Online Casino

[Anonymous]

Nick777 wrote:

…agree with the wizard or else…

Yet again, you keep saying this as though the Wizard is the only source of this strategy, but in fact *every* mathematician who’s ever studied this has come to the same conclusion. Can you even admit that all the experts are on one side and you’re on the other? Can you even admit that?

[Anonymous]

MichaelBluejay wrote:

Yet again, you keep saying this as though the Wizard is the only source of this strategy, but in fact *every* mathematician who’s ever studied this has come to the same conclusion. Can you even admit that all the experts are on one side and you’re on the other? Can you even admit that?

I see you have 40 posts now, i think you made them all here, glad i brought you out of the closet.

So let me ask you, is it that you are concerned about my money, or just that you want your site to be the source of indisputable evidence.

I think i’ve made a lot of valid points here with regards to the odds and how they are calculated, and i have good reason to question them as you can see

First of all, i’m not even sure an exact formula even exists to take into consideration a variety of different variables that go into a situation like this, like nolan mentioned, we are getting into assumptions now.

Your formula does not beat the house odds, and everyone claims they are unbeatable, i am not commenting on that part, what i am saying is that by playing the game differently, like the aggressive 2 handed play, you will win more in favourable situations and lose more in unfavourable ones, the house edge remains in tact.

All these probabilities are for one handed play, and i don’t agree that the same probabilities apply to 2 handed play.

[Anonymous]

The good news is that this thread has not gone off topic.

Nick, trust me when I tell you that you really haven’t the first comprehension of the mathematics of gambling, and that you are playing very badly and will, in the long run, lose far more money gambling than you would if you played according to the published strategies.

Which is precisely how casinos make their money. They’d make far less if everyone understood how the games worked and played the correct strategy.

[Anonymous]

Nick777 wrote:

All these probabilities are for one handed play, and i don’t agree that the same probabilities apply to 2 handed play

Fine, then agree submit your theory to a test. Either accept a wager where we deal hands to each other, or write a computer simulation. As they say, put up or shut up.

If you’re so confident about your position, then why are you so afraid to test it?

[Anonymous]

I like the way everyone edits their posts after they realize they messed up, this whole thread will prolly make sense to no one now, luckily too many people won’t care about it.

It’s just unfortunate the world will be deprived of howard’s xxxxxxx remarks about buddy stealing the theory of probability from the wizard and putting it on his site. That was classic

Back to this problem, michael, you obviously think your way will win out, i know you are absolutely sure of this

What if i show you one mistake with the wizard’s odds, will you at least consider the possibility that i am right about this, i know you think there is no chance that i am right, i think if einstein himself came here to prove me right you still wouldn’t believe it

Look at these numbers, you too nolan, this is your quote

“The expected return on the 10 vs 6 hands is ~0.28 x Bet Size per Hand x Num Hands.

The expected return on the 20 vs 6 hands is ~0.70 x Bet Size per Hand x Num hand.

There are twice as many hands when splitting, making it 0.70 vs 0.56″

You were saying earlier in 2 handed play the figures would be

Stand – 1.4
Split – 1.12

If you play that out 100 times for $1 a hand, you would be up $140 when you stand, and up $112 when you split

Now there is a 14% chance that you will draw the same card when splitting and re-split, using 4 decks, this gives you 56 extra hands(0.14 x 400 hands, you are playing 4 handed), those 56 extra hands at 0.28 give you an extra $16, bringing your total after 100 rounds to $128($16 + $112)

This makes it

Stand – 0.70
Split – 0.64

That is using the numbers you provided

The numbers here say

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Realm/2009/BJC/Edge.html

Stand – 0.68
Split – 0.33(0.33 x 2)=0.66

Stand = +136(instead of +140)
Split = +132(instead of +112)

When you add the 56 extra hands at 0.33, it’s an extra $18, giving you a total of $150, for a difference of +14

So it comes out to this

Stand = 0.68
Split = 0.75

Roughly

Now we have 2 different probability calculators, one makes the split the favourite, and the other says stand, so which one is right and how do you prove it.

I don’t believe yours because that +140 to +112 figure looks way off to me, i assume you will believe yours, but can you guys at least admit that you didn’t consider the 56 extra hands that come into play from re-splitting, we won’t ever agree, but if you make a mistake you shouldn’t hide it.

[327007]

nick777 wrote:

Look at these numbers, you too nolan, this is your quote

“The expected return on the 10 vs 6 hands is ~0.28 x Bet Size per Hand x Num Hands.

The expected return on the 20 vs 6 hands is ~0.70 x Bet Size per Hand x Num hand.

