Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 54

Thread: New question for AP's...

  1. #21
    I'm agreeing with Norm with if you have 16vsT and can't surrender you are screwed. It's a horribly negative expectation hand. How screwed? How horrible? With surrender available, you'd need to be down to around TC-7 to hit instead of surrender, a point that you should have wonged out unless there was some reason to stay. Thinking about the difference between -1,0,+1 whether to stand or hit when surrender is not available is not worth giving much thought to. Surrender, otherwise stand if surrender is unavailable is the way to go. The index is very broad brush compared to actual composition dependent play. It's possible be at TC-2 with the optimal decision to stand, and possible be at TC+2 with the optimal decision to hit! This hand, 16vsT, is heavily impacted by surplus and/or deficit (4,5). You can think of one surplus (5) as being the equivalent of three {T} removed. You can think of one surplus (4) as being the value of two {T} removed in pushing you in the direction to hit. Without factoring in key card impact, you are somewhere in the ball park at best, and whether you are at -2 or +2, to hit or stand (when surrender is unavailable) isn't going to make a lot of difference. Not to worry though, since even if you go with the very exact composition dependent play, it's not having a huge impact and you are screwed no matter what.

    A few examples of what I'm talking about as follows:

    DD, no surrender, 16vsT, 1.25 decks remaining, TC+2, no (4,5) have been removed, five (6) have been removed (2 deficit).-----HIT
    DD, no surrender, 16vsT, 1.25 decks remaining, TC+2, more than eight (4,5) have been removed, no (6) have been removed (3 surplus).----- STAND

    6D, no surrender, 16vsT, 3 decks remaining, TC-2, lots of (4,5) removed, enough to assume a substantial deficit, surplus middle cards, surplus (6).-----STAND
    6D, no surrender, 16vsT, 3 decks remaining, TC-2, very few (4,5) removed, lots of (6) removed with eight in the remainder (4 deficit), deficit middle cards.-----HIT

    The difference between composition dependent perfect play and simply going with surrender, otherwise stand if surrender is unavailable, is not that significant for this hand. What you are talking about in the original post is even less significant than that, since the index itself that you are going by is sort of broad brush. Don't freak out about whether not ever hitting 16 is going to hurt you in the long haul, it isn't. You've heard of pragmatism? What you are debating is the opposite of pragmatism.

    Tarzan writes ^:


    Moses writes: 16vs10; Your buddy Flash is simply wrong, Wrong, WRONG at the suggestion of Always Standing in the single deck game - straight up. Surrender is not an option. RC-2,-3,-4 etc and up is actually a positive play. At 43% high cards remaining vs 57% low cards remaining, standing is ludicrous. I don't know how you manage to track 4,5 and 6. But if your 3 column count is flush with 2-5s, why in the world would you stand?

  2. #22
    The fact that card counters have to guess on when to hit, stand or surrender on 16 vs 10 shows the weakness of counting compared to advanced AP methods.

  3. #23
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Casinos LOVE AP's! I've sat and watched them throw thousands of dollars away. A friend told me he sat and watched a guy throw $50k on that Buffalo Stampede game and NEVER hit anything substantial.
    Buffalo Stampede? Lol.

  4. #24
    The problem I have with the term EV is it's an estimate. I prefer position of power by knowing my percentages. A TC 26 or TC 30 doesn't mean you will automatically win the hand. IT simply means your in a stronger position of power. So don't be shocked if/when you lose those large bets. Of course, a deck with 67% in high cards remaining is better than 60%. Both are value plays. Neither guarantees a winning hand. However, 67% will win a higher percentage of hands. But it's also a lower percentage to get into that position of power opportunity.

    Therefore, I disagree with those hairy high school methods of jumping your bet around. You're not fooling anyone. The only way to make an EITS delusional to your play is to skip what appears to be high value hands to them. The is best done with a column count.

