Blackjack - Basic strategy question

Culchie · 23-02-2006 04:24PM

I wasn't trying to be cryptic.

I know nothing about BlackJack strategy, but if 1% is the max edge you can get, then I'm at a bit of a loss of the attraction to a poker player.

If Fuzzbox is suggesting (again, I'm taking his word for it) that 1% per minute (playing perfect cards) is a darn sight better than 3% per annum, which of course it is .... then -2% per minute is surely a significant loss... the house edge.

Subtlety was never my strong point either.

Edit ... BTW, When I made the Northern Rock comparison, I did not realise that IanMc meant 1% per minute edge, I understood this to be long term 1% edge ... hence the comparison. (Due to lack of knowledge of game, I still don't understand how 1% per minute comes in to play here....however...)

fuzzbox · 23-02-2006 04:28PM

Culchie wrote:

I wasn't trying to be cryptic.

I know nothing about BlackJack strategy, but if 1% is the max edge you can get, then I'm at a bit of a loss of the attraction to a poker player.

If Fuzzbox is suggesting (again, I'm taking his word for it) that 1% per minute (playing perfect cards) is a darn sight better than 3% per annum, which of course it is .... then -2% per minute is surely a significant loss... the house edge.

Subtlety was never my strong point either.

.

Obviously, if you cant get the 1%, then playing is a -EV game. But if you can, then its vastly superior to putting your money in Northern Rock to get 3% per annum.

I was responding to the "why play for 1% when you get 3% from Northern Rock" part, nothing else.

RoundTower · 23-02-2006 06:46PM

Ianmc38, I am fairly sure I know the answer to your original question.

You wanted to know why you should split sevens against a dealer seven. The answer is because you have a very bad expectation with 14 against 7 (whether you hit or stand), but only a slightly bad expectation with 7 against 7. Even though you have to double your bet to make the "slightly bad" bet, it is better than having 14 against a 7.

This is the same reason you split 88 against a ten (a losing play, but correct). I don't know the numbers, so I can't give an exact analysis, but I am sure you can find it all on www.wizardofodds.com .

hotspur · 23-02-2006 06:49PM

For God's sake the OP is betting on bobsledding, I think that should answer your question Culchie as to why blackjack over Northern Rock

Mind you I used to know some Mtg* pros who got rich on a card counting team hitting Vegas in blackjack, whether a random guy in Dublin can get away with consistently and sucessfully count carding in blackjack in one of our clubs I don't know.

* a card game, think Dev's Gathering cards.

RoundTower · 23-02-2006 06:55PM

hotspur wrote:

whether a random guy in Dublin can get away with consistently and sucessfully count carding in blackjack in one of our clubs I don't know.

I think we need a prop bet. I bet you can't.

brianmc · 23-02-2006 06:55PM

You're only earning the theoretical 1% on the amount wagered in each hand. With blackjack there will be variance as with any game of chance so you will need a bankroll sufficient to ride out the variance. With northern rock you will be getting 3% per annum on your entire bankroll.

Does anybody know what the recommended bankroll requirements are for blackjack while counting cards and adjusting bet sizes to earn a one percent edge?

I suspect it takes a LOT longer than one minute to earn your one percent on your entire blackjack bankroll (It's probably still better than 3% per annum though...)

bohsman · 23-02-2006 08:08PM

I make around 500 a month playing blackjack.

ianmc38 · 23-02-2006 08:53PM

Well the true edge is actually 0.54% for the casino when the count is 0. When the count is +1, its even and every increase on the count adds an extra 0.5%. Similarly, a count of -1 adds 0.5 to the houses edge#

Fact: I havnt lost 1 cent playing blackjack in a casino

To hotspur, your mocking the fact that I'm betting on bobsleigh shows how ignorant you are on the subject. Period. Read about my tip (given to me by a trader) and then you'll realise that 6/4 is a ridiculous price.

NickyOD · 23-02-2006 09:08PM

ianmc38 wrote:

If you play perfect basic strategy, the house has a 2% edge. if you play perfect basic strategy and count cards, you have a 1% edge on the house. But obviously, none of us would do that.

Actually in a good game if you play perfectly the house should have less than .5% edge.

ianmc38 · 23-02-2006 09:24PM

NickyOD wrote:

Actually in a good game if you play perfectly the house should have less than .5% edge.

See my last post!

0.54% but then house rules change things round a bit, eg dealer hitting soft 17(gives house an extra 0.6% edge) Various other factors like surrendering affect the edge as well, sometime sin our favour, sometimes against us.

hotspur · 23-02-2006 09:28PM

If the worst insult that gets thrown at me this month is that I'm ignorent of bobsledding it'll be a good month

I wasn't laughing at your gambling I was laughing at the suggestion to a gambler that he should invest in a 3% per annum thing instead

Every year that there's no world cup, european championships, olympics, or winter olympics on there should be a gambler's games on during the summer. Events like fly window climbing, international coin tossing, actual random number generation betting (forget the veneer of cards).
Fair play to you Ian your bobsledding tip won for you, took me a while to find out at the time because you had his surname wrong, but a nice €180. It's very hard to know with these sure things that aren't in your area of interest, I've bets thousands on football matches just buying money but I know enough about the nature of tipsters and tips to avoid betting on esoteric sports. There should be a pokertracker for tips that people get over the year across different sports.

Ste05 · 23-02-2006 09:31PM

hotspur wrote:

There should be a pokertracker for tips that people get over the year across different sports.

Love it, so many tips, so hard to weed out the good ones...
VPaP (Voluntarily Picked a Pony)

Blackjack - Basic strategy question

Comments