Assuming the ploppy is defined as the non-basic strategist that
subscribes to the usual superstitions when playing hands.
I think it's about 2% and yet I've heard of higher figures reported for a casino's general take on BJ. Any thoughts? I would assume flat betting vs. anything else would have an effect.
Here is a post from a few months ago from Don that might answer your question/confusion:
"The house edge gets "recycled" as you keep betting over and over again. Suppose the house edge on a slot machine is 2%. You buy $100 and start putting them in one at a time. After a few minutes, you've played all 100, and, when you look in the tray, you find that, on average, 98 have been returned to you. Do you quit? NOOOOOOO. You cycle them again and again and again.
Homework: figure out how long it takes you to go virtually broke! :-)
Same with blackjack. The "hold" of 29% refers to the fact that the average player "recycles" his dollars just enough to walk away, on average, with about 70-75 cents on the dollar. "
Grinch is asking a specific question, which I say the answer is about 7-8% based on research I've read. Here's the answer to Grinch's second question: increasing one's wager amount only increases the absolute dollars expected to be lost; that is to say, if this so called ploppy faces a 8% house edge, this house edge will remain 8% regardless of the amount wagered be it $5 or $50 or $500.
Turning my attention to BlackJackMagic: "hold" is affected by too many factors to be a reliable metric as answer to Grinch's question. For example, if I happened to be the only player in a casino and a bj ploppy as well, and walked to a table, proceeded to buy all the chips but left without making a wager, would the hold for this table be say "29%"? Suppose, I now walk to another table and played some bj with my chips and then left, would the "hold" for the second table be 29% as well? No matter which table I go to (assuming the same rules), as a ploppy, I still face an 8% disadvantage but depending on my length and style of play, the hold will be different. My point is simple: One's disadvantage in a game is generally independent of the "hold."
From the advantage player's perspective, many casinos deal good games as well as not-so-good games. Wouldn't it be nice if we could make the good games look better to the casino management? And in the process make the bad games look worse?
But how can we do this if we're taking all the money out of the good games and ignoring the bad games as they shake down the poor masses?
Perhaps we could routinely buy in at a bad game, play one hand, then leave with the chips (colored up or not) to wash them at the cage. But save a few ... as we'll go on to play the good game with our chips from the bad game.
How big does this operation have to be to skew casino hold numbers?
Even if a total blackjack newbie sat down and played a mimic the dealer strategy, that is, he kept hitting until he had seventeen or higher, he'd only be at about a 5.5% disadvantage (according to Peter Griffin in The Theory of Blackjack). Someone this bad might as well play double zero roulette with its 5.26% house advantage.
Telescopic
House edges for these strategies:
Never bust: 3.91%
Mimic the dealer: 5.48%
Assume ten in the hole: 10,03%
These results are taken from www.thewizardofodds.com
My ploppies play worse than Don's ploppies; I don't recall Don having a monopoly on ploppies. Happy now?!
double, splits, and soft hands into account.
...that Grinch specifically excluded the basic strategists. The 2-3% figure is based on a sample of a general population of players including some basic strategists, who drag the average figure down considerably.
Basic strategy is either something you know or you don't, none of the pre-Thorp card "experts" got remotely close to it for example.
Consequently, it is reasonable to assume the effects of removing BS players from the sample would be extreme.
You'd certainly be looking at >3% without the blackjack elite, though 7-8% is a bit too much, though it depends on your interpretation of Grinch's comment about "usual superstitions".
So, let x = ploppy disadvantage.
[9x + (-.005)]/10 = -.025.
9x - .005 = -.25
9x = -.245
x = -.0272 = -2.72% (instead of -2.5%).
No big difference.
Don
In a prior post, entitled "A Charlatan at Work?!" I attacked Don's flawed argument and my post was busted? Why was the post busted?
Well, at least, they're supposed to be banned from bj21.
Regards,
MF
I only questioned Don's deceptive use of circular logic, calling into question as if a charlatan was at work? The very title beg that question.
I have never seen a "BS-player". The only people I know who actually know a complete Basic Strategy are counters. I have never met any player who had meticulously memorized a Basic Strategy but had not learned a little bit about counting. So I am not really sure who Grinch is talking about in his definition:
Assuming the ploppy is defined as the non-basic strategist that subscribes to the usual superstitions when playing hands.
I have seen many players who play an approximate BS. They do not know all the splitting or soft-doubling "rules", but they understand the basic hit-stand decisions. But each of them will usually misplay some hands. Like one person "always takes even money", while another "always doubles on 11"
Perhaps we could call these players "Basic Strategy" because they are following A basic strategy, it simply isn't the correct one. But that is a lot different than the hunch or Voodoo players, who change their strategy based on feelings, tea-leaves, sun-spots, etc. You know, the guy who will double 10v10 in a "hot shoe", but then decline doubling 11 v. 7 later, because the dealer is "hot". Last week I saw a women hit a hard 17. She knew it was wrong, but the shoe "had gotten really messed up". These players may give up a lot more than 2%.
Your title was apparently deemed offensive. Don Sclesinger posts have been busted for using similar language.
The post has been put up again but with a different title, taken from your text. You can see the difference.
pb16
The formula is
Win Average Bet * Hours Played * Hands per Hour * Advantage
Hold = ---- = ---------------------------------------------------------
Drop Drop
DROP WIN HOLD EXPLANATION
$500 $500 100.0% All cash transactions ("Money plays" all the way)
$600 $500 83.3% Table inventories used (both cash & chips used)
$1,600 $500 31.2% Cashiering activity
$200 $500 250.0% Inventories not adjusted *
$200 $500 250.0% Marker activity
$1,200 $500 41.6% Drop redefined to include Marker Credits
* Sometimes the chips in the dealer's tray become too many (that's when he doesn't announce "Too Many" enough times, folks). The Table Inventory is then relieved through sending back to the Central Cage some of its chips. This change in the Inventory should normally be reflected in the Drop so as to properly measure the Game's Win. In the example immediately above that's what happened and, therefore, its Hold figure (31.2%) is more realistic.
I have no idea who you otherwise are, but you could almost post as: inspector 12 AKA pb16.
Grinch wrote:
Assuming the ploppy is defined as the non-basic strategist that
subscribes to the usual superstitions when playing hands.
Your analysis covers average disadvantage which is not what Grinch asked for. On average, every family home has 2.5 children. But the usual family does not have 2.5 children.
This post, and Roger Harris's, got busted before and I have absolutely no idea why. I'll post it a hundred thousand times if neccessary.