  5. #25
    Originally Posted by Prozema View Post
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Casinos LOVE AP's! I've sat and watched them throw thousands of dollars away. A friend told me he sat and watched a guy throw $50k on that Buffalo Stampede game and NEVER hit anything substantial.
    Buffalo Stampede? Lol.
    I looked- it's a progressive game. About 8 machines set by themselves. Too rich for my blood.

  6. #26
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Originally Posted by Prozema View Post
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Casinos LOVE AP's! I've sat and watched them throw thousands of dollars away. A friend told me he sat and watched a guy throw $50k on that Buffalo Stampede game and NEVER hit anything substantial.
    Buffalo Stampede? Lol.
    I looked- it's a progressive game. About 8 machines set by themselves. Too rich for my blood.
    Just keep plugging away with Singers Strategy. In no time, you'll be able to afford it....NOT

  7. #27
    I've been trying to drag this thread back to a theoretical discussion, but you guys kept throwing practical or useful suggestions.
    Every wise counter knows the benefit to always stand on 16 vs 10 when there's potential heat.
    I simply would like to know if standing at RC 1, on average, is mathematically better than standing at TC 0. Anyway, I seem to get the answer.

    San Jose Bella writes ^:

    Moses replies: You're not going to get a straight answer to your question. In order to get your answer you will have to do a formula on a spreadsheet based on the results from CV Data. I can tell you that in a no surrender, straight up pitch game that standing at RC 1 is mathematically better than standing at RC O. However, it is a threshold (or a crap shoot) until to get hitting at RC -2. As for trying to compare on RC 1 to a TC 0? Wow, what is wrong with you? Impossible!

    Consider, in a 52 card deck, there are 32 cards that will break your hand. Only 16 will improve it to 18 or better. So 67% break and only 33% improve your position. Now, in a straight up game, quite often the last card of your current hand is the first card of your next hand. That being said, it's rarely worth taking an Ace out of the deck to improve from a 16 to 17. However, starting a hand with an Ace is a great value.

    These who say Always Stand on 16 in a pitch game are suffering from HIA syndrome. In a negative deck, perhaps you don't win the hand. But consider you took a negative card out of the card which improved your position on your next hand. A 6 for instance, gives you 22 at a negative RC -3. Bam, you lose. But at least you're not starting your next hand with a 6. Or a 3 gets you to 19. Dealer has 20. Bam you lose. But at least you're not starting your next hand with a 3.

    Personally, I do not believe the pit boss or EITS is standing around waiting to see what I do on 16. It occurs maybe 3 times out of a 100 hands. However, if you are that twitchy about heat, let the dealer make the call at RC 1 to RC-1. It won't make one iota of difference until you've played a million hands (10 years for KJ). Even then, it's a threshold that could go either way.
    Last edited by Moses; 11-13-2018 at 07:24 AM.

  8. #28
    Originally Posted by Moses View Post
    I've been trying to drag this thread back to a theoretical discussion, but you guys kept throwing practical or useful suggestions.
    Every wise counter knows the benefit to always stand on 16 vs 10 when there's potential heat.
    I simply would like to know if standing at RC 1, on average, is mathematically better than standing at TC 0. Anyway, I seem to get the answer.

    San Jose Bella writes ^:

    Moses replies: You're not going to get a straight answer to your question. In order to get your answer you will have to do a formula on a spreadsheet based on the results from CV Data. I can tell you that in a no surrender, straight up pitch game that standing at RC 1 is mathematically better than standing at RC O. However, it is a threshold (or a crap shoot) until to get hitting at RC -2. As for trying to compare on RC 1 to a TC 0? Wow, what is wrong with you? Impossible!

    Consider, in a 52 card deck, there are 32 cards that will break your hand. Only 16 will improve it to 18 or better. So 67% break and only 33% improve your position. Now, in a straight up game, quite often the last card of your current hand is the first card of your next hand. That being said, it's rarely worth taking an Ace out of the deck to improve from a 16 to 17. However, starting a hand with an Ace is a great value.

