Online Casino

[Anonymous]

First of all, you haven’t met me howard

And if you did meet me, you would be getting busy figuring out what the odds are of me kicking your ass

Then your pal nolan can jump in and figure out what the odds are of me kicking both your asses at the same time

The truth is nolan either purposely misquoted the wizard and every other bj odds authority and was trying to take on the form of a parasite, or he unintentionally made a mistake, which seems impossible since he went over the same numbers 100+ times

The expected return for standing on 20 clearly says your expected return is 0.675 EVERYWHERE, the wizards site and every other site in the world, the reason is that those odds are set, they are simple to figure out

Yet nolan insisted they were 0.70, from page 1 to page whatever

Michael unfortunately jumped in here without realizing that nolan was contradicting the very odds on his own site, that was his own mistake for accepting someone’s word without verifying it himself first.

The correct equation is on page 12 and this issue can no longer debated, unless of course someone is a complete idiot, then they can debate it all they want.

But i am not debating this anymore, throughout the course of this entire thread i am the only one who actually put up any correct numbers

[327007]

nick777 wrote:

The expected return for standing on 20 clearly says your expected return is 0.675 EVERYWHERE, the wizards site and every other site in the world, the reason is that those odds are set, they are simple to figure out

Yet nolan insisted they were 0.70, from page 1 to page whatever

How many times do we need to go over this? Do you understand that the numbers change slightly according to rule differences, including # of decks and hit/stand on soft 17? For multideck, it is ~0.70 if dealer stands on soft 17 with and ~0.68 if dealer hits soft 17. I’ve listed 4 sources that all say ~0.70 (for stand on soft 17) including an article you quoted (not my link, your link — http://www.casino.com/blackjack/article.asp?id=1720 ). Wizard’s data for infinite decks as well as Wizard’s data for 2 or more decks with stand on soft 17 says ~0.70 (see http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix1.html ) . My hand calcs with stand on soft 17 on page 3 came to ~0.70 . I could also find 4 links that say ~0.68 . But these ~0.68s specify hit soft 17, rather than stand.

nick777 wrote:

The correct equation is on page 12 and this issue can no longer debated, unless of course someone is a complete idiot, then they can debate it all they want.

But i am not debating this anymore, throughout the course of this entire thread i am the only one who actually put up any correct numbers
You mean your “equation” where you decided to multiply by listed results by 4x more when splitting than standing? As I wrote a few hours ago…

You can’t just go around multiplying listed values by whatever numbers you want to get the results you want. Yes, you did finally find a table that does not appear to be based on initial bet size. Given the 0.175 value, it seems to be based on expected gain per split hand. But why in the world would you multiply by 2 twice for a total of 4x. Do you think there are 4x more hands in a split than a stand?!

You’d multiply by the average number of hands… there are 2 hands for the split and 2*4/13 for the resplit in both hands (recall 4/13 odds of drawing a 10 to make a resplit in each of the two split hands)

2 + 2* 4/13 = 2.62 hands on average

2.62 * 0.175 = ~0.46

Does ~0.46 sound familiar? It should because it is the value I have been listing for the past 10 pages, when including resplits!

[Anonymous]

nick777 wrote:

blah blah blah, kick your ass, ooh scary

The expected return for standing on 20 clearly says your expected return is 0.675 EVERYWHERE, the wizards site and every other site in the world, the reason is that those odds are set, they are simple to figure out

Yet nolan insisted they were 0.70, from page 1 to page whatever

You don’t understand what the odds actually mean (for example, a couple of pages ago you were cheerfully multiplying all the numbers by x2 or x4), and yet you attempt to use these same numbers, and your misunderstanding of them, as the basis for your entire argument. It’s really comical.

0.704 is the return assuming an infinite number of decks and a certain set of rules. You can find the 0.704 figure on the Wizard’s site here:
http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix1.html – I posted that a few pages ago, did you look at the time? I could make a screenshot showing the 0.704 if you like.

Read the bit at the top and you will see which rules that applies for. Notice it’s for a theoretical, infinite deck game. These are generic figures; obviously no real BJ game has an infinite number of decks.

If you want a specific set of decks and a specific set of rules, these are the tables to use:
http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix9.html

You will find the 0.675 on this chart (4 decks, hit soft 17):
http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix9-4dh17r4.html
Or if you look at this one (1 deck, stand soft 17):
http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix9-1ds17r4.html
it is 0.697.

