Eh, I dislike this blanket statement. The math of course holds up, so it’s invariably true that there’s no change in the odds. But that doesn’t mean the people complaining are necessarily stupid. Blackjack is fun for many people because it’s a great social game. Requires low focus and encourages a lot of conversation because everyone can watch every hand being played. As tribal animals, we almost invariably snap into an us vs. them mentality and people enjoy aligning against the dealer as a “team”. This is of course entirely artificial, but since when does that matter? It affects their enjoyment and that’s enough. Watching your “teammate” lose his money as a result of bad bets sucks.
So, if you’re being an asshole and “blaming” him for costing you money in a serious tone, you’re a dick. But if you dislike playing a table with bad players, that’s perfectly natural.
The thing is, blackjack is–in my opinion–a poor social game. If you want to be social, go to a craps table and bet the light side. Or even better, hit a pai gow poker table. Pretty much anything where results are independent from the actions of other players is going to be better, though that’s mostly going to be poker variants of various types.
Anyone that complains is a low IQ asshole and should be asked to be removed from the table. They never bitch when the card goes their way, do they?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I don’t know, I have a lot of fun at a blackjack table. And talk with many cool people. Maybe the $25 minimum only attracts cool, fun people who know basic strategy?
On thinking about it some more, I’m not 100% convinced that the last player has no effect at all on the dealer’s odds, because even if the last player isn’t playing optimally, their play is still influenced to some degree by what cards they get.
Suppose that, instead of blackjack, we were playing a different game, where instead of busting when you hit 22 or higher, you bust when you get a ten or face card, no matter what your total is. And further suppose that the shoe is so depleted that there’s only one bust card left in it. In this case, if the last player stupidly just keeps on hitting until he busts, he’s completely removing the possibility of the dealer busting.
Now, this is a different game than blackjack, and it’s an extreme case. But even in standard blackjack, a ten-value card is more likely to be a bust card than a lower card is, so there should be some effect. The effect may well be so small that it isn’t visible even in thousands of games, but I’d think it’d still in principle be there.
Technically of course that is true; if you are smart enough to count cards, and there is an unusual bend in the count, then the chances of the dealer hitting a bust card may change a little.
A LOT of things have to come together, though, for this effect to be measurable. You cannot be playing with an autoshuffler; you have to be playing with a single deck or shoe. The dealer’s up card must be weak for any of this to matter,. and the real count must strongly indicate a likelihood (or unlikelihood) of face cards.
I certainly agree with the consensus: it’s confirmation bias. Players remember bitterly every time 3rd Base took a 10 and the dealer didn’t bust, but they immediately forget the converse.
Re: the anecdote above…anybody who’s playing $300/hand at a $5 table deserves what he gets.
I have known one cheating dealer – but he was cheating to help the player (a friend), not the house. (The house doesn’t need the help … the rules are in their favor.) It was 30 years ago in a little casino at Lake Tahoe, late at night. Whenever this dealer had a 10 showing and had to peek, if he saw that he had a stiff hand he would tell my friend quietly “I wouldn’t hit that if I were you…”. Friend tipped well, which was the whole point.
This was just an offhand comment, but I just want to say that despite the common perception, you don’t need to be particularly smart to count cards. All it takes is the ability to mentally add single-digit numbers, and a LOT of practice. But it’s a lot of mental work, and at least for me, the slim advantage you gain doesn’t justify the effort, either in learning to count or in counting while playing.
Yes, you don’t need to be smart, and you don’t need a particularly good memory. You do need concentration and discipline. Discipline, discipline. You may want to treat it as a hard-working job, not a recreation.
You don’t need to know mathematics to play blackjack, but you need to believe in mathematics! It’s surprising how many people may say something like “Yeah, I read the book, but it gets a few things wrong. Of course you should stand on 12 when Dealer has a Deuce. It would be dumb to bust when he’s going to bust himself.” :smack:
I found it peculiar that the economic system would pay me more to play a trivial game than to do creative work in software or circuit design. I ended up taking the “cut in pay” to have work that was much more fun and creative!
Anyway, more and more casinos are moving to continuous shufflers, putting card counters out of a job. The changeover is going slowly, though, because continuous shufflers are incredibly expensive, and at higher stakes tables apparently players make a fuss.
OK, there’s not believing the math, and then there’s not believing Sesame Street-level map. All you need to know to refute that one is that there are more cards that are not 10 than cards that are 10.
True. But most basic strategy plays are predicated on assuming the next card will be a facecard. Hitting 12 vs 2 seems counter-intuitive, only the math shows that it’s not.
Some players have a nickname like “Dangerous Deuce” when Dealer’s up-card is a Deuce. The player is much happier (a priori — before looking at his own cards) to see a Seven as a Dealer’s up-card rather than a Deuce. (Seven is even slightly better to see than Trey.)
it’s still possible to do a little counting with a continuous card shuffler. Basically you can only count the cards in one hand. If you sit at third base at a face up table, you can see a few cards before you play. But the advantage gained is usually very tiny, especially since you have no information when you make your initial bet.
This assumes that a person playing blackjack “wrong” (or unpredictably) is only hitting when he shouldn’t (according to basic strategy) leading to more cards dealt out. But somebody playing “wrong” is as likely to stand when they shouldn’t as they are to hit when they shouldn’t which evens things out.
In fact, no matter how they decide their hits and stands, the people I’ve observed playing blackjack “wrong” end up taking less cards out of the deck because they are unfamiliar with and/or terrified of splitting which results in more cards being dealt out.
I keed, I keed. Put down the pointy stick.