Hostile Reaction by Casinos to the New Blackjack Dealer Bust Odds, Probability Calculations

NO, the casinos couldn't resist reacting…once again! They should know by now that I don't get intimidated. Yet, they keep reacting every time I publish something of great importance. No doubt, my new research in calculating the blackjack odds of busting is ground-breaking. The new figures will surely have an impact on the game of blackjack. But that was not my main purpose. I always put the truth above anybody and anything. My main goal was mathematical, first and foremost.

I did receive before messages from the same geographical area. I believe there is a relation to the Connecticut casinos. The same type of reaction was also published on my message board, plus another message board dedicated to roulette. Even outside my sites, members figured out what the author's affiliation was. “You are definitely a casino guy,” one forum member posted. Now, there is also that hidden IP, as in local host. They try harder now to hide their tracks.

And look at the reaction regarding my statement that the casinos throw out primarily the players who lose big at one point. No chance to recover! It's money in the bank for the kasino! And look also at that stupidly hostile reaction. They make me a criminal by association! They compare me to the criminals who become their own lawyers!

And, oh, by the way. The third base does not mean the third position! The third base refers to the player in the last seat at the table, right before the blackjack dealer.

"I was researching blackjack odds and read a lot of your assertions. I was interested in what you were saying and some of the points seems worthy of further research. But then you make statements that indicate that maybe you don't know what you're talking about.

One thing, for example, is that you talk about sitting in third position at a table and if the first two people bust, you get excited because the odds of three busts in a row are 7% so you assume you're not going to bust. The problem, though, is that you already have to be in the hand to begin with. If you could arbitrarily enter a hand when there was a low chance of another bust, then that would be something. You can't control that so you have to consider the flip side that if the first two people didn't bust, your odds of busting are even greater. In the end, it doesn't really play out. Even moreso, you didn't state the assumptive play. Are the previous two players playing "never bust" "mimic the dealer" "standard hit tables" or random? Did you have them hitting 20s? Surely that doesn't count in the odds of you being 3 busts in a row.

Regarding the story of the pit bosses asking the guy who lost $14000 to leave, you're saying he didn't have a chance to recuperate his losses. How's that? Other than the fact that the high count at the time of a raised bet might be in his favor, the statistics don't know what table, what casino, or even what state you're in. The strategy only says that long term if you stick with it, it'll pay off. So who cares about being banned from one casino and losing the $14,000 there. You go to the next place down the street... It only matters if you were banned from all casinos everywhere forever. Calculate the probability of that.

You advise a person to leave a table after a long winning streak as soon as that streak ends. What? How do you know when a streak ends? Is it after just one loss? two losses? This is the EXACT sucker mentality that got the roulette tables to put up the boards. The next hand doesn't know what the last hand was. In BJ, that's not EXACTLY true like in roulette...but pretty much. In roulette, they WANT you to believe that a run of black numbers means a red "is due". What's your advice when you're winning four hands in a row and someone sits next to you? Did that just mess up the winning streak? It clearly affects the cards coming out had that person not sat down. So the streak advice is VERY off...and brings into question your qualifications for other advice. Betting from the outset that you'd get 8 winning hands in a row has a MUCH different possibility than the odds of betting the NEXT hand is winning regardless of the past. In fact, if you won your 8th in a row with 5,8 (stand; dealer shows 4) and the dealer got 4,6,2,10 (bust), the count increased and you should bet even more, not less, despite the lower probability of getting 9 in a row than 8 in a row. If the next hand after that was 5,8 (stand; dealer shows 5), and the dealer got 5, 6, 10, you lost...your streak is over...but the count is now count+2. You'd say leave, the counter says it's only getting better! Who is right? The answer only depends on the cards left, not on the history of someone winning. The count is trying to figure out those odds while you're just fascinated with streaks.

Ironically, it's the same human lunacy that you somewhat identify as a fallacy of the lotto commentors. You're right when you say that 123456 may have NEVER come up, but so what. It's not a magical number. It probably has come up just as many times as 1 3 5 7 9 11, or 11, 12 13 14 15 16 or 22 46 10 5 19 20. it's the exact same probability, it just that we trigger on the "specialness" of patterned numbers. But what if I told you the last set of six number was also special. Maybe it was the first ball drawn in each of the last six drawings. Would it change the odds now that those are special numbers too? No. So I'm surprised you'd write something as fundamentally flawed as "leave after a streak ends".

You apparently claim to have the skill to write basic programs. I wish I could program. You should write one that calculates ACTUAL win rates based on tables for play and then publish that table. You should even write it to have multiple seats at a table. It be useful to test your "third position/bust odds" proposition. Have the program deal actual cards from an actual deck and then have the player(s) play based on an actual table you control. Then give rules to the dealer. You could run it to show the cards one step at a time and then tell it to run a million hands. Make it as real as possible. Instead of putting 87% penetration, tell it to put the cut card at about 1 deck from back (6 deck shoe) and when it gets to that point, finish out the hand. No incomplete rounds/hands. I'd love to start a hand with one card before the cut and nice, high count. That's a lot better than 87% penetration with 6 people at the table. Then, the ultimate would be to add the element of non-flat bets. Run the test with the bet increasing at different rates as the count grows. Run the test with the hit tables changing based on the count. Do you hit 12? Do you hit when the true count is above 2? Should you hit 13 when the dealer shows 12 if the count is heavy negative (implication: more 10s are out, dealer will probably make, but you could too)?

I think you need to work on your strategy. From the tone of your writings, though, I doubt anyone can tell you anything. It's like the "jailhouse lawyers"...criminals who read a few law books in jail and decide they can represent themselves better than their attorneys."

Of course, I responded exactly as Pat, the bitchy bat, expected!

"I'm a criminal, huh? You don't think I know who sends me this type of venomous materials? It's creatures like you, criminal bitch paid by the Kasinos with the intent to intimidate. One more thing, rotten brain: The third base doesn't mean the third position at the table. Stupidiot in probability, you'll see me soon at a casino table near you!"

I believe she would die to have me in her bed, rather than at a casino table! Most women get madly attracted to a man who behaves in my manner…

Back to Blackjack Main Page      

Socrates Home   Search  Random Generator, Odds Calculator  New Writings, Pages  Sitemap, Content