Blackjack Empty table vs full

[skitzo444]

I have a friend who likes blackjack but I feel he does not understand all the concepts. He gets affected by a player taking the "dealers bust card"...need I say more?

We were in AC last weekend and he did not want to sit at a brand new BJ table and play alone with the dealer. I asked him why and he said the more players there are the better they can work together against the dealer.

The following is the conversation we had today in a few texts because I do not understand his logic.



<font color="red">
M: why didn't you want to play at the table alone?</font>
F: cause it's better against the house to have people at the table
<font color="red">
M: How so</font>
F:more cards out on the table; play with the other players against the house
<font color="red">
M: you're not playing with the other players</font>
F:everyone is against the house
<font color="red">
M:but the house edge doesn't change for you</font>
F:If you see all face cards out for the other players. There are less for the house to have that hand
<font color="red">
M:but the other players can all have low cards
</font>
F: That's how you play kinda together to make the dealer bust
<font color="red">
M: That logic makes no sense
</font>

[playersare]

his logic is wrong, but there is an 'advantage' to playing at a full table vs. heads up. if the conditions of the game you are sitting at are inherently -EV, then a full table deals less hands per hour than just having one or two players. this reduces your net theoretical loss and can have a possible positive impact on what comps you receive in return for that theoretical loss.

[NajdorfDefense]

Tell him if he thinks having a 'full' table can affect the dealer's next card, just all hope/pray/play/chant for dealer to busto every hand.

Profit.

And since we're affecting what cards come next, tell him to give me a blackjack.

[CORed]

Your friend is right not to want to play heads-up with the dealer, even though his "reasoning" is nonsense. Heads-up, he will play a lot more hands per hour, and lose faster than he will play at a full table. Given the superstitious nonsense he believes about the game, I'm sure he doesn't play anything close to correct basic strategy.

Don't try to educate him, just try to get him to play poker, preferably at the same table with me.

[VarlosZ]

You'll usually have more fun playing with other people at the table. What's the attraction of being a sad lonely bastard shipping all your money to the house with only the dealer to hang out with?

[ChipWrecked]

If you're counting, the attraction is getting more hands per hour. Otherwise, sure, you might as well have a full table and everybody give third base hell for taking the dealer's bust card.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
You'll usually have more fun playing with other people at the table. What's the attraction of being a sad lonely bastard shipping all your money to the house with only the dealer to hang out with?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if it was a blackjack table with a topless female dealer, and she was really hot, it might be okay, otherwise, no.

If you're counting cards, and actually have an edge, more hands per hour is a good thing.