Gee, those numbers keep changing. Can the Wizard not make up his mind? Or perhaps, these different numbers relate to different scenarios? Perhaps changing the number of the decks and the rules alters the returns? Just a thought.

But forgive me, I’m a little confused.

I thought your argument was that:
“Standing on 10,10 vs 6 is not as good as splitting”
and
“This is one of the most disputed hands in BJ history”
and
“Many people say you should split 10,10 against a 6”

That was your argument, wasn’t it?

So what does it matter if we use a figure of 0.675 or 0.704? Either figure is still significantly better than splitting

Have a look at http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix9.html again. Choose any set of rules, any number of decks, then compare standing versus splitting. Get back to me when you’ve found an example where the latter is better than the former, or even where it is close or ‘marginal’.

For example, in the case of 4 decks, hit on soft 17 (http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix9-4dh17r4.html), the total overall return is 0.675762 for standing or 0.175780 for splitting. On which planet is that close, marginal or disputable?

In my previous post I gave you three ways to prove your point, none of which you seem willing to do. Instead your only argument is that Nolan is quoting inconsistent figures – but, as you’ll see above, it’s your misunderstanding not Nolan’s.

Quote:

But i am not debating this anymore, throughout the course of this entire thread i am the only one who actually put up any correct numbers

Hahahahahaha. Thanks again, you always cheer me up

PS. Yeah I know I said I was done, but it’s gone back from annoying to fun again. Bring it on Nick!

[Anonymous]

Just thought I’d bring this one back, this is superb.

nick777 wrote:

The correct formula for 2 handed play in this situation is this

Standing – (0.85 x 2 x 1 = 1.7) – (0.15 x 2 x 1 = 0.3) = 1.4

Splitting – (0.64 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 15.36) – (0.36 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 8.64) = 6.72

Huge difference

And that my friends is the only correct formula to apply to this situation

It’s called the probability factor

Now you know why they call me the champ

It’s not just that the figures are so completely and utterly wrong, it’s the enormous ego that goes with it. Being wrong is one thing; but being both completely wrong and simultaneously 100% convinced not just of one’s correctness, but also of one’s superiority to everyone else, is truly priceless.

Nick, you’re a legend.

[Anonymous]

nick777 wrote:

WOW

All this time, the right answer was right there, on the wizard’s website

And i am right

The whole problem this whole time was that nolan is a total go off who can’t read, unf#%nreal

So michael, your beef here is with nolan, not me, i assumed he was saying what the wizard was saying, which is why i considered the wizard a go off, when really it was nolan the whole time who was completely useless

The wizard clearly says that…

Standing = 0.675(x 2) = 1.35
Splitting = 0.35(x4) = 1.40(check that, it says 0.175, it should be 0.35, (0.175 x 2), it might confuse people like nolan as it is a misprint and some people might not know any better)

http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix9-4dh17r4.html

The other calculator says this

Hit:-0.85222 Stand:0.67576 Double:-1.70445 Split:0.36302

Standing = 0.675(holy identical match batman)(x 2)=1.35
Splitting = 0.72(x 2)=1.44 or 0.36(x 4 hands) = 1.44

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

To answer nolan’s earlier question as to why those 2 sites using the same formula would have different results, the answer is simple, it’s because you’re a total nimrod who can’t read

You know if it were up to me i’d request a gang beating for you, just for wasting everyones time

Now if you wanna dispute that, please go right ahead, although i would suggest creating a different alias and rejoining this place might be a better option

To finish off this equation properly

Standing = (0.675 x 200 hands) = 135 (x $100/hand) = $13 500
Splitting = (0.36 x 400 hands) = 144 (x $100/hand) = $14 400

Resplitting returns even more, unless you want to keep believing nolan, in which case you would lose more money by winning.

Howard is an absolute imbecille, the odds on that are 100%

Ignoring this clown, i will make a final attempt to explain this

The reason it says to stand is because the return will be slightly higher, but only slightly

But that doesn’t factor in resplits and 2 handed play

With those factors the expected return is this

Stand = 0.675
Split = 0.36(x2)=0.72

The number 0.175 is obviously wrong, first of all, the same formula comes to 0.35-0.365 on other sites

The first number where you stand with 20, you know the final total of your hand and you know what your probability of getting beaten is, the odds are set.

When you split, you don’t know your final total, this is why the return will vary slightly, even when using the same formula

If you say 0.175 is correct, what you are saying is that you will win twice as much by standing as you would by splitting, that would officially make you an idiot.

