I'm sure this discussion could continue for millenia on any one of the
free (or pay) BJ boards such as bj21.com. For what it's worth, my BJ
experience came as a (successful) low-stake player for about five
years in the early 80's. (For about 19 months, at the depths of the
Carter economy, blackjack was my sole means of support). I never HAD
to cope with a shoe game in the first place; there was plenty of good
single-deck action to be found.
I would still maintain that a game wherein the "count" fluctuates
strongly is better for the average player as well as the counter.
After all, the casino bets on events turning out as they "should":
"dog bites man". The player is forced to bet, or sometimes bets by
choice, on "man bites dog". The house advantage is only the high point
of the bell curve of distributions, and that bell curve is only
centered where it is at the onset of a freshly shuffled deck. As the
cards are depleted, the house advantage moves to either side of the
original .5% (or whatever).
When the bell curve is centered over 2% PLAYER advantage (such as a
"true count" of +5) then not only is the counter alert to the
situation, raising his bets accordingly, but the average non-counting
joe is more likely to win the next hand than usual (even if he doesn't
adjust his strategy for the heightened count) and is more likely to
bet more on succeeding rounds (the deck figures to remain positive for
several more hands); blackjacks are dealt; double downs catch face
cards; the dealer breaks her stiffs. Likewise, when the deck is poor,
double downs catch small cards, blackjacks are less common, and the
dealer completes her draws to stiffs. Players will decrease bets
and/or leave the table in such situations.
If you considered these hands IN ISOLATION, then they would have no
value in and of themselves. Certainly a person can win a hand in ANY
count, positive or negative. The point I am trying to make is that a
won hand is slightly more likely to have occured in a positve count
condition. If so, the deck is usually positive for the succeeding hand
or hands, and the average joe is more likely, all other things being
equal, to bet more following a winning hand or streak of winning hands.
The effect of autoshufflers, to extent that they eliminate this
phenomenon, may indeed be minimal; I can't, however, believe that it's
nonexistent. I've read just about all the standard BJ books and I
haven't seen anyone comment on this, simply because every one of them
is written from the viewpoint of the counter. The effect on the great
baaing and mooing herd of suckers out there is normally beneath
discussion....
Anyway, I suggest that anyone wishing to discuss this further e-mail
me, and I note with rising optimism that only one poster on this topic
who disagreed with my premise(s) did so in an insulting or demeaning
fashion. (Why someone can't disagree with someone else without saying
something like "this person is out of his mind" escapes me.)
Final thought on BJ autoshuffle games
You're certainly free to "maintain" whatever mistaken beliefs that
you want to hold dear to your heart, but there is no mathematical
basis for supporting this claim. It is pure superstition.
The remainder of your post appears to be essentially a repeat
of the same mathematically unsound arguments that you made
in previous posts. Since the laws of mathematics have very
probably not been repealed today, I'll simply point out that
repeating an incorrect statement does not make it true, even
if you add more incorrect statements to back up the original
claim.
ยทยทยท
On Thursday 20 November 2003 03:49 pm, mkl54321 wrote:
I would still maintain that a game wherein the "count" fluctuates
strongly is better for the average player as well as the counter.