Blackjack Paradox

[David Sklansky]

You are a pro who specializes beating single decks with good rules by flat betting and deviating from basic strategy according to the count. A certain casino lets you play four hands and then shuffles.

One day you walk up to a table where someone has already played one hand that you haven't seen. The pit boss tells you that you can play four hands from this point. (Not because he saw high cards come out. He wasn't even watching.

Question One: If you can't ask anyone what cards came out on the first hand ,is this just as good for you as playing starting from hand one, and getting four hands? In spite of the fact that your playing strategy will assume a count that will often be wrong?

Taking this a step further, say the player already there is identically skilled and playing with the same rules. So he has to leave one hand early.

Question Two: Are both of you playing with the exact same edge? Even though you will often be playing hands two and three assuming different counts. In fact you might sometimes have the exact same hands and play them differently? If so how could this be?

Note: Please disregard the effects of going second. Assume in fact that strategy changes will be based only on cards seen before the hand started. I'm dealing with a general principle here.

[HP]

[ QUOTE ]
Question One: If you can't ask anyone what cards came out on the first hand ,is this just as good for you as playing starting from hand one, and getting four hands? In spite of the fact that your playing strategy will assume a count that will often be wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah

[ QUOTE ]
Question Two: Are both of you playing with the exact same edge? Even though you will often be playing hands two and three assuming different counts. In fact you might sometimes have the exact same hands and play them differently? If so how could this be?

[/ QUOTE ]

each players edge for the whole 4-hand round will be the same. Though the first player will have a greater edge than the second player on hands #2, #3, and #4. The first player makes less money on hand #1 than the second player makes on hand #5

[mmorpg]

Interesting question.

Here is my theory which is most likely wrong, but since I am dying to know the right answer someone might feel the need to correct me.

Q1
Deck is more likely to have lost 'rubbish' cards than good cards so on avarage your edge will be slightly better than what the count implies.

Assuming they are both sober.
Player 2 will have the better edge since there are less cards in the deck, but he wont know the true count and might play a hand wrong.


:0)

[BeerMoney]

This seems like asking if the chances of getting pocket aces differs at a HE table by how many people are playing.

[felson]

i agree with HP.

i believe that we need an additional assumption -- that the expected number of cards played during the first, unseen hand, is equal to the expected number of cards played during hands 2,3,4. otherwise player 2 will have more information on the average than player 1. so we need someone else to step in and play a hand during hand 1, then leave the table.

[felson]

I change my answer.

The second pro can watch the first pro's decisions, since both are equally skilled counters. If the first pro makes an unexpected play, the second pro can revise his estimate of the count accordingly. He alone can use that knowledge on hand 5, so he has an advantage.

[David Sklansky]

You changed the subject.

[KUJustin]

Missing the first hand doesn't matter. Cards dealt without you looking is no different than cards sitting on the bottom of the deck.

The 2 pros have the same edge except that the late-arriver may indeed catch a clue from the early-arriver (does he know the profile of the early-arriver?). I assume the advantage would be very small.

[abcjnich]

Over a long period of time, each player has the same advantage. Of course, it does depend on what count you are using. If you are using standard hi-low count, then the advantage is the same. But if you are using red seven count (the deck starts at a -2), then the late-comer will have a very small (inconsequensial really) disadvantage over the new comer.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
You are a pro who specializes beating single decks with good rules by flat betting and deviating from basic strategy according to the count. A certain casino lets you play four hands and then shuffles.
<font color="white">. </font>
One day you walk up to a table where someone has already played one hand that you haven't seen. The pit boss tells you that you can play four hands from this point. (Not because he saw high cards come out. He wasn't even watching.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Question One: If you can't ask anyone what cards came out on the first hand ,is this just as good for you as playing starting from hand one, and getting four hands? In spite of the fact that your playing strategy will assume a count that will often be wrong?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes.

If the game had a cut card, your penetration would've worsened by the equivalent of one extra hand which you can't see. (It's as if the dealer took the cards of that one hand you missed from the top of the deck and instead of dealing them out, he placed them at the bottom of the deck, behind the cut card.)

But since the deck does not have a cut card and you are playing instead with a predetermined number of rounds, it's as if the dealer takes the cards from that hand you missed and shuffles them into the deck again. You gonna get your four rounds no matter what.

Your 2nd question is not very clear.

Mickey Brausch