Blackjack Paradox

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Penetration is all about predicting what cards are coming when we know what cards have seen action.

[/ QUOTE ]Yeah, we are "predicting" (actually, we're betting on) what kind of cards are still in the pack. We do this by keeping track of the cards; not "because" of penetration. But I think it's obvious what you're trying to say.

[ QUOTE ]
In a casino with a shoe the cut card is placed in the deck and then dealing starts there and the deal never makes it to the end of the shoe unless you have a pit boss dumber and lazier than normal.

[/ QUOTE ]That's one way.

[ QUOTE ]
Why would the casino do that. Well they can do it so your odds are better or thier odds are better. We have to assume that it makes thier odds better, LIKE EACH AND EVERY RULE CHANGE THAT HAS BEEN MADE SINCE THORP HIT THE FELT. Not one decision that I know of has ever put money in the customers pocket.

[/ QUOTE ]That is so wrong, so very wrong, that it's even a little funny. But, again, I understand what you're trying to say.

[ QUOTE ]
A short deck reduces the hands per hour that casinos depend on. To only deal half the cards has to give them an edge no matter how many extra hands they can squeeze in in an hour if they play the whole shoe.

[/ QUOTE ]Aside from everything else, it can be argued that the casinos hurt themselves by having a down time dedicated to shuffling the cards, instead of continuing to deal. The damage that can be caused to the house by those pesky card counters, when the house deals deeper, is more, lots more than balanced by the profit made by those extra hands per hour.

Gaming expert and casino executive & consultant Bill Zender has explained these concepts thoroughly, and quite openly, a long time ago -- he even put them to practice when working for the Aladin. Ancient history.


[ QUOTE ]
Player one states "My wife is horney, she says she is calling the bell man, I think I have time for exactly 4 hands."

[/ QUOTE ]This is such an exciting thread.

Mickey Brausch

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
It's so easy to idiot-proof the question

[/ QUOTE ]"That was f*cking unnecessary!"

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[David Sklansky] does not know how to organize his thoughts to ask a question without several clarifications. That or he is in fact trolling for brown nosed suck ups. That is what is going on.

[/ QUOTE ]I think you're right. Sklansky should be banned from the Sklansky forum.

Who's moderating here ? Hello?

[Buccaneer]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Why would the casino do that. Well they can do it so your odds are better or thier odds are better. We have to assume that it makes thier odds better, LIKE EACH AND EVERY RULE CHANGE THAT HAS BEEN MADE SINCE THORP HIT THE FELT. Not one decision that I know of has ever put money in the customers pocket.

That is so wrong, so very wrong, that it's even a little funny. But, again, I understand what you're trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Call me misinformed but please inform me of any casino that has ever changed BJ rules so that the house advantage was less.

[glass_onion]

isn't it an advantage playing hands 2-6?

First cards dealt are entirely random, per definition. The odds of a flush hitting does't change because a dealer burns a card that no one sees.

Therefore your point count changes are irrelevant. What is relevant is that if you get dealt a bunch of small cards, you have less cards behind. Therefore, it is a more meaningful deviation for you to exploit. Would you rather be +2 with a single deck, or 6 decks? exactly.

[emerson]

[ 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.

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Question one: yes, it is the same. The expected change in true count after N hands is always zero.

Question two: No, the second player has the bigger edge. On his last round, the heads up round, he has seen more cards than the first player did. The first player saw his cards on the first round, then the cards of both on the two rounds that follow. He has seen a total of five player hands (on previous hands) when making his decisions for the final round. The second player to arrive at the table has seen 6 player hands (on previous rounds) when deciding upon his final play.

[emerson]

[ QUOTE ]
Have I missed something?

2nd player has an advantage. If for example 1st player draws on 13 against dealers 5, then as the first player uses perfect count strategy, 2nd player can surmise that there is already a negative count and even the range of the count. Conversely, if he stands on 15 against 10, 2nd player can extrapolate positve count.

Therefore, by monitoring the strategy of the 1st player he can make use of information regarding the already burnt cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I think you missed something, or I did. I did not notice David mention that you knew that the other player was equally skilled and could thus rely on his actions to draw conclusions about the deck composition.

[mosta]

[ QUOTE ]
This is just a penetration issue, nothing more. You get your four hands, and he gets five hands. This is mathematically equivalent, for you, as those unseen cards going on the bottom of the deck.

Am I missing something??? This seems like way too easy a question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the point that they're not just removing a preset, or random, number of cards. They are removing a set of cards that constitutes a blackjack hand that someone would play. And that will tend to have a certain count. Ie, that first hand is not going to be 3-3-5, or J-K-Q.