# Debunk this: justification for blackjack superstition, aka "you took my card!" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 8, 2005, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964 "2005-02-08T08:43:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/41 "2005-02-08T20:03:43Z")
To sum up: There are, in Blackjack, good strategies and bad strategies. A player who plays bad strategy will hurt himself. But his bad strategy will never hurt anyone else. Nor will his bad strategy help anyone, other than the house, nor will good strategy help or hurt any of the other players. So if you see someone else at the table making a bad move, if you want to be neighborly, you can point out that he’s hurting himself. But you have no right to complain about his strategy hurting you, because his strategy (whatever it is) can’t hurt you. Of course, things are different at the poker table. There, you want everyone else at the table to use the worst strategy possible, since you’re competing directly against them. But you’re unlikely to say anything about it, since that would give them more information. ---
**Author:** ![CuriousCanuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@CuriousCanuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CuriousCanuck)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/42 "2005-02-08T20:11:30Z")
> [@x-ray vision](#): > > Yes, that was my point **muttrox**. > > You’re playing at a $5 table in your scenario, right **CuriousCanuck**? Yup. Though now that I think about it, if I am betting $5, I want $10 if I lose. After all, I may have won on the card I took, so why get him to pay me to break even? ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/43 "2005-02-08T20:15:48Z")
Who says you’re going to break even? You still have a chance of winning. I’d take the $5. ---
**Author:** ![muttrox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a8b319/32.png) [@muttrox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muttrox)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/44 "2005-02-08T20:56:13Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > To sum up: There are, in Blackjack, good strategies and bad strategies. A player who plays bad strategy will hurt himself. But his bad strategy will never hurt anyone else. Nor will his bad strategy help anyone, other than the house, nor will good strategy help or hurt any of the other players. Not quite. You need that “over the long run” or “expected” phrasing. The actual outcome may indeed hurt or help other players, and almost certainly will. You just don’t know which ahead of time, and the expected outcome is the same. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/45 "2005-02-08T21:09:48Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > The choice by the newbie clearly affected the result of the hand. So why is it stupid to point out that, by making that choice, he cost the others a win? > > …And you don’t yell at the player for choosing a particular card; you’re yelling at him for choosing to draw in the first place. Let’s say the dealer shows a 6. You have 6-2. You take another card, a queen. The dealer turns his hole card to show a ten, then draws an ace to get 17, beating the guy sitting to your right. Should he get mad at you because you took the queen that he thinks the dealer should have got? By your logic, he would be justified to yell at you. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/46 "2005-02-08T21:10:08Z")
It’s a stupid superstition. While taking “your card” may change the probabilites of what’s in the deck slightly, it has no bearing on what matters - the next card in the deck. The next card could just as easily be in your favor. The only reason people get upset is that they can see what their card would have been. In reality, it shouldn’t matter but since most people have the reasoning of a child, they get upset. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/47 "2005-02-08T21:18:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by **msmith537** > The only reason people get upset is that they can see what their card would have been. If that was the only reason, I could understand to a degree. But as the OP makes clear, there are people who will get upset by the decision even before they see what card is dealt. They actually think that their odds of losing is increased if bad players are at the table. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/48 "2005-02-08T21:30:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by **msmith537** > While taking “your card” may change the probabilites of what’s in the deck slightly, it has no bearing on what matters - the next card in the deck. Remember, the probability changes only _after_ you see what card the bad player is dealt. The probability of your hand winning when a bad player takes a card is still _exactly_ the same before you see what card it is. After you see it, your odds of winning are now either slightly better or slightly worse. But there is a 50/50 chance of whether it will now be better or worse, which is why it doesn’t matter if you are at the table with a bad player. Not picking on your post **msmith** , I just don’t want anyone to be confused if they haven’t grasped the concept yet. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/49 "2005-02-08T21:44:35Z")
As I think I’ve said before, I do my very best to keep my temper no matter how anyone else plays. However, if I do get mad, it’s not at the guy playing third base but at the guy directly to my right. We all accept that the other people at the table have a direct effect on the cards you draw. However, I find myself getting more angry when I’m stuck next to someone who refuses to play basic strategy. I assume that the probabilities say that this is as irrational as getting mad at the guy playing third, but is that reality? I guess the question is, assuming everyone is playing perfect basic strategy, would there be a small effect compared to a mixed table? ---
**Author:** ![dlack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@dlack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dlack)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/50 "2005-02-08T21:49:16Z")
> [@muttrox](#): > > Honestly, it’s a bit hard to do quickly. When you are determining the probability of an event that is composed of two \*independent \* events, you multiply their individual probabilities. Clear as mud? > > Example 1: You flip a coin twice. The probability of getting two heads is 1/4. This is because the probability of each flip is 1/2, and they are independent events, so (1/2) \* (1/2) = 1/4. > > Example 2: On any given day, the odds of a traffic jam occuring on highway X is 20%. Your odds of taking highway X to work during that timeframe is 40%. To get the overall probability of you getting stuck in a traffic jam, you multiply (20%)_(40%)=8% -or- (1/5)_(2/5)=2/25 for the fraction people. > > Hope this helps. Another way to say it is that when the second person draws, there’s a 4/5 chance that the first person didn’t win. Assuming they didn’t win, there’s a 1/4 chance that the second person will win. You combine these probabilites by multiplying them, resulting in a 1/5 chance that the second person wins. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/51 "2005-02-08T21:56:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by **x-ray vision** > But there is a 50/50 chance of whether it will now be better or worse Okay, that’s not necessarily correct. Lets look at it this way: The “bad” player is the anchor man. He has to choose whether or not to hit. If he hits once, the dealer gets the second card from the top of the deck. If he chooses to stay, the dealer gets the first card on the top of the deck. Since the deck is shuffled, how can it make a difference which card the dealer will get? Put another way, if you were playing alone at the table and when it was the dealer’s turn to take a card, he said, “I will either take the card on top of the deck or the one directly underneath it, your choice”, it doesn’t matter which way you choose. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/52 "2005-02-08T21:56:43Z")