There are twice as many hands when splitting, making it 0.70 vs 0.56″

You were saying earlier in 2 handed play the figures would be

Stand – 1.4
Split – 1.12

Wow, you finally posted accurate numbers! Note the 2 handed figure is 2x the one handed figure because the are expressed in initial bet size in one of the two hands. If you express them in terms of overall initial bet size it is 0.70 vs 0.56 for both.

nick777 wrote:

Now there is a 14% chance that you will draw the same card when splitting and re-split, using 4 decks, this gives you 56 extra hands(0.14 x 400 hands, you are playing 4 handed), those 56 extra hands at 0.28 give you an extra $16, bringing your total after 100 rounds to $128($16 + $112)

This makes it

Stand – 0.70
Split – 0.64

That is using the numbers you provided

Completely wrong again. Two issues:

1. 0.70 vs 0.56 numbers are for not resplitting. We’ve been avoiding resplits to keep things less complex. If you resplit, then the expected return per hand drops dramatically. The equation is not 0.28xNum Hands any more. I remember it as ~0.17x Average Num Hands. I’d have to recheck sim results to confirm. This further reduces overall expected return, even though there are more hands.

Wizard’s site lists 0.70 vs 0.47 for repsplitting with an infiinite deck. My sim reported 0.70 vs 0.45. My sim results are shown in a screenshot around on page 2 of this thread.

2. The chance of drawing a 10 and forcing a resplit is well over 14%. Think about how many 10s are left in the decks.

nick777 wrote:

The numbers here say

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Realm/2009/BJC/Edge.html

Stand – 0.68
Split – 0.33(0.33 x 2)=0.66

Stand = +136(instead of +140)
Split = +132(instead of +112)

The link doesn’t work for me, so I can’t see what is printed. If it is another strategy table, then FOR THE 5th TIME, RETURN IS EXPRESED IN TERMS OF INITIAL BET SIZE… YOU DO NOT MULTIPLY BY 2 FOR SPLITS OR DOUBLES. That makes it is 0.68 vs 0.33, not 0.68 vs 0.66.

I’m not sure who this guy is and why he is getting different numbers than Wizard’s sim, my resplit sim, and the BJMath sim I linked to. Or the article you quoted, my no-resplit sim, and my hand calcs on page 3 for no resplits. He may be using a different set of rules than we are. I really don’t care to analyze it in detail and figure it out. In any case, every sim that has been posted says not to split. Every expert that has info on this topic says not to split. Every strategy table I have ever seen says not to split.

EDIT: The link works for me now. I see a calculator. If I enter 4 decks with resplit up to 3 hands. I get the following result:

— 4 Deck, H17, DOA, DAS, LSR, RSA=2, RSP=3 —
Player Hand: 10,10, Dealer upcard: 6 Decision: Stay
Hit:-0.85222 Stand:0.67576 Double:-1.70445 Split:-100.00000

I wouldn’t trust this calc for splits, certainly not above Wizard of Odds and other blackjack experts.

nick777 wrote:

I don’t believe yours because that +140 to +112 figure looks way off to me, i assume you will believe yours, but can you guys at least admit that you didn’t consider the 56 extra hands that come into play from re-splitting, we won’t ever agree, but if you make a mistake you shouldn’t hide it.

I’ve explicitly stated which results were for resplits and which results were for no resplits many times, going back all the way to page 3. Here is a quote from page 3: “That makes the expected gain 2*(0.61-0.33) = 0.56 (my sim gets 0.55 without resplits). If you include resplits on 20, then the expected gain drops to ~0.45”

[Anonymous]

Nick777 wrote:

What if i show you one mistake with the wizard’s odds, will you at least consider the possibility that i am right about this,

You mean will I consider the possibility that you alone got the correct answer while every single mathematician on the planet who’s looked at blackjack got it wrong? That kind of prospect requires that you provide some compelling evidence for your position, and to date you haven’t provided any.

In any event, I’ve told you from the get-go that I’m willing to give your idea proper consideration in the most appropriate way: A wager on actual hands played to see which way wins more money. But you won’t agree to put your strategy to the test. THAT ALONE is the dead giveaway that your strategy idea is worthless. If YOU won’t stand behind your own idea, why should anyone else believe it?

Quote:

i know you think there is no chance that i am right, i think if einstein himself came here to prove me right you still wouldn’t believe it

Then you’ve just demonstrated how badly you misunderstand my position. I’ve been explaining REPEATEDLY that it behooves us to listen to people who know what they’re talking about. Between the two of us, you’re the one who’s ignoring expert opinion. Me, I would listen to Einstein. Just as I listened to experts like Michael Shackleford, Edward Thorp, Peter Griffin, Stanford Wong. But you’re not listening to anybody but yourself. It means nothing to you that NO OTHER MATHEMATICIAN ON THE PLANET agrees with you.

