name |
message |
date |
| Renzey |
On Progressions relating to the Count: There IS an ever-so-slight, but insignificant correlation between winning hands and the current count. However, the two actually run AGAINST each other! That's because when you win hands, chances are you're doing it with high cards, which diminishes their supply for the next hand. The more consecutive hands you win, the more high cards get depleted and the lower the count becomes -- which in turn reduces your chance to win the next hand. This fact however, is true only to a hair-splitting extent and is negligible. Still, for that reason if you're fixated on using a progression, loss progressions are slightly mathematically superior to win progressions, although they both eventually lead down a blind alley. |
2003-07-31 09:17:14 |
| Mondello |
Yes, you be smokein to much crack, but off your boyfriends back.Listen to Renzey, for he will shoe you the light at the end of the progression. Renzey is the light, trust 007 is the key, have you a few dollars so Mondello can split. |
2003-07-31 09:06:45 |
| sld007 |
Here's one for y'all: Counting vs. progressive betting. Walter's research aside (see 21st Century BJ), if you increase your bets as you win (i.e. a progression), and you win more in a positive count (because there are more tens and Aces left), could we not draw a correlation between the two disciplines by saying that it is not foolish to use a progressive betting scheme because in reality since you ARE winning more, then therefore the count IS probably more positive, and therefore you would have been increasing your bets proportionately anyway? Or..have I just been smoking too much crack? |
2003-07-31 08:39:17 |
| Grifter |
Ted - You are welcome, but I'm not Renzey. (g) |
2003-07-31 08:08:47 |
| Ted |
Renzey, you are "the man". To be able to come up with that piece of research in such a short period of time is remarkable. Only a dyed in the wool BJ player could do that. In addition, you reasoning is perfectly understandable. I just looked again at my book and it clearly states that you should split 4's if the DAS rule applies. Many thanks. |
2003-07-31 08:00:34 |
| Grifter |
Ted - The key on the 4's is if you can double after split or not. If you can, you split against a 5 or 6. You are not on the right page of "World's Greatest BJ Book". Page 178 of the original printing (1980) shows the chart, and the splitting. |
2003-07-31 07:58:58 |
| Renzey |
On splitting 4's: The one rule which determines whether you should ever split 4's is DAS (the double after split rule). If you can DAS, then it becomes advantageous to break up a mediocre total of 8 into two poor totals of 4 each, because if you catch a 5, 6, 7 or Ace on either 4, you'll have an advantageous double down (at least one double opportunity will arise around 55% of the time when including those times you catch a third 4, re-split and end up doubling there). If you can't double when one of these cards falls, you'd have been better off to just play your initial 8. Incidently, Humble's "World's Greatest B/J Book does break this down with a second pair splitting table on page 178, as does my own Bluebook II on page 55). |
2003-07-31 07:54:22 |
| Ted |
I have 2 books in front of me. "The World's Greatest Blackjack Book" and "Casino Games". Both say "never split 4's". Are they both wrong? |
2003-07-31 07:38:14 |
| Ted |
AC=Atlantic City |
2003-07-31 07:30:33 |
| BuGhOu§eMASTER |
Actually, my post before this last one... I can only think of one circumstance (besides a moron who'd actually do something stupid like that).. and that would be in a BJ tournament... let's say you'd be down EVEN WITH a BJ but if you doubled down on your BJ and won you'd get to advance... that's a real-life situation, but of course a panicky move but hey, if it'll give you a chance to move on to the next round why not?! But in casual play only a TRUE FOOL would ever do that because even if you're dealt a 10, the best card you could be dealt, you still aren't guaranteed a TRUE WIN because the dealer can still PUSH your 21!!!!!!!!!!!! |
2003-07-31 07:28:03 |
| BuGhOu§eMASTER |
Ted, the same chart you're referring to I got in an argument with against a lady at the casino cuz I had two 4's and I split them against the dealer's 5 and she couldn't stop shaking her head... and I even heard her mutter out "stupid"... I just kept quiet until I WON both hands and went "NOW who's stupid?!" and continued to give her a lesson of speaking before it's over. Ted-- This is 6-deck that I'm referring to... and if I recall from the other games, BS says to split on 5/6 as well... the book you are saying apparently is not the REAL BS chart because you indeed SUPPOSED to split 4's against 5/6 on double and 6-deck. Single might be different but I seriously doubt it. This one chart I know, as well as strong BJ players here all know that it is the best one to follow, since it is the computer-simulated BEST way to play your hands every time, unless you're a card counter which changes things up... btw, what is "AC"? |
2003-07-31 07:22:33 |
| Ted |
I play in AC only. Eight decks. I am a $10.00 bettor. I have a BS chart taken from "The World's Greatest Blackjack Book. Their charts on basic startegy differ slightly from other charts that I have seen on the internet. My book says "never split 4's". Several charts say split 4"s against 5's and 6's. There are other differences too. Just a few, but there are differences. Is their one chart that you all agree is the best chart? |
2003-07-31 07:06:19 |
| BuGhOu§eMASTER |
Whooops... didn't mean to do that... Midnite, those stats you just quoted on doubling and BJ... is it based on 6-DECK or just in general? Also, when you double-down a BJ, what's the % of it both sides? Is this actually a legal rule in most all casinos? |
2003-07-31 07:04:16 |
| BuGhOu§eMASTER |
okohiored: You should not risk it though, unless your bankroll can seriously sustain such massive damages. I've seen someone lose about 10 in a row. It can happen. Although rare, I would just play solidly and not rampantly. |
2003-07-31 07:01:31 |
| Mondello |
Why this again, why? |
2003-07-31 00:36:56 |
| ecilop |
hey nulu... |
2003-07-30 23:42:21 |
| nulu |
[removed. spam.] |
2003-07-30 23:27:38 |
 |
|
|
|
