As an amateur, but fairly proficient, Blackjacketeer, I’ve always wondered about this scenario: Most of the “books” encourage betting with near impunity when the dealer has a bust up card (double down on anything soft, etc.). What if the dealer has a 6 up and you have a Blackjack? Black-jack pays 1.5-1, but if you double down it would pay 2-1 if the dealer busts. I know the bust is not guaranteed; and I would be giving up a sure payout. But doubling down on an 11 with a dealer up 6 is no guarantee either; and most books say to always do this. So, would doubling down on a Blackjack vs a dealer bust card pay more in the long run vs just taking the Blackjack payout?
Nope. But you have to do the math to show why.
A lot of casinos are now going to the “endless deck” to confuse the counters. The dealer doesn’t run through a fixed number of decks, then reshuffle. Instead, they deal from a box that constantly shuffles the cards. After each hand, they put the used cards into the machine and they are shuffled back into play immediately.
It has the added advantage of allowing more play on the table, because there isn’t that break every once in a while as the dealer shuffles the cards. I kinda liked that break and I liked watching the dealers do their thing. Some of them really made shuffling the cards an act to amuse the patrons and they would do some cool things with the cards as they shuffled.
So that’s why she never showed up!
Errr… :o
I wonder if neuro’s buddy was in a blind position – that might explain his decision to stay in pre-flop; to check from the big blind spot, after all, is a no-brainer, and if the raise was small, he may have decided it’s worth a few extra cents to see the flop.
Of course… 7-2 off… hard to defend spending ANYTHING on that.
I understand it looks like this on the surface, but you have to look a bit deeper than that.
If you go to a movie, a play, a football game, the rodeo, etc., you’re basically paying $X to be entertained for Y minutes. When you walk out of your particular venue, you’re a little bit cash-poorer, but you had a good time while you were there.
Going to casinos is essentially the same thing. Say you play blackjack or craps for 2 hours and you end up $100 down. Well, then you just spent $50/hour for the fun that those games gave you. Sure, sometimes you may end up only $20 down, in which case your entertainment was cheaper, and sometimes you end up $50 up, which is the optimal situation: getting paid to have fun.
If you look at it any other way, you’re a sucker and the casinos love for you to walk in their doors. And if you gamble more than you can afford to lose, well, I just feel sorry for you.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I wonder if neuro’s buddy was in a blind position – that might explain his decision to stay in pre-flop
[quote]
I would hope. I might even try to work it on the button, depending on the table. But:
I think it’s easily worth spending a few seconds to lay it down and get another beer for the next hand.
The Barbary Coast on the strip will toss you in a second for bet adjustments, even on the $5 table (then again, I would easily bet up 12 units). My math friends said that their rules were probably the best on the strip (2 decks, $5 min, DAS, DD any 2, late surrender, S17). I’ve been tossed from that place many, many times. I’ve been threatened with a banning or two. Then again, the last time I was there, though, I made no bones about counting and they didn’t do anything. I had to make it to a free show, so I left within 45 mins (and ~$1200 richer).
Anyway, I count cards and I don’t want these jackasses who make poor long-run decisions at my table. Unfortunately, I don’t devote enough bankroll to gambling (it is still gambling after all), so it’s the $5 or $10 table for me. Sadly, these tables are slowly being taken over by the continuous shuffling machines and the 3 to 2 blackjack payout to make it worth while anymore, i.e. I still make more money working a regular job.
One of the best blackjack computer games around is Dr. Blackjack, which teaches you betting and counting strategies. One of their biggest cautions is to never bet more than $40 (assuming $10 start, increase to $20, increase to $40). If you’re never betting more than 40 clams, the house doesn’t really care if you count or not because you’re not going to win that much money in the long run.
Well, you gotta take it in the context of the rest of my post, in which I was saying why I thought the superstitions were not a problem: I can see it being a lot more entertaining if I bought into the superstitions, even if only for the time I was there.
'Course, gambling doesn’t really appeal to me in the first place, so describing what I think about why it might appeal to others is just speculation on my part.
Daniel
Why not? They do not affect your odds any. If they take an extra card, you have one more to count. One too few, you have fewer. They’re idiots, sure, but they aren’t affecting your play any.
I object to their presence, but not because they make poor plays. Make whateverplay you want… just MAKE IT. The general rule is that if you’re foolish enough to hit your 14 against a dealer 6, you’re going to dither. You pause. You stare at the cards as if to divine their secrets by telepathy. You anounce your total, followed by “Hmmmm” or “Should I hit?”
That’s the stuff that drives me crazy. Make whatever play you want… just DO IT, so the peolpe who know what they’re doing can play.
Now that I can get behind.