I could change your quote a bit and say to you, “If a horde of professional mathematicians came here to prove me right you still wouldn’t believe it.” Because in effect that’s already happened. You already know that every expert in existence disagrees with you. But amazingly, that doesn’t even make you *wonder* whether you might be wrong. Wow.

[Anonymous]

nick777 wrote:

I like the way everyone edits their posts after they realize they messed up, this whole thread will prolly make sense to no one now, luckily too many people won’t care about it.

It’s just unfortunate the world will be deprived of howard’s xxxxxxx remarks about buddy stealing the theory of probability from the wizard and putting it on his site. That was classic

Not sure what you’re referring to. I originally said:
“That guy copied the Wizard’s numbers and put them on his site”
then I decided to be nice and included the possibility that he might have generated them independentaly, so I changed it to
“That guy either independentaly calculated the same results as the wizard, or he just copied figures from the wizard”

Do you see how it doesn’t make any difference either way?

Anyway, I have more important things to do than argue with children. You don’t understand mathematics, and you don’t understand the concept of proof. I’ve told you how one tests and proves the correct odds, via a simulation. You are incapable of creating and runinng such a a simulation, and therefore you are incapable of contributing to this discussion. End of.

You play BJ however you want – I’m sure the casinos will be very glad of your business.

[Anonymous]

This is going nowhere

Although with howard taking your side, my odds of being proven correct have greatly increased

Nolan, you can’t just throw up numbers that are wrong to support your theory, these are what the odds say, and i know they could be wrong, like you said, and shouldn’t be trusted, but i can say the same about yours.

—- 1 Deck, H17, DOA, DAS, LSR, RSA=4, RSP=4 —
Player Hand: 10,10, Dealer upcard: 6 Decision: Stay
Hit:-0.84564 Stand:0.66830 Double:-1.69129 Split:0.33133

You can dispute those odds, like i am disputing yours, that’s fine

But those numbers, 1.4 to 1.12 are absolutely way off and wrong in my opinion

You can play out 100 hands at home with a deck of cards and chips and see how wrong they are

For those who say playing out 100 hands is inconclusive, i don’t agree, what are the odds that you will be off by so much after playing 100 hands, the numbers won’t be 100% accurate, but they won’t be that way off either.

As for michael repeatedly trying to demean me by stating i am disagreement with every mathematician in the world, i don’t think he’s understood anything i’ve been saying from the start.

Those odds were calculated based on 1 handed play, not 2 handed play

There are other factors that go into the equation for 2 handed play

One i pointed out

It’s not 200 hands vs 400 hands, it’s 200 hands vs 400+ hands, because of the resplit probability

The other thing in question are the actual odds, not everyone is agreement as to the actual odds, your odds support your scenario, others don’t

Regardless, one thing is certain, 1.4 vs 1.12 looks wrong, there is just no way that it is that much of an advantage to stand, that is a huge difference, and only your site seems to come to that total, so it might very well be you who is in disagreement with other mathematicians, not me.

I know this particular hand is probably the most disputed in blackjack history, and the general conclusion was that standing is the better play, but only slightly, not by the margin you suggest, but those calculations did not include the extra hands in play because of the resplit probability

If you wanna play it out, with me splitting and you standing, we can do that, i will win more, which is what i’ve been saying, just let me know how you propose we do that, it has to be a live table of course, no online simulators or wizard software

[327007]

nick777 wrote:

Nolan, you can’t just throw up numbers that are wrong to support your theory, these are what the odds say, and i know they could be wrong, like you said, and shouldn’t be trusted, but i can say the same about yours.

—- 1 Deck, H17, DOA, DAS, LSR, RSA=4, RSP=4 —
Player Hand: 10,10, Dealer upcard: 6 Decision: Stay
Hit:-0.84564 Stand:0.66830 Double:-1.69129 Split:0.33133

Did you read the 1 deck part? That is likely why he is getting different odds than all the numbers we posted, which were for multiple deck simulation. Why in the world are you emphasizing the one site you found that shows the lowest expected return from splitting? … A site that doesn’t even have a domain name.

I am not just “throwing up” numbers. I have run sims with 200 million hands. I have done calcs by hand. I have idependently verified matching data with Wizard, and two other sites. What more do you want me to do?

nick777 wrote:

But those numbers, 1.4 to 1.12 are absolutely way off and wrong in my opinion

You can play out 100 hands at home with a deck of cards and chips and see how wrong they are

For those who say playing out 100 hands is inconclusive, i don’t agree, what are the odds that you will be off by so much after playing 100 hands, the numbers won’t be 100% accurate, but they won’t be that way off either.