    These who say Always Stand on 16 in a pitch game are suffering from HIA syndrome. In a negative deck, perhaps you don't win the hand. But consider you took a negative card out of the card which improved your position on your next hand. A 6 for instance, gives you 22 at a negative RC -3. Bam, you lose. But at least you're not starting your next hand with a 6. Or a 3 gets you to 19. Dealer has 20. Bam you lose. But at least you're not starting your next hand with a 3.

    Personally, I do not believe the pit boss or EITS is standing around waiting to see what I do on 16. It occurs maybe 3 times out of a 100 hands. However, if you are that twitchy about heat, let the dealer make the call at RC 1 to RC-1. It won't make one iota of difference until you've played a million hands (10 years for KJ). Even then, it's a threshold that could go either way.
    So why must a dealer hit on 16?

  9. #29
    Moses, I appreciate that you are trying to initiate blackjack discussion, both here and in the "whatever is on your mind" subsection. Problem is there really are few here that want to discuss blackjack and those that do, only want to tear down any possibility of playing blackjack with an advantage. But since you are making the effort, I will try.

    Do we really want to discuss hitting or not hitting 16 vs 10? The fact is that it is such a close play that playing it wrong either way, only costs a couple cents on a $100 wager. And that goes for shoe as well as pitch games. The bigger issue for 16 vs 10 is when player attempt to play it "correctly", hitting during neutral/negative counts and standing on positive counts. Because 16 vs 10 is one of the most common hands and occurs so frequently it is easy to spot a player playing it differently at different times (and counts), so I recommend playing it the same way all the time. That slight cost is well worth avoiding that huge "tell".

    Going by 'card counter's basic strategy' you stand on all 16 vs 10's. Reasoning, you will be playing it incorrectly, at a very small cost, on negative counts when your smallest (waiting) bets are made and playing it correctly on all positive counts when you have larger wagers out. Very minimal cost. AND if you are a player who wongs out aggressively, to escape at least some of the negative counts, you will be playing it correctly even a higher percentage of the time, making the cost even less....less than minimal.

  10. #30
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Do we really want to discuss hitting or not hitting 16 vs 10?
    KJ. I brought it up because it's a never ending topic at BJTF. Actually, according to Sims for pitch games, Always standing vs hitting at the proper index will reduce SCORE over 10%.

    The point is they confound the issue to create an understanding to their way by limiting free speech. I assure you "always standing" in single deck straight up is more than pennies. Hitting at RC-2^ pays extra bills each month. Going from memory, it was 11 wins and 4 losses over the course of 5k hands. A minimum bet at $25 is an extra $175. A closer look reflects always standing was a $175 loss. That is a difference of $350 in less than a month for most full time green chip players. Not pennies in my book. But then, I don't have your kind of money.

    Flash should do some SIM research before just writing "blue ink balderdash." On the flipside, I could write doubling on 10vs 10 is not worth the risk. So always hit and it's not worth the dollars invested. Instead I would encourage others to draw out the picture from SIMS in order to determine if it is for them or not. You don't want to know how I look at it to improve my risk.
    Last edited by Moses; 11-14-2018 at 11:02 AM.

  11. #31
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Moses, I appreciate that you are trying to initiate blackjack discussion, both here and in the "whatever is on your mind" subsection. Problem is there really are few here that want to discuss blackjack and those that do, only want to tear down any possibility of playing blackjack with an advantage. But since you are making the effort, I will try.

    Do we really want to discuss hitting or not hitting 16 vs 10? The fact is that it is such a close play that playing it wrong either way, only costs a couple cents on a $100 wager. And that goes for shoe as well as pitch games. The bigger issue for 16 vs 10 is when player attempt to play it "correctly", hitting during neutral/negative counts and standing on positive counts. Because 16 vs 10 is one of the most common hands and occurs so frequently it is easy to spot a player playing it differently at different times (and counts), so I recommend playing it the same way all the time. That slight cost is well worth avoiding that huge "tell".