Your expected return in that case would be 0.175 for each hand, that means for every $100 bet you would win $17.50 ?

For 2 handed play you would win $35 per hand

The dealer will go bust 44% of the time, so there is no way your total return can be less than 1/4 of your bet, it is mathematically impossible, the 0.175 says you win less than 1/5 your bet per hand

It is

(0.175 x 2)=0.35 x 4 number of hands = 1.4

and by standing it is

0.675 x 2 number of hands = 1.35

and like i said, the first number varies from 0.35-0.365, i used the smallest total for this example

[Anonymous]

hehe. Brick wall, meet nick. Nick, brick wall. Nick’s more entertaining than the wall for sure, but I think we’ll have more luck explaining things to the wall. At least it listens.

For about the 15th time (do you read, or just spew?): the Wizard’s figures already take into account resplits and multiple hands (not that the latter makes any difference at all).

The return for standing is 0.675 and the return for splitting is 0.175. That’s the total return. Taking into account resplits. Taking into account multiple hands. Taking into account what day of week it is and what shirt you’re wearing. It takes into account everything. That’s the total return. Everything included. Completely. Everything worked out, including resplits and multiple hands. Shall I say it some more?

The difference is so far from marginal it’s not even funny.

Game on.

PS. Those return figures already take into account resplits and multiple hands. 0.675 vs 0.175. Takes into account resplits. Not even close. Got it yet?

[Anonymous]

howardmoon wrote:

hehe. Brick wall, meet nick. Nick, brick wall. Nick’s more entertaining than the wall for sure, but I think we’ll have more luck explaining things to the wall. At least it listens.

For about the 15th time (do you read, or just spew?): the Wizard’s figures already take into account resplits and multiple hands (not that the latter makes any difference at all).

The return for standing is 0.675 and the return for splitting is 0.175. That’s the total return. Taking into account resplits. Taking into account multiple hands. Taking into account what day of week it is and what shirt you’re wearing. It takes into account everything. That’s the total return. Everything included. Completely. Everything worked out, including resplits and multiple hands. Shall I say it some more?

The difference is so far from marginal it’s not even funny.

Game on.

PS. Those return figures already take into account resplits and multiple hands. 0.675 vs 0.175. Takes into account resplits. Not even close. Got it yet?

“If you say 0.175 is correct, what you are saying is that you will win twice as much by standing as you would by splitting, that would officially make you an idiot.”

Welcome to the category, now we all know where you fit, i of course already knew

[Anonymous]

nick777 wrote:

“If you say 0.175 is correct, what you are saying is that you will win twice as much by standing as you would by splitting, that would officially make you an idiot.”

Quite a bit more than twice.

Get a calculator and divide 0.675 by 0.175, it’s 3.85 times as much. So yes, over time, you will make 3.85 times more money from the hand 10,10v6 if you stand, than if you split.

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Of course, it’s not really me that’s saying it, is it? I didn’t work it out myself. I just went to the established experts, who did work it out, and I used their figures. Like any normal, sane person would. You know, in the same way I trust my doctor’s advice rather than trying to cure myself.

So, what you’re saying is that Michael Shackleford, The Wizard of Odds, respected gambling mathematician, and consultant to just about every online casino software provider there is, is an idiot.

Could you please reply and say “Yes, I am saying Michael Shackleford is an idiot, and I, nick777 am correct and he is wrong” so I can get a quote for my sig.

Thanks.

PS. You’re also saying that the following people are idiots. Perhaps I could get a quote for these guys too:
Stanford Wong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Wong)
Arnold Snyder
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Snyder)
there’s loads more but I can’t be bothered to look them up. Basically, everyone who has ever written about blackjack says one thing, nick777 says another.

[Anonymous]

Nick, every professional blackjack player every mathematician who has ever looked at blackjack is in 100% complete unanimous agreement that the proper play of 10,10 vs. 6 is Stand, regardless of the number of hands played, and therefore that your opinion that the proper play is Split, is wrong.

Since you are making the fantastically bold claim that you have outsmarted every professional blackjack player and every mathematician on the face of the planet, you are expected to provide some evidence to back up your position. This could take the form of any of the following:

1. Corroboration from a professional blackjack player or a mathematician that believes your version is correct. (That is, evidence that I’m wrong when I say that the entire professional community disagrees with you.)

