six months already.

I thought it was tom that was sick; there were rumors that he had undergone chemo cause he sported a crew cut a few years back.