But the question does have some interest in its own right, as a standalone question, and I thought some of the readers might be interested in the answers.
But the question does have some interest in its own right, as a standalone question, and I thought some of the readers might be interested in the answers.
"If there are 6 players at the table and the count is 0 with 3 decks unseen...and EVERYONE gets a face card, with the exception of the dealer - who gets a natural...WHY would you bet MORE on the next hand? The math is simple...the true count is greater than 4 and the house now would have an advantage of greater than 2%!!!!!!"
RC = -8 in the above if we ignore everybody's second card except for the dealer's two card natural.
-8/3 = -2.6 TC
Of course if you're assuming everybody has two face cards and the dealer has a BJ then the RC would be -14 with a TC of -14/3 = -4.67. The TC would be LESS THAN -4. This is what I think you probably meant. :). Actually, house edge would be closer to 3% after you factor in the -.5% house edge inherent to the game.
Thanks for correcting me...you are correct...that is what I meant.
BTW, at the Mandalay Bay, at TC = 0, the house edge is 0.24, so by saying that the house advantage was greater than 2% in the situation, I intended not to mislead anyone. The point is clear, though, especially since you corrected my TC.
But, why would we ignore everyone's second card for the TC on the next hand? Or did I misunderstand your statement?
You said that "everyone gets a face card", but you didn't specify what their second card would be. Since you seemed to be limiting each player to only one face card and you only mentioned the dealer's blackjack, then the second cards belonging to the players must be low or neutral cards. Yet you didn't mention their impact (if any) on the RC and TC in your calculations; you "ignored" them. Johnny Bravo was just saying he was doing the same thing. He really meant he wasn't taking their values into account, either, since you didn't.
As you know they are few and far between.
:)
Why would we NOT know the other cards in that the other players have (at the time of the NEXT hand)?
Here...
If there are 6 players at the table and the count is 0 with 3 decks unseen...and EVERYONE gets a face card (all cards face UP except the hole card - which is turned up and shown once he/she checks), with the exception of the dealer - who gets a natural (then the delaer collects the cards and prepares to deal the NEXT hand)...WHY would you bet MORE on the NEXT HAND?
I was addressing the NEXT hand, which by some progressive betting systems would indicate the need to INCREASE your bet.
The math is simple...the true count is greater than 4 (I meant -4, my mistake : -14/3 = -4.67) and the house now would have an advantage of greater than 2% (0.24 house adv for Mandalay Bay + (4.67*0.5) = 2.575%)!!!!!!
Is that better?
I should have said "face cards"...I cannot type!!!!
And why didn't you include them when you were calculating the TC?
I did...7 hands - all full of paint = Count of -14
3 decks remaining
TC = 14/3 = -4.67
I missed putting an s on "card"...my fault.
> I can set $1000 aside every month as play money for the casino.
> So, if I go to the casino and flatbet $50 until I either lose it
> all or win $200, then what is the likelihood that I will win $200?
Assuming 6D, DAS, RSA, S17, NS, flat betting 1 unit, and a TRAILING stop-loss of 20 units and a win goal of 4 units, you will:
Win an average of 4.35 units 79.7% of the time; and
Lose an average of 18.35 units 20.3% of the time;
for an average loss of 0.258169 units every time you try it.
A "start" is the beginning of a string of consecutive wins from zero to as long as it goes, terminiated either by a loss or meeting the win goal.
A "trailing stop loss" of 20 means you will not permit a loss of more than 20 units from your peak; nor will you make a bet which, if lost, would result in your being down more than 20 units from your peak. For example, if you got to 3 units up and then started losing, you would stop betting once you were down 16� or more units [you have to consider half-units because of 3:2 blackjack payouts].
Theoretically, switching tables will make no difference.
Note the cumulative effect of the house edge. For a single $50 bet with a 0.4% house edge, you will lose an average of $0.20.
But with the goal of $200 and a $1000 trailing stop loss, you will lose an average of $12.91 per session, which implies an average of 64 or 65 hands per average session.
> If there are 6 players at the table and the count is 0 with 3
> decks unseen...and EVERYONE gets a face card (all cards face UP
> except the hole card - which is turned up and shown once he/she
> checks), with the exception of the dealer - who gets a natural
> (then the delaer collects the cards and prepares to deal the
> NEXT hand)...WHY would you bet MORE on the NEXT HAND?
I've been trying to make sense out of the above paragraph because it doesn't sound like any casino 21 game I've ever seen or even heard of. Either you've done a piss poor job of describing what goes on or you've never been to a real, normal casino or you play at a *VERY* strange venue.
Which is it?
What does not make sense to you?
1. 6 players (NOT including the dealer)
2. Count of 0 prior to dealing THIS hand
3. 3 decks unseen (6 deck shoe)
4. all players get face cards - (read the previous posts - I meant to make this plural) - all face up for everyone to see - for a total of 12 face cards.
5. the dealer gets a natural, asks for insurance (only if the Ace is showing, which I did not specify, but would not matter in this case), noone takes it
6. The dealer then checks the hole card and then show the natural - therefore the house wins. (for a total of 14 face cards)
7. the dealer collects the bets and the cards just dealt and prepares to deal the NEXT hand.
My point was at that particular time, why would anyone increase your bet on the NEXT hand, as compared to the bet placed on the previous (as described above) hand.
Thanks very little for the critical comments, BTW. If you wanted clarification, you could have asked a specific question regarding what you did not understand.
I went back and looked at Harmer's page again and noticed that down near the bottom he had something called the "red/black test":
If you're among the doubters, try this little test: take the K and Q of hearts out of a single deck, creating a stack of 50 cards in which there are 26 blacks and 24 reds and black therefore has an advantage over red of 4 percent. Shuffle them rigorously, then turn them over one by one, using the Turnaround method to bet that the next card will be red. The HA will vary before each card is dealt, depending on how many blacks and reds have preceded it, but you can realistically expect a 4 percent house edge before the first card is turned over, and the same house edge before the 50th card is exposed. Time and again, you will finish the deck with Turnaround substantially in profit in spite of a clear, absolute house advantage. The red/black test will sometimes hit the end of the deck in the middle of the recovery series, but then you do just as you would in a casino and roll over the LTD to the first "hand" of the new "shoe."So "any amount bet against a negative expectation must have a negative result" is false for this test, and false for any other gambling proposition with a reasonable house edge (your definition of "reasonable" may differ from mine, so let's say that anything over 5 percent is a gouge). The negative expectation mantra holds true ONLY for flat or random betting: skilled, systematic money management reduces the "ultimate axiom" to bilge-water. [Emphasis added]
Without actually wasting time trying it, I don't doubt that Harmer's system will show a profit at this game! Problem is: no casino on Earth would be dumb enough to offer you that game, because virtually any negative progression would beat it (not to mention what a trivial count system could do). The reason is simple: Note that every time you draw a black card and lose, the odds of losing on the next card are significantly reduced from the off-the-top odds. The player's expectation is changing with each draw in this game, and the specific logical fallacy behind negative progressions is that real casino games behave this way, with every loss increasing your odds of winning on the next game.
Harmer should try his system against this game, but shuffle after ever draw.
All the "red/black test" proves is that Harmer is definitely an idiot.
Bj21 uses cookies, this enables us to provide you with a personalised experience. More info