No Count Can Figure Card Sequences

[Katz]

Again, even this complete, total card-count cannot beat the game of blackjack automatically. It certainly helps to know the amount of each and every point-value card remaining in the deck (shoe).

The biggest obstacle remaining is the sequence of the cards: No count can figure out the card sequences.

The difficulty is further increased by the penetration and multiple decks. Not to mention multiple players. The degree of difficulty increased drastically when simulated multiple players at the same blackjack table. Most of “us” lost in a majority of rounds. It happens very rare to see all players win in the same round.

http://forums.saliu.com/card-countin...BVSSw.facebook

[Villiam]

This is an easy way to lose in a long several-session slough.

I have been there as I've made clear.

I believe now without an aggressive ramp you can't win, and it's also become pretty damn clear that certain people who declare themselves amazing card counters are really just good at knowing when to press and pull bets. I feel like there is definitely something to this voodoo theory to get a player to really start taking advantage more often.

A simple example of what I'm getting at: Often people lose in increasing counts and typically they win in decreasing counts. SO, it would seem that an obvious problem with the betting scheme for card counters is that the schedules all suggest to flat bet minimum in even and negative counts regardless of card flow. The same schedules also have you RAISING your bets while often LOSING as count continues to go up! I am starting to have an interest in defying these old shoddy ways of looking at things, with the help of the completely confusing undercover vids of MM. Either he's a bad ace hunter or betting into clumps or he's unjustified in his bet raises early in shoes in honestly LOW counts. BUT given that there's only so many true advantage times to bet when counting, it would seriously beg the question of how you are supposed to truly FUCK OVER a casino without riding highs and trends at times that don't mathematically justify it.

[Katz]

Villiam, this thread has a link to the article [written by Zengrifter's 'enemy of my enemy is my friend'] which you may or may not have read. In there, he claims the House Edge for Blackjack is a whopping 7.5% mainly because of "the player must go first". How do you feel about that claim?

[Villiam]

Saliu is so full of dung it's really actually crazy...

No, the disadvantage is WHAT IT IS, which is enough if you factor in bad play and more players and poor rules and poor penetrations.

The fact is, a .5% disadvantage in the world of standard deviations plays out pretty badly. A good BJ card counter is supposed to be able to average at least .5%, which also plays out pretty wildly on an SD map. Beyond my judgment of Saliu as hyperbolic in nature, I wouldn't ever just trust anyone's offered statistics on something without checking their work. If there's one thing I've learned about logic it's that it's really easy to make it disappear in otherwise smart people, often because they assume the wrong things as basis for further molestation of truth. Thankfully, the community of math heads really do have much more right than they do wrong about this game. I just think you still might as well call it gambling. While the swings in another game like poker can seem insurmountable at times as well, I would not call it gambling once you understand the game well enough.

[Katz]

Saliu is so full of dung it's really actually crazy...

No, the disadvantage is WHAT IT IS, which is enough if you factor in bad play and more players and poor rules and poor penetrations.

The fact is, a .5% disadvantage in the world of standard deviations plays out pretty badly. A good BJ card counter is supposed to be able to average at least .5%, which also plays out pretty wildly on an SD map. Beyond my judgment of Saliu as hyperbolic in nature, I wouldn't ever just trust anyone's offered statistics on something without checking their work. If there's one thing I've learned about logic it's that it's really easy to make it disappear in otherwise smart people, often because they assume the wrong things as basis for further molestation of truth. Thankfully, the community of math heads really do have much more right than they do wrong about this game. I just think you still might as well call it gambling. While the swings in another game like poker can seem insurmountable at times as well, I would not call it gambling once you understand the game well enough.

Looky here, even http://www.gamblersbookcase.com/BlackjackAdvantage.htm agrees with Saliu.com

"As you can see, the house's sole edge arises from the fact that the player must play first. Because of this, if the player breaks, the house wins immediately, even if the dealer would have busted had he been forced to play his own hand out! It has occurred to more than one player than mimicking the dealer may be the best way to play. However, if you decided to do this, you would give the house an edge of about 8%. This is the house's initial edge in blackjack."

[Villiam]

I won't argue long...

