Bringing down the house

[David Ottosen]

No this isn't about the book. But it is about blackjack.

Anyways, in a thread below, Mason states: "The average BJ players loses at about 2 percent". I don't believe this to be true. In my experience, the average player loses at very close to 100% in the short run; perhaps the 2% is correct for BS players, but I think this makes up a very small portion of the clientele.

To get back to the point of this thread, I'd like to describe the three things I saw/heard at a table that brought down the house later when I told them to my friends:

Hand 1: Player 4-2. Dealer Ace. Player: Stand; "No matter what that card is, I don't want it. If its a ten, I lose either way. If it's a small card, I'd rather he have a chance to bust!" (This worked for him and he won, and was roundly thanked)

Hand 2: Player: T-4 Dealer: 10 Player: Double down. To be fair, this man had been drinking rather substantially. (He won this hand and very very briefly received some heat much to my amusement. He and I were the only ones on the table, so no comments other than me saying "Sir, you're a braver man than I!")

Hand 3: Player: 4-A-6 Dealer: Ace; Player: Hit. "I have to get that ten out!" (This time, he was punished for his stupidity as the dealer jacked, and then berated by the table).

[Wildbill]

You are making a huge mistake here. Mason refers to 2% as in they are giving up a 2% advantage for every dollar they bet. You are referring to losing 100% of what they bring to the table. Its important to realize that even if something looks boneheaded in BJ, it usually isn't as bad in EV as you think. No one does things like hit 19...now that would be a real negative EV situation. Hitting 15 when facing a dealer 6 is terrible, but its not a 100% giveaway. After all I have seen this at times and the players win with it sometimes. Add to that the situations such as standing on a 6, what are the chances he catches a hand anyways that beats the dealer? Not that great as it is, so standing here isn't anything nearly close to a 100% giveaway. Its stupid yes, but a giveaway isn't how you classify it. Just remember no matter how stupid things seem, they are almost NEVER 100% giveaway plays. Just like in poker, the guy could call 3 raises with 7-2 offsuit and catch two pair to win, there are only a few situations near the end of the game where someone is truly giving 100% away, which in effect is taking a certain winner and making it a certain loser.

[mikelow]

Now, really now, no one loses at 100%. I think it's no more than two or three percent.

Even the losers get lucky sometimes.

[David Ottosen]

Both of you don't understand how bad certain plays are. Obviously I don't mean players are making mistakes that will lead to them losing 100% of the time.

I'd estimate the advantage the casino holds over the average player to be something in the neighbourhood of 60%. Not 51-52%.

Take an average blackjack player who:
1) Often takes insurance.
2) Doesn't double 11 vs 10 or Ace.
3) Doesn't hit 16 vs 10 (and doesn't surrender).
4) Doesn't hit soft 18 vs 10.
5) Bets prop bets such as triple 7's.
6) Doesn't double down soft hands vs 6 or 5.
7) Only makes about half the correct splits.

This describes about 99.9% of the people I see playing blackjack. You think these people are playing to a 2% disadvantage?

[BruceZ]

In single deck blackjack, a player who simply mimics the dealer, meaning he never doubles, never splits, never takes insurance, always hits 16 and below, and always stands on 17 and above, loses at 5.7%. A player who plays to never bust, meaning he always stands on 12 and above, loses at 6%. These numbers are from Beat the Dealer by Edward Thorp, the inventor of card counting. He estimates that typical players lose anywhere from 2 to 15%. This covers most of the plays you mention, and this is easy to verify by simulation. 60% is way out of line.

[mikelow]

Well I don't think it's 99.9%--I'd say it's about 50%.

[David Ottosen]

I stand corrected.

[Wildbill]

If one looks at it from the "house" perspective, remember that the big money players, the guys that account for a vast majority of your action, are smart and don't make too many stupid moves. The losers that make the terrible plays are almost invariably red chip bettors or the people hanging out at the $2 tables. Occasionally you see big money making bonehead plays, but its quite rare compared to the big money playing pretty much close to a basic strategy with a few deviations. Small money players can play stupid all day, but their action makes little difference to the house.

[AlabamaGene]

I think the real advantage to the house comes when a player wins a little, then starts making big bets on a whim. you can win 10 hands in a row, then get cocky and play some $100 hands and be gone in half a shoe. Most players are there to play, and play till the money's gone and wonder where it went.

I know someone will bring up progressive strategies- whatever. I don't want to get in to that argument. I'm just talking about people who bet randomly.