tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post7657515691143120004..comments2024-03-05T08:25:01.029-05:00Comments on Poker Grump: Blackjack players are idiotsRakewellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15873391354585352712noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-43210088502945788292010-06-10T03:03:24.963-04:002010-06-10T03:03:24.963-04:00Your previous rant about blackjack included a comm...Your previous rant about blackjack included a comment which hits the nail on the head, second from the bottom: "unless you can show that the more common mistake is to hit when you shouldn't, in the long run, again, the effects cancel each other out."<br /><br />This is exactly the case for card counters, as they're playing more often at higher counts than at lower counts, so that people taking extra cards at high counts dilutes the number of high cards that the counter sees, decreasing their advantage. People not taking cards when they should don't hurt counters as much because it means the counter will see a higher proportion of the cards.<br /><br />Given that card counters are not non-existent, I'd suspect at least some of the comments about people not hitting when they should are from counters venting their frustration at people pissing away high counts.<br /><br />And FWIW, I'll second Bellatrix's sentiment that card counting isn't hard. From personal experience, a simple Level 1 count is pretty comparable difficulty-wise to beating 3/6-4/8 LHE. One good book on the subject plus maybe an afternoon of practice will be sufficient to grind out minimum wage level win rates.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-49216989991619084202010-06-04T02:32:49.085-04:002010-06-04T02:32:49.085-04:00I have been reading your blog for a year or so, ma...I have been reading your blog for a year or so, maybe two. First, let me compliment you on your writing. It's impeccable. Second, I will note that you have an excellent understanding of the math of poker. Statistics, probability, that sort of thing.<br /><br />It is my (lay) understanding that in blackjack (full disclosure: I can enjoyably spend hours at a BJ table breaking even and drinking for free when I visit Vegas) when the table plays against the dealer even in the absence of card counting, the house looses its advantage. I, unlike you, do not have the time to back this assertion up with the proper math. If you can refute this assertion, I would like to see the data.PARADISETWOPOINTOHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02021366078735252030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-50259016448518605602010-06-04T02:17:24.693-04:002010-06-04T02:17:24.693-04:00Jamie, that's what the casinos want you to bel...Jamie, that's what the casinos want you to believe. Counting cards is very easy. In fact, counting down a shoe is entirely easier than single deck, because you don't have to memorize any index plays.<br /><br />I still don't get the wonder people have about card counting, when in fact it just requires a little bit of practice and going +1 +2 +1 0 -1 0... This is not a "theoretical" construct. Also the "kicking off the premises" part has been romanticized in the books somewhat. If you're not betting >1000$/hand, you'll get a friendly backoff and that's it, you'll still be allowed in the casino and "you're still welcome to play slots". <br /><br />On the subject of studying a game to lose less money: <br />There are certain games that if you play them you are basically EV neutral (think certain Video Poker machines or a 6deck shoe with a minimal 1-3 spread), but the comps more than offset that teeny casino edge. There are certainly enough players that study the game of poker that end up losing less, but still losing. I still don't go around calling them idiots... :)bellatrix78https://www.blogger.com/profile/17286560853976919039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-4338141361410733232010-06-04T01:48:22.292-04:002010-06-04T01:48:22.292-04:00During my formative poker studying years I also st...During my formative poker studying years I also studied blackjack extensively. What I decided is that it takes an enormous amount of preparation and PERFECT play to even get a 1% edge over the house. If you make one mistake in your entire day, the edge is ruined. You can instead spend all that effort playing poker against baboons where you have as much as a 20% edge and come out much, much further ahead. Comparing blackjack and poker as beatable games is about as close as comparing roulette to blackjack. Apples n' oranges.<br /><br />In blackjack no matter the casino (aside from house rules that affect the house edge), you're going to need to play about the same to win. In poker, you only have to be better than most of the people at your table.Matthew Yauchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08967242015856502362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-19166193759284271802010-06-03T23:21:24.979-04:002010-06-03T23:21:24.979-04:00You know blackjack is beatable, right?
Only in th...<i>You know blackjack is beatable, right?</i><br /><br />Only in the most theoretical sense. As Rakewell stated, beating Blackjack would require counting cards, which is not illegal if you don't use a counting device, but is incredibly difficult into an 8 deck shoe and will likely get you (legally) kicked off the premises if you're very successful at it. Besides for which, the counting techniques that worked in 'Bringing Down the House' stopped working when casinos started re-shuffling much higher in the shoe and won't allow mid-shoe entry to prevent teams from working.<br /><br />Pokergrump - I've had this same fascination with -EV games as you have and have talked myself blue in the face trying to convince people of the difference between Blackjack and Poker. But I've come to realize that it doesn't matter. Anyone who *truly* understands the math of the two games is already playing poker and wouldn't touch Blackjack (or Roulette or Craps or any other game in the casino) with a ten foot pole.Jamiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02731332376224986570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-254242996264078892010-06-03T21:45:59.084-04:002010-06-03T21:45:59.084-04:00Perhaps erroneously, I trusted my readers to be ab...Perhaps erroneously, I trusted my readers to be able to perceive that the headline was hyperbolic. Andy Bloch plays blackjack. I do not believe that Andy Bloch is an idit. I will occasionally run $5 through a video blackjack machine. I do not think I am an idiot. I am paying for a few minutes of silly entertainment, and I get what I pay for. <br /><br />Only a tiny fraction of blackjack players actually play in such a way as to be able to beat the game--which has to include card-counting. If you think that you are playing in a +EV way when you are not, then, yeah, you are, in that sense, an idiot--just like the millions of people who play poker thinking that they are winning players, when they actually are not. <br /><br />But all that said, I would have thought that the entire post would have made clear what the title meant. "Blackjack players are idiots" could have been expanded instead into: "People who invest countless hours learning to play "correctly" so that they lose their money a little bit more slowly than those who are playing just to have some fun, and yet can't grasp the simple truth that another player's action have no systematic positive or negative effect on their expected returns are idiots." But that would have been a little bit wordy (and not as attention-grabbing) for a post title, don't you think?Rakewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15873391354585352712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-11392708766620401352010-06-03T21:20:37.304-04:002010-06-03T21:20:37.304-04:00You know blackjack is beatable, right? So we are i...You know blackjack is beatable, right? So we are idiots for playing a beatable game, like poker? Imagine the hypocrisy in your statement...bellatrix78https://www.blogger.com/profile/17286560853976919039noreply@blogger.com