Basic Strategy Effected by Bad Players?

[morgenstern]

Something to chew on. Basic strategy was designed running every possible blackjack hand and the design was built around everyone else playing that exact way. If this is the case then how accurate is it if a ploppie deviates from basic strategy. Handed down knowledge, from someone, advises us that it doesn't matter what the next person does but how can this be possible if basic strategy itself was designed around a 52 card deck and assumed everyone played accordingly. And please don't respond with something you read someone else write about it. Think deeper, think about the real question here, not the "handed down" belief (the world was once thought to be flat...)

[Bjarg]

Something to chew on. Basic strategy was designed running every possible blackjack hand and the design was built around everyone else playing that exact way. If this is the case then how accurate is it if a ploppie deviates from basic strategy. Handed down knowledge, from someone, advises us that it doesn't matter what the next person does but how can this be possible if basic strategy itself was designed around a 52 card deck and assumed everyone played accordingly. And please don't respond with something you read someone else write about it. Think deeper, think about the real question here, not the "handed down" belief (the world was once thought to be flat...)

Geez... you really need to start studying and learning about this game my friend if you are planning on presenting yourself all over the internet as a "blackjack professional".
Your question (or whatever it is) shows just how very little you understand blackjack AP.
Dont take this personal or as an attack on you, because its not.
You have a looooooong way to go.

[morgenstern]

Geez... you really need to start studying and learning about this game my friend if you are planning on presenting yourself all over the internet as a "blackjack professional".
Your question (or whatever it is) shows just how very little you understand blackjack AP.
Dont take this personal or as an attack on you, because its not.
You have a looooooong way to go.

I believe you completely missed the "theory" in question, why not question something, that is all that is being presented, to toss around an idea on a theory that was designed with the assumption that every hand was being played correctly. I understand every aspect of blackjack and I believe you misunderstood what was presented, the "world will always be flat" to you, I suppose. My brain is on a higher plane I guess, one that takes me into questioning everything, which is exactly WHY I AM a professional
So reevaluate my question, Basic Strategy was designed ASSUMING certain events occur, correct? We know the dealer hits until at least 17, that is a stable, and this is a mixture of thought processes combined with counting... Point being a DECK OF CARDS has 52 cards, no more, no less. Basic Strategy utilizes this fact. What if it is ONLY applicable if people are playing BY BASIC STRATEGY, ever think of that. Kick the ball back to me, let's have fun, discussing THIS, not saying someone has a lot to learn... I mean you mentioned NOTHING about the theory, at all??? What if we have ONLY just touched the surface of blackjack... AP is a relatively NEW phenomenon, don't you agree, are we just going to say, "Well those guys did this and there's absolutely NOTHING we can do to improve it..." That is called ignorance. This is Lawyers and Doctors say, "We PRACTICE law," because it is always changing, nothing is set in stone and the world is FAR from flat. Online LIVE casinos were thought to be safe too... but I guess people were wrong

[Blitzkrieg]

Geez... you really need to start studying and learning about this game my friend if you are planning on presenting yourself all over the internet as a "blackjack professional".
Your question (or whatever it is) shows just how very little you understand blackjack AP.
Dont take this personal or as an attack on you, because its not.
You have a looooooong way to go.

Taken it to M&M and telling it to him like it is. I can appreciate that.

[Bjarg]

"My brain is on a higher plane I guess, one that takes me into questioning everything, which is exactly WHY I AM a professional."

I wont argue with you on this one; you are definitely high if you think reinventing the wheel is what professionals do.

"(...) on a theory that was designed with the assumption that every hand was being played correctly."

WRONG.

"I understand every aspect of blackjack."

VERY MUCH WRONG.
From the looks of it you dont even understand basic strategy, so almost by definition you dont even understand the basics of blackjack.

I would expand on my posts to educate you if I felt you'd be willing to learn, but since you "understand every aspect of blackjack" why should I bother?

Take care!

[KewlJ]

Basic strategy was not designed nor based on anyone doing anything, as far as other players, as a matter of fact I would say just the opposite. A good basic strategy player will play the same way regardless of how others play. How other players...wait what....other players? (long running community joke), but how other players play has zero effect on basic strategy.

Basic strategy is simply the optimal play for each situation based on the very limited amount of data, like the rules and number of decks for each particular game. It is a starting point for optimal play based only on rules and no other data of remaining cards to be played. And once you get into more advanced areas like card counting, tracking, sequencing, or shuffle tracking, where you have additional information about the remaining cards, then the optimal play for each situation changes and you may have departures from this starting point of basic strategy.