> [@asterion](#): > > As I think I’ve said before, I do my very best to keep my temper no matter how anyone else plays. However, if I do get mad, it’s not at the guy playing third base but at the guy directly to my right. We all accept that the other people at the table have a direct effect on the cards you draw. Yes, they do; no, this effect is not the least bit predictable; no, they have no control over this effect. A player who hits on every possible hand neither increases nor decreases your chances of getting a good card, or the dealer’s chance of getting a good card; a player who stays on every possible hand also has no such effect. Getting angry at someone for whatever strategy they play is irrational. So can anyone critique my analysis above? It seems to address the problem as stated in the OP better than any other post, I think, inasmuch as it shows that -In four cases it doesn’t affect the dealer’s draw -In three cases it gives the dealer a good card instead of a bad card -In three cases it gives the dealer a bad card instead of a good card -Therefore it has no predictable effect on what kind of card the dealer gets. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/53 "2005-02-08T22:02:53Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Yes, they do; no, this effect is not the least bit predictable; no, they have no control over this effect. A player who hits on every possible hand neither increases nor decreases your chances of getting a good card, or the dealer’s chance of getting a good card; a player who stays on every possible hand also has no such effect. Getting angry at someone for whatever strategy they play is irrational. I agree that it’s rational. It’s just that the people who don’t hit 16 against a 9 (or other similar house-edge increasing plays) drive me nuts if they keep doing it. Besides, who ever said gamblers are rational? I think this I why I’ve started playing more thee-card poker. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/54 "2005-02-08T22:05:00Z")
I meant irrational, of course. I think it’s that people have a very selective memory and while they can easily recognize short-term patterns, they aren’t as good as recognizing the long-term implications. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/55 "2005-02-08T22:07:55Z")
Would you suggest that the dealer gains an advantage by pulling the second card from the top for his draw? I wouldn’t, and the suggestion seems pretty illogical, assuming the cards are shuffled and unknown. Regardless of where the top card goes, to another player, down the dealer’s pants, or just off to the side, all the dealer gets is the “second from the top”, which is theoretically no different from the top card. On preview, damn you x-ray, you weren’t there when I started writing this, and my wife called to slow me down! ---
**Author:** ![SpaceDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spacedog/32/9932_2.png) [@SpaceDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpaceDog)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/56 "2005-02-08T22:43:34Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > So can anyone critique my analysis above? It seems to address the problem as stated in the OP better than any other post Well I kinda thought my post was quite good, aside from the lousy spelling and grammar. However, if you take the problem in the OP your post is spot on in demonstrating that it makes no difference what the player does. The odds are the same in the general case. Of course in each specific game the actions of each player do make a difference, however there is no way that they can know before their actions so there’s no real difference. As has been mentioned, the more cards that later postion players can see the more information they have to work out what’s in the deck, but that only helps them decide what to do they can’t knowingly worsen the dealers odds. I’m curious **asterion** given free choice of seat at a table you expect to fill up, which seat would you choose? Oh and what are the odds like at three card poker, I was always lead to believe they weren’t that good – am I wrong ? SD ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/57 "2005-02-08T23:04:16Z")
> [@asterion](#): > > However, I find myself getting more angry when I’m stuck next to someone who refuses to play basic strategy. He pays his money, and has every right to hit on 21 if he wants, and you are irrational to get mad at him. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/58 "2005-02-08T23:32:04Z")
> [@SpaceDog](#): > > Well I kinda thought my post was quite good, aside from the lousy spelling and grammar. Yours was far more complete and seems correct to me; I was just saying that mine addressed the OP more specifically. But yeah, if folks can follow the math in yours (and I’m by no means sure that I do), it seems like a proof of the principle in the general, which is more valuable, given the errors in assumption in the OP. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/59 "2005-02-08T23:37:49Z")
> [@SpaceDog](#): > > I’m curious **asterion** given free choice of seat at a table you expect to fill up, which seat would you choose? Oh and what are the odds like at three card poker, I was always lead to believe they weren’t that good – am I wrong ? > > SD Probably the left of the dealer. In other words, first one dealt to. On three card poker, it depends on the pay table you can get for the pair plus. If it’s straight flush 40:1, three of a kind 30:1; straight 6:1; flush 4:1; pair 1:1; the house edge is 2.32 percent (this is the only pay table I’d play, and the places I’ve played three card poker all have this table) on the pair plus. Assuming the best ante bonus pay table as well, that’s got a house edge of 3.37 percent. I can’t seem to find a combined house edge for optimal strategy (raising on Q-6-4 and higher), but raising on any queen has a combined house edge of 3.45 percent, so I’d guess the Q-6-4 strategy would probably be around 3 percent. So it’s not a great game, but it’s not the worst game in the casino either. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2005, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964/60 "2005-02-08T23:40:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by **SpaceDog** > Oh and what are the odds like at three card poker, I was always lead to believe they weren’t that good – am I wrong ? According to [this](http://www.markpilarski.com/column2-2.htm) web page: > [@](#): > > Three Card Poker is a better play, as the house edge is between 2.0 and 3.4%, depending on your wager and play decisions as you’ll see below. The house edge is roughly .5% for blackjack (different casinos have different rules). If other peoples play is the only reason you started playing three card poker over blackjack **asterion** , it might be a good idea to try to not let other peoples play bother you and go back to the blackjack table. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-justification-for-blackjack-superstition-aka-you-took-my-card/288964.md?page=4)