    Going by 'card counter's basic strategy' you stand on all 16 vs 10's. Reasoning, you will be playing it incorrectly, at a very small cost, on negative counts when your smallest (waiting) bets are made and playing it correctly on all positive counts when you have larger wagers out. Very minimal cost. AND if you are a player who wongs out aggressively, to escape at least some of the negative counts, you will be playing it correctly even a higher percentage of the time, making the cost even less....less than minimal.
    I don't comment on the blackjack posts because I'm not a blackjack pro. I can't get down into the nuts and bolts like you and Moses do. I can do it with video poker but not blackjack. But I do read everything you and Moses write on the subject. How other AP's operate is always interesting.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  12. #32
    KJ, there are a few casual gamblers who are here to enhance their game, blackjack included. There are also those who just want to learn, period. I fall into both categories.

    I see the logic of both sides and the different reasoning as to how Moses and you would play 16 vs 10. Since I am not a card counter, though my buddy is (and we casually gambler as a pair), I played by the statedgy card and always hit on 16 vs 10. Before posting, I did a little research and found out that a multi card (three or more) 16 vs 10 should be played as a hold. Interesting. I never knew this.

    Just because many individuals do not respond to blackjack posts, it does not mean the information is not being absorbed.

    Heck, on my last visit to Vegas a few months ago I was berated by the guy next to me on how I played a certain hand. I played it by the book. I even showed him the strategy card but that was not good enough. He left the table shaking his head. After he left, I looked at the other gamblers and said, “Let’s have some fun!”, Oh, for the record, I woke up at 5 AM the next morning and reviewed four different websites about the play. No author strayed from the card.

    Keep the informational posts coming.

  13. #33
    Deech. Feed back like yours is good. There are thousands of lurkers who never post. The general idea behind my posts are a series of notes to myself. I believe one can reduce variance by doing homework to determine the difference between a threshold and an advantage play. Money management is key. I spend hours in research when I'm not playing. "Winning is everything. But it sure beats losing."

  14. #34
    Holy fart, it's good not to have this sort of crap in my head. No way to get it out?

    KJ keeps coming back for more baloney. I guess that you have to give some to take some.

    Now, I wonder that there is any reliable literature about high-level blackjack income. Sure as rain doesn't look like it. The new questions keep on a comin'.
    78255585899=317*13723*17989=(310+7)*[(13730-7)*(100*100+7979+10)]-->LOVE avatar@137_371_179_791, or 137_371_17[3^2]_7[3^2]1, 1=V-->Ace, low. 78255585899-->99858555287=(99858555288-1)=[-1+(72*2227)*(722777-100000)]={-1+(72*2227)*[(2000+700777+20000)-100000]}-->1_722_227_277_772_1. 7×8×2×5×5×5×8×5×8×9×9=362880000=(1000000000-6√97020000-100000)-->169_721. (7/8×2/5×5/5×8/5×8/9×9)={[(-.1+.9)]^2×(6+1)}-->1961=√4*2.24; (1/7×8/2×5/5×5/8×5/8×9/9)={1/[7×(-.2+1)^2]}-->1721=[(10*10/4)/(√4+110)].

  15. #35
    Originally Posted by Bill Yung View Post
    Now, I wonder that there is any reliable literature about high-level blackjack income.
    It's like most anything else. It's just a job.

  16. #36
    Originally Posted by Bill Yung View Post
    Holy fart, it's good not to have this sort of crap in my head. No way to get it out?
    Christ, he's off his meds again.
    What, Me Worry?

  17. #37
    You betcha! I don't take 'em at all.

    I wonder what atheists say to swear? Stephen Hawking's drawers? Ha.
    78255585899=317*13723*17989=(310+7)*[(13730-7)*(100*100+7979+10)]-->LOVE avatar@137_371_179_791, or 137_371_17[3^2]_7[3^2]1, 1=V-->Ace, low. 78255585899-->99858555287=(99858555288-1)=[-1+(72*2227)*(722777-100000)]={-1+(72*2227)*[(2000+700777+20000)-100000]}-->1_722_227_277_772_1. 7×8×2×5×5×5×8×5×8×9×9=362880000=(1000000000-6√97020000-100000)-->169_721. (7/8×2/5×5/5×8/5×8/9×9)={[(-.1+.9)]^2×(6+1)}-->1961=√4*2.24; (1/7×8/2×5/5×5/8×5/8×9/9)={1/[7×(-.2+1)^2]}-->1721=[(10*10/4)/(√4+110)].