Which is more accurate… 200 million hands with standard blackjack rules in my sim… or playing just 100 hands using Nick’s fantasy casino rules which include doubling on 1-card hands after a split, paying 2:1 on split hand BJs, and using the wrong number of decks?

nick777 wrote:

There are other factors that go into the equation for 2 handed play

One i pointed out

It’s not 200 hands vs 400 hands, it’s 200 hands vs 400+ hands, because of the resplit probability

I’ve posted numbers with and without resplits many times. You are not fooling anyone. If you include resplits the expect resturn from splitting drops, as resplitting a pair of 10s against a 6 is not optimal strategy. It’s

0.70 vs 0.56 with no resplits or
0.70 vs ~0.46 with resplits (wizard says 0.47, my sim says 0.45).

nick777 wrote:

The other thing in question are the actual odds, not everyone is agreement as to the actual odds, your odds support your scenario, others don’t

All odds that have been posted support standing over splitting.

nick777 wrote:

Regardless, one thing is certain, 1.4 vs 1.12 looks wrong, there is just no way that it is that much of an advantage to stand, that is a huge difference, and only your site seems to come to that total, so it might very well be you who is in disagreement with other mathematicians, not me.

Wow, it looks wrong to you? That is certainly a convincing reason. 1.4 vs 1.12 for two hands is equivalent to 1.4/2 = 0.70 and 1.12/2 = 0.56 for 1 hand. 0.70 and 0.56 are the same as the numbers in the article you quoted. You quoted this article, it is not from my site, it is from your link… http://www.casino.com/blackjack/article.asp?id=1720 . If you look at page 3, I worked out the calcs by hand. What did I get? 0.70 and 0.56. My no-resplit sim gave the same nums as well? How many independent verifications of the same data do you need?

nick777 wrote:

I know this particular hand is probably the most disputed in blackjack history, and the general conclusion was that standing is the better play, but only slightly, not by the margin you suggest, but those calculations did not include the extra hands in play because of the resplit probability
This is not the most disputed hand in blackjack history. Every expert agrees on this. There is no dispute. The odds aren’t even particularly close. Standing is clearly the correct choice.

How many times do I need to say this? I’ve posted numbers with and without resplits many times. If you include resplits the expected resturn from splitting drops, as resplitting a pair of 10s against a 6 is not optimal strategy. It’s

0.70 vs 0.56 with no resplits or
0.70 vs ~0.46 with resplits (wizard says 0.47, my sim says 0.45).

nick777 wrote:

If you wanna play it out, with me splitting and you standing, we can do that, i will win more, which is what i’ve been saying, just let me know how you propose we do that, it has to be a live table of course, no online simulators or wizard software
Michael has proposed this about a dozen times now. Are you finally ready to take his offer?

[Anonymous]

Ok smart guys, what do you think of this: (these hands are one after the other):

and next hand

Let me hear some mathematics. And they better be good.

[Anonymous]

I think that you got quite unlucky. It happens every day, thousands of times, to thousands of people. It’s certainly happened to me, and it’s happened just as often in a real casino as it has online. Once, in a live casino, I was down about £2k. I decided to go for double or bust, and played two hands of £1k each. I got 21 on both of them. The dealer was showing a 7, he then flipped over another 7, and finally drew a third 7 to match my two 21s. The next deal I lost on both hands. You want a mathematical explanation for that too? It’s called variance.

If it had been you who drew a 6 card 21 you wouldn’t be complaining. But that’s just as likely, and I’m sure it’s happened once or twice to you. It certainly has to me.

If you think it’s rigged, why are you in the business? I don’t think it’s right for you to promote online gambling if you:
a) don’t understand how it works
b) think it might be rigged

[Anonymous]

If you think it’s rigged, why are you in the business? I don’t think it’s right for you to promote online gambling if you:
a) don’t understand how it works
b) think it might be rigged

Yes, yes, I am sure it’s my fault, and trust me I DO KNOW how it works.

Anyhow – I was asking about a mathematical explanation of these hands, with the odds and percentages – I know it could happen if you play long enough, I just want to know the odds, as I dont claim to be as good in math as some of you are.

I have played blackjack since I can remember, but I have never seen this happening before online or offline – a dealer draws 6 cards – makes 21, next hand, the dealer draws 7 cards – makes 20.

I am just curious how many 0s the odds will have here.

[Anonymous]

Ok fair enough. I’m sure Nolan can work out the odds for you. It’ll be 1 in a few thousand I’m sure.

It hurts when it happens, but there will always be another session where it goes the other way and every time you have 16 you get a 5.

It all balances out in the end, and after enough play you will expect to be down between 0.5 and 2% of everything you’ve wagered, depending if you follow correct strategy or not.

[Anonymous]

Oh, I dont mind the dealer makin 20 when I have 17, or making 21 when I have 17, it’s just the exact way it happens…

[Author]

Posts