[morgenstern]

Basic strategy was not designed nor based on anyone doing anything, as far as other players, as a matter of fact I would say just the opposite. A good basic strategy player will play the same way regardless of how others play. How other players...wait what....other players? (long running community joke), but how other players play has zero effect on basic strategy.

Basic strategy is simply the optimal play for each situation based on the very limited amount of data, like the rules and number of decks for each particular game. It is a starting point for optimal play based only on rules and no other data of remaining cards to be played. And once you get into more advanced areas like card counting, tracking, sequencing, or shuffle tracking, where you have additional information about the remaining cards, then the optimal play for each situation changes and you may have departures from this starting point of basic strategy.

So you are saying that it does not change per what other players do or do not do but it was designed with what UP card the dealer would have and then in fact changes around that card, so it does change, why can it not change further. Do you believe that because it does in fact change under varying circumstances, the dealer, that it might very well be updated on other circumstances such as the "other" player, think about this, because basic strategy was designed under the assumption that all hands at the table would follow ITS RULES, right?

[morgenstern]

Let's put it this way, Basic Strategy was designed on the fact that there are 52 cards in a deck, can we all agree on this? Now this is just me bored kicking around a very SIMPLE (if open minded) theory. Say four cards are taken out of the deck and burned them, they never existed... now wouldn't basic strategy change? Obviously it does when deviation is taken into account, right? So why not if two or three or even four cards are just tossed on the ground, you would have to REANALYZE the entire concept if the deck now consisted of ONLY 48 cards, period. Do you see where I am going with this or have I lost you? And enough with the "shit talk," let's talk theory and use our intellect. So thinking with this new information obviously basic strategy would have been designed differently, yes? We will go from here if anyone has an open enough and can grasp this concept. If it is simply OVER your head, just say that, instead of saying, "You're an idiot," because you truly make yourself out to be one by side stepping this entire theory. I would love to find someone smart enough to talk about this.

[KewlJ]

Say four cards are taken out of the deck and burned them, they never existed... now wouldn't basic strategy change?

No, basic strategy would not change. Optimal strategy might. I think we are basically just having a terminology issue here.

Basic strategy does not change. It is the best strategy for a particular game, base on ONLY knowledge of rules and number of cards/decks. Basic strategy does not take into consideration any extra knowledge about the remaining cards that a player might have because of card counting, sequencing or shuffle tracking. Once you start altering strategy based on this extra knowledge of the make-up of remaining cards, you are no longer playing basic strategy.

[Bjarg]

If it is simply OVER your head, just say that, instead of saying, "You're an idiot," because you truly make yourself out to be one by side stepping this entire theory. I would love to find someone smart enough to talk about this.

Your theory IS stupid Mike.
It also shows how little your level of knowledge on the matter is, since you clearly dont have a grasp on the concep of composition dependance or even how basic strategies are generated.
If you were half as smart as you claim you are you would be trying to learn why there are two real professional players telling you you are beating a dead horse instead of trying to come up with a reason to explain that 2+2 is not 4.

[morgenstern]

Your theory IS stupid Mike.
It also shows how little your level of knowledge on the matter is, since you clearly dont have a grasp on the concep of composition dependance or even how basic strategies are generated.
If you were half as smart as you claim you are you would be trying to learn why there are two real professional players telling you you are beating a dead horse instead of trying to come up with a reason to explain that 2+2 is not 4.

Funny thing is I DO grasp it but you are too close minded to even comprehend what I am saying. Thank God we didn't live hundreds of years ago... you would swear that the world is flat. I need someone with intellect to actually UNDERSTAND what I am getting at here, and you, Sir, when I said picture 4 cards missing, don't understand how basic strategy was generated. Oh well, my theories are worth noting, guess that's how you become famous, discoveries, not relying on what we have all been TOLD. Besides, it was theory and it didn't make it to even the second stage of the intelligent step I had planned because of how ignorant... Theories, like in laboratories, are kicked around... but everyone is so quick to say, "OH, YOU ARE STUPID," that we can't even have an intelligent conversation.

[morgenstern]

Didn't ask anyone to say if I were right or wrong or be called an idiot, I was looking for intelligent conversation and a discussion on a theory... now back to your cave.

[Bjarg]

Didn't ask anyone to say if I were right or wrong or be called an idiot, I was looking for intelligent conversation and a discussion on a theory... now back to your cave.

I dont think anybody called you an idiot (yet), but with the bunch of crap you are posting you are not doing anything to help keep it that way.

[Katz]

Did ANYBODY ever win decent $$$ using just basic strategy?

[Bjarg]

Did ANYBODY ever win decent $$$ using just basic strategy?

Of course.