  18. #38
    Originally Posted by Moses View Post
    Deech. Feed back like yours is good. There are thousands of lurkers who never post. The general idea behind my posts are a series of notes to myself. I believe one can reduce variance by doing homework to determine the difference between a threshold and an advantage play. Money management is key. I spend hours in research when I'm not playing. "Winning is everything. But it sure beats losing."
    I believe more “lurkers” would respond if there was more positive information within the thread.

    Frankly, anyone casually looking at this section of the website, would reverse gears and exit.

    Why do I view this site? MC, KJ, Reditz, Monet, and Moses. Yes, there are others but these individuals are the ones I have learned from. I am here for the math of gambling. Yes, I can be philosophical and give a dissertation that gambling is detrimental. Gambling is no different than other vices.

    Live long and let’s have fun.

  19. #39
    Originally Posted by Deech View Post
    Originally Posted by Moses View Post
    Deech. Feed back like yours is good. There are thousands of lurkers who never post. The general idea behind my posts are a series of notes to myself. I believe one can reduce variance by doing homework to determine the difference between a threshold and an advantage play. Money management is key. I spend hours in research when I'm not playing. "Winning is everything. But it sure beats losing."
    I believe more “lurkers” would respond if there was more positive information within the thread.

    Frankly, anyone casually looking at this section of the website, would reverse gears and exit.

    Why do I view this site? MC, KJ, Reditz, Monet, and Moses. Yes, there are others but these individuals are the ones I have learned from. I am here for the math of gambling. Yes, I can be philosophical and give a dissertation that gambling is detrimental. Gambling is no different than other vices.

    Live long and let’s have fun.
    Thank you for posting Deech. When I share something about my play or experiences, I try to remember that there are lurkers (more than just you because you do participate, but other complete lurkers) that might benefits. So I thank you for reminding me of that.

    It's funny...when Dan Druff banned Singer, about a year ago, Dan specifically mentioned that he had heard privately from several "lurkers", who confided in Dan that they do not feel comfortable participating because of the likes of Rob Singer. Dan stated at the time, that he wanted to move away from that so this site could be a place that more people felt comfortable participating at.

    AND THEN...inexplicably Dan reversed course, never explaining why. I call Dan to revisit that decision to allow Singer back. It has not benefited this site in any way.

  20. #40
    Originally Posted by Moses View Post
    Originally Posted by Bill Yung View Post
    Now, I wonder that there is any reliable literature about high-level blackjack income.
    It's like most anything else. It's just a job.
    Ha. When pigs fly, and V stops using.

    You'll never see a "burger flipper" waste the rest of his/her time on the internet to wallow in the fantasy details of "burger flipping". This is how weird gambling is, no matter how much or in which way.
    78255585899=317*13723*17989=(310+7)*[(13730-7)*(100*100+7979+10)]-->LOVE avatar@137_371_179_791, or 137_371_17[3^2]_7[3^2]1, 1=V-->Ace, low. 78255585899-->99858555287=(99858555288-1)=[-1+(72*2227)*(722777-100000)]={-1+(72*2227)*[(2000+700777+20000)-100000]}-->1_722_227_277_772_1. 7×8×2×5×5×5×8×5×8×9×9=362880000=(1000000000-6√97020000-100000)-->169_721. (7/8×2/5×5/5×8/5×8/9×9)={[(-.1+.9)]^2×(6+1)}-->1961=√4*2.24; (1/7×8/2×5/5×5/8×5/8×9/9)={1/[7×(-.2+1)^2]}-->1721=[(10*10/4)/(√4+110)].

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •