Sim this

It appears to me that whenever the dealer fills while taking 5 or more cards the next hand dealt is a winner for the player(s). I have started increasing my bet after such an incident (this irregardless of count). Any of you sim guys/gals ever look into this type action?

Cute anecdotes don't cut it on this board. Two questions:
1 Can any of these bj simulator programs run such a sim?
2. Has anyone ever ran one?

There is probably a very little effect, namely, if the dealer is taking a lot of cards, then they are probably small cards, that is 2-6. This has the tendency to increase the TC, and hence the players advantage. The effect is probably pretty small, since multi card hands can also involve a few aces. This means that the next hand may have some edge for the player. As far as a rule, like it always happens that ... that is nonsense.

... is to random 'flip' 0-1 until 0 or 1 comes up 10x in a row, then note the outcome of the 11th trial, run this 100m times, see if maybe there is a 'memory of due-ness' that affects the outcome. Anybody? G.

but still not an affirmative yes or no. I guess I will have to take this as meaning either the software cannot do a sim like this or no one has ever bothered to run one. I didn't mean to infer that it happened "all" the time. Just in my experience it seems to happen more often then not. When I read some of the advantages you folks talk about, 0.0146 percent etc. I think this would be worth looking into. But again thank you for a reasonable reply. As opposed to the sarcastic stuff from.....the grifter.

People have been trying to figure out how to predict the outcome of a round based on the previous outcome(s) from the time the game was first invented.

There ain't no such animal.

Even card counting does not predict the outcome of individual rounds - it is merely a means of finding out when the advantage has shifted to favor the player.

You are not onto anything new - you have not discovered some "secret." Sarcastic or not, Grifter was correct with his initial comment.

...what about MY sim idea? Its got possibility, yes? G.

The logic behind your theory makes sense because of the simple fact that as every consecutive small card is turned over the odds have slightly increased that the next card will be a face card, especially in single deck. However you will need to know what the running count is to determine if your next hand has a chance of a positive expectation. There are a few exceptions if you dont count...a good rule to follow is if you are playing heads up single deck or double deck( off the top) and the dealer has drawn a 5 or 6 card pat hand using all small cards you might want to consider raising your bet. The same principal applies to all big cards coming off the top, except you simply lower your next bet or bet the same amount as previous.

I dont think it is fair that several blackjack players,authors,mathematicians,etc. are convinced that everything is said and done and nothing more can be researched, when in fact the game of BJ has many variables that can be experimented with. By others stubbornly preaching consistently that no more research can (or will) be done in regards to blackjack.. only slows down the process and interest of others.

The ones who tend to to laugh at or corrupt future research in blackjack are usually pre-occupied with their " know it all attitude" and would not DARE ask any questions about blackjack.

Good luck friend,
Mott

"I dont think it is fair that several blackjack players, authors, mathematicians, etc. are convinced that everything is said and done and nothing more can be researched, when in fact the game of BJ has many variables that can be experimented with."

I'm not saying that nothing more can be researched, and I don't think others are, either. Read Beyond Counting by James Grosjean, or Get the Edge at Blackjack by John May, for some new ways of looking at the game.

However, betting progressions are not new, and they have been researched to death. The jury finished deliberating years ago, and the verdict is in: They don't work.

Still, every now and then someone comes along who refuses to accept the huge body of evidence against progressions (or more likely, does not have the math background to comprehend it), and then gets upset when people try to point out that they are wasting their time.

Come on Parker, of course I'm aware and do believe there is no proven mathematical progression that will ever work...is this what you think my post is implying...that further research need be done to figure out magical progressions?

Parker,, you know me a little better than that,dont you?

Got my threads crossed! (There is a progression thread elsewhere on the board). Sorry. :-)

However, this concept has been pretty well researched as well. It is not that different from The Pro's "hand count" system that was discussed at length a while back.

It is also not all that different from the "system" used by a lot of recreational players, which might be described as: "Play single deck games and raise your bet after you see a bunch of little cards come out." In reality this is just a crude form of counting.

However, merely looking at the dealer's hand simply does not provide enough info. Suppose the four players at the table each have a pair of 10's? Or perhaps a lot of small cards are coming out because the count has totally tanked. And what if the dealer's 5 or 6 card hand has several aces? In a shoe game, the composition of the dealer's hand is completely insignificant as far as predicting the next hand.

the question i posted. You have answered my question. Had to go through a little short sarcasm but it did end with enough information to clear it up for me. The responses from Mott and The Mayor were about what I was looking for. Thanks again.