BUT, the 8% you mention incidentally matches up almost exactly with the edge PER HAND as far as win or lose is concerned. The edge on a PER HAND basis IS 7.79% or thereabouts (someone correct my hairline decimal). The thing is Katz, blackjacks, doubles and splits, and doubles after splits makes up the difference. This doesn't get you even though unless you are playing a given amount more money when you are ahead of the house (1.5 TC or better). This amount has to at least make up for the difference in times that you will not have such advantage. SO, if you are properly bankrolled and you can double and split at will and you can raise your bets enough with the advantage then you will win long run. PERIOD. The thing is, the SDs and wild swings up until that point make me just want to wince and give up. Now, if I was properly bankrolled I do believe that I could play like a fucking robot for long enough assuming no heat issues that it would play out as a win. Whether it was worth my time or anyone else's is another question. Personally, I think it just isn't going to even be fun unless you can spread healthily and have average bets in the 30-40$ range. I can't take that variance without a 10k bankroll.

I played poker online for a long time. Average cash game advantage for pros in somewhere around 7%. I never played cash games. Never. I only played tourneys. With my additional knowledge and prowess I could best most cash game experts. My running ROI for TWO YEARS was 40%. So for every dollar I invested I was pulling out $1.40. But guess what, the swings were so bad that even with said 40% advantage, I would tank in certain weeks or even months where I couldn't win. I was okay with this. I wish I was better rolled and more fearless actually before the big Black Friday obliteration. But the point remains, it was not an easy path, for anyone, period, BECAUSE OF THE SWINGS. You have to be able to finally recognize what a .5% or 1% advantage is--to do this you have to reach what is called N0, and rather than belabor the math of it, let's just say it's a fuckton of hands required to even register said advantage for real.

[Katz]

I won't argue long...

BUT, the 8% you mention incidentally matches up almost exactly with the edge PER HAND as far as win or lose is concerned. The edge on a PER HAND basis IS 7.79% or thereabouts (someone correct my hairline decimal). The thing is Katz, blackjacks, doubles and splits, and doubles after splits makes up the difference. This doesn't get you even though unless you are playing a given amount more money when you are ahead of the house (1.5 TC or better). This amount has to at least make up for the difference in times that you will not have such advantage. SO, if you are properly bankrolled and you can double and split at will and you can raise your bets enough with the advantage then you will win long run. PERIOD. The thing is, the SDs and wild swings up until that point make me just want to wince and give up. Now, if I was properly bankrolled I do believe that I could play like a fucking robot for long enough assuming no heat issues that it would play out as a win. Whether it was worth my time or anyone else's is another question. Personally, I think it just isn't going to even be fun unless you can spread healthily and have average bets in the 30-40$ range. I can't take that variance without a 10k bankroll.

I played poker online for a long time. Average cash game advantage for pros in somewhere around 7%. I never played cash games. Never. I only played tourneys. With my additional knowledge and prowess I could best most cash game experts. My running ROI for TWO YEARS was 40%. So for every dollar I invested I was pulling out $1.40. But guess what, the swings were so bad that even with said 40% advantage, I would tank in certain weeks or even months where I couldn't win. I was okay with this. I wish I was better rolled and more fearless actually before the big Black Friday obliteration. But the point remains, it was not an easy path, for anyone, period, BECAUSE OF THE SWINGS. You have to be able to finally recognize what a .5% or 1% advantage is--to do this you have to reach what is called N0, and rather than belabor the math of it, let's just say it's a fuckton of hands required to even register said advantage for real.

Of course. Silly me forgot and pleads temp insanity.

[Svengarlicky]

Villiam, this thread has a link to the article [written by Zengrifter's 'enemy of my enemy is my friend'] which you may or may not have read. In there, he claims the House Edge for Blackjack is a whopping 7.5% mainly because of "the player must go first". How do you feel about that claim?

If the H.A. were truly 7.5%, you would see casinos filled with BJ tables but instead they are filled with slot machines that return a -.05 to the player. Go figure. Saliu is talking through his ass.

[Bjarg]

Saliu is talking through his ass.

He's not the only one.
Take a look above.

[Svengarlicky]

He's not the only one.
Take a look above.

Not exclusively but most emphatically.

[Katz]

[Katz]