Posted on August 04, 2000.
In Reply to: Casinos Show Their Ugly Faces When Intelligently Challenged posted by Shirley Ann Jennings on August 04, 2000.
The count may be +5, but often the sequence is Low (L) card, High (H) card, Low, Low, High, High, Low, Low, High, etc. Both the dealer AND the player has an equal probability to get an HLH hand AND bust. Luckily for the house, the player plays first and loses the bet immediately in the case of a bust. And that's what they call house advantage (HA).
The dealer has the same probability to get the high cards. It is even more complicated when one considers that there are several players at the blackjack table. The cards, Low and High, will be distributed randomly among them. What makes a particular player believe he/she would be the one to get the High cards? In one-deck games, and only playing head-to-head against the dealer, there is a slightly higher chance for the player to get a blackjack. The dealer also has an equally higher chance to get a blackjack. The difference is the player is paid 150% for a blackjack, while the dealer always gets 1 to 1 for a natural. Let's say the player has a 2% higher probability to get a blackjack (for a positive count, including Aces). Under normal circumstances (count = 0, neutral), the probability of a blackjack is just under 5%. What is 2% of 5%? 0.002 x 0.005 = 0.00001; that is, 0.001% better probability! I do not want to enter into the mathematical details of card counting.
Suffice to say: The effect of card counting at blackjack is negligible these days. The danger is that most players expect to really win if the count is positive. So, they increase the bet, and keep increasing the bet. The result can be a much faster pace to bankruptcy. Suppose, absurdly, it is true a card-counter has a 2% advantage at blackjack. Does it make sense to play blackjack? The card counter can still lose a lot of money. Wouldn't it be wiser to invest the money in the stock market, or a savings account, or in CD? The investor gets at least 3%-4%, much better in most cases…
• Quod erat demonstrandum! Exactly what I said: You are Chip! The very same reaction! I challenged you, Chip, to casino testing our roulette systems, and you got mad erupting. I demonstrated in my previous post (to Anne "Don't-Call-Me-Chip" Shirley) that card counting has no mathematical foundation. Again, you erupted in rage. You are seriously troubled! Blackjack card counting afflicted a deep wound on your psyche. You may have paid lots of money on it and may have lost lots of money with it in casinos. It's not my fault. Actually, like other readers of this BBS, you can make money with my free roulette system. Hey, is that what troubles you most these days? You know that I can track you. You can run but you can't hide. Keep your problems away from this place. No more postings, no more (blocked-out) emails. The law requires you to e-behave! Regardless of who you are, behind your mask…
Set the record straight on Chip, his real name, criminal behavior, Powerplay roulette, baccarat - June 2004.
Look at famous casino moles and even conspirators I exposed
Blackjack: Software, Content, Resources, Systems, Basic Strategy, Card Counting
See a comprehensive directory of the pages and materials on the subject of blackjack, baccarat, software, systems, and basic strategy.
Home | Search | New Writings | Software | Odds, Generator | Contents | Forums | Sitemap