Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Gamblers--can you make a living? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark Marcellus who wrote (22)	7/4/2005 1:40:14 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 113

If myself and the dealer BOTH have 12 to 16, then he will break about 50% of the time on the drawing of his first card. If he gets to draw a second card he will have chances to break or to improve. I don't have a calculator in front of me right now, but I can get you the exact chances of breaking on the drawing of one card later if you like. I will not tackle the complications of drawing two or more cards. My odds of busting if I were forced to draw would be PRECISELY the same as his. I do appreciate your point, but remember that the "best play" only shades the odds minimally in this instance. To take another example. If I have two nines I have a very good chance of having a winning or a tied hand against an eight showing. Yet it is still to my benefit to split the nines against the eights because I then have TWO hands with better possibilities than the dealer hand. On the other hand...I don't split them against the seven because in one out of 3.2 tries the dealer will lose on his hole card of a ten spot. Using your argument one could say that one should not double down on 11 against a ten either because (obviously) I should draw against a ten if I get a 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 because drawing would be the "best play". But I don't think you would argue that one should not double 11 against a ten on that basis...right? When I double on a ten I will have an ace (and no chance of losing) one of 13 times. The rest of the time I will have an equal chance on one draw...and many of his ONE CARD draws in the 12-16 range where I must stay will break him. For instance, if he draws to 16 then 8 of 13 ONE CARD draws will break him--about 62 % against him. And nothing in probability says we will both have 16. Hell. I might have 20 when he draws to 16 or vice versa. I have as much chance to break when drawing to 12-16 as he does. The question is whether his (or my) chance to improve is better when we both have the exact same total (12-16) than the risk of breaking--and to what degree my chance of a one card draw to 21 (which he does not have) affects this close call. I don't think there is a clear answer to this. It is a close call. I have given my opinion and I do appreciate yours.

To: Mark Marcellus who wrote (22)	7/4/2005 7:37:07 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 113

Perhaps I can express this in a better way than my first response? For the purpose of theorizing, the set of hands for self and dealer is 12, 13,14,15, or 16. Therefore, over time, every possible combination will occur equally within that set (for example, my 12 against his 16,15,14,13, or 12). So for practical purposes we can pretend that when I have a 12 he has a 12, when I have a 13 he has a 13....and so on. So we DO "know" what the dealer has for the purpose of examining this hypothetical. We know that we are equally likely to get 17,18,19, or 20 on a ONE CARD draw. So we can leave that aside. We know that I have about an 8% chance of 21 on a ONE CARD draw while his probability is 0% (he looked and did not have the ace). So we are left with those instances where we BOTH have 12,13,14,15, or 16. Knowing he has a 12, I will not draw to MY 12. After all, although he only has 31% chance of breaking on a ONE CARD draw--he also has a 31% chance of being FORCED to draw a second card with even less favourable probabilities. And I am looking at his BEST CASE scenario of beginning with a 12... Therefore...on his HOLE CARD (using "12" as the starting point) he only has a 38% chance of having 17-20. I am therefore happy to give up my chance for a second draw (which I would not make anyway when he has 12-16 and I have drawn to a ten) for the benefit of an 8% chance of getting 21 outright by drawing an ace...and the benefit of doubling the bet. If my advantage is .01 % it is monstrous because of the doubled bet...over time. If my disadvantage is .01 % it is monstrous because of the doubled bet...over time. I certainly do not know mathematically which way the cookie crumbles. That is beyond by knowledge and skill. But a depth of experience assures me I am correct. Yet, wrong I may well be! I think it is close enough that it would only affect a daily player who was playing for a living and experiencing the inevitability of long-term probability. Still, I appreciate that you expressed your opinion. It caused me to think it through and to have some doubt. And I have no desire on this thread to be right! I want to learn and to become a better gambler! This issue is not critical. It is about betting strategies and money management. The house edge is ALWAYS there...

To: Mark Marcellus who wrote (22)	8/26/2005 1:50:25 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 113

It's clearly a bad move. If you're a card counter, the count is sufficiently positive, and you have a ten against a dealers ten, then you double, otherwise you hit. As a basic strategy play, it has a negative expectation, ie, it is a money-loser in the long run. A great reference on this is Basic Blackjack by Stanford Wong. Highly recommended, as is his opus on the Hi-Low count system, Professional Blackjack. He also runs the most proninent site on the web for pro blackjack players, www.bj21.com.