2. The results of a computer simulation, whose source code is public, that shows a higher EV from splitting vs. standing.

3. Actually testing your strategy vs. the traditional strategy, where each side wagers on the outcome. I have challenged you repeatedly to put your money where your mouth is on this one, by each of us dealing hands to the other.

Yet you won’t do any of these things. What evidence do you provide that you’ve outsmarted the entire professional community? None. And no, repeatedly posting faulty equations in a web forum doesn’t constitute evidence. Evidence is showing us that someone with any credibility actually agrees with you, or that a computer simulation agrees with you, or that your strategy can survive a real-world test.

Why should anyone believe you when you not only offer no evidence, but you actually refuse to do so?

Quote:

But that doesn’t factor in resplits and 2 handed play

Repeating this mistake a 100 times doesn’t make it true. We keep telling you that this DOES factor in resplits and 2-handed play. You can keep ignoring this, but that doesn’t make it true. If you believe otherwise, then start providing some evidence for your position.

[Anonymous]

howardmoon wrote:

Quite a bit more than twice.

Get a calculator and divide 0.675 by 0.175, it’s 3.85 times as much. So yes, over time, you will make 3.85 times more money from the hand 10,10v6 if you stand, than if you split.

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Of course, it’s not really me that’s saying it, is it? I didn’t work it out myself. I just went to the established expert, and he worked it out.

So, what you’re saying is that Michael Shackleford, The Wizard of Odds, and respected gambling mathematician, and consultant to just about every online casino software provider there is, is an idiot.

Could you please reply and say “Yes, I am saying Michael Shackleford is an idiot, and I, nick777 am correct and he is wrong” so I can get a quote for my sig.

Thanks.

This was the quote of the year, i had to grab it before it was edited for being completely idiotic

Like i said before

With howard joining your cause my odds have greatly increased

There is your proof

[Anonymous]

nick777 wrote:

With those factors the expected return is this

Stand = 0.675
Split = 0.36(x2)=0.72

The number 0.175 is obviously wrong, first of all, the same formula comes to 0.35-0.365 on other sites

The first number where you stand with 20, you know the final total of your hand and you know what your probability of getting beaten is, the odds are set.

When you split, you don’t know your final total, this is why the return will vary slightly, even when using the same formula

If you say 0.175 is correct, what you are saying is that you will win twice as much by standing as you would by splitting, that would officially make you an idiot.

Your expected return in that case would be 0.175 for each hand, that means for every $100 bet you would win $17.50 ?

For 2 handed play you would win $35 per hand

The dealer will go bust 44% of the time, so there is no way your total return can be less than 1/4 of your bet, it is mathematically impossible, the 0.175 says you win less than 1/5 your bet per hand

It is

(0.175 x 2)=0.35 x 4 number of hands = 1.4

and by standing it is

0.675 x 2 number of hands = 1.35

and like i said, the first number varies from 0.35-0.365, i used the smallest total for this example

Exactly what part of this equation is faulty michael ?

[Anonymous]

nick777 wrote:

This was the quote of the year, i had to grab it before it was edited for being completely idiotic

Like i said before

With howard joining your cause my odds have greatly increased

There is your proof

Sorry, could you explain a little?

You see, you said:
“If you say 0.175 is correct, what you are saying is that you will win twice as much by standing as you would by splitting, that would officially make you an idiot.”

And I said:
“Michael Shackleford, Stanford Wong, and Arnold Synder all say that standing is more than twice as good as splitting. Are you saying that they are idiots?”

Could you please answer that question?

[327007]

nick777 wrote:

Exactly what part of this equation is faulty michael ?
I must have explained it a half dozen times now. Do you really want me to post it again?

Generally, when a table lists split and stand expected returns, you multiply either of the listed expected returns by initial bet size to get overall expected return. The expected returns in the table take into account everything. You do not need to multiply the split value by 2, 4, or some other number. You use the value that is listed. If you choose to multiply split results by some number and do not multiply stand results by the same number, your results are invalid.

One exception is the table you found that seems to list values according to expected return per split hand. In this case, you need to multiply by the average number of hands with the listed resplit rules. Note that this average is not 2 (when there are resplits) and it is also not 4. It is about 2.62, with some variation depending on decks and num resplits.

[Anonymous]

nick777 wrote:

With those factors the expected return is this

Stand = 0.675
Split = 0.36(x2)=0.72

The number 0.175 is obviously wrong, first of all, the same formula comes to 0.35-0.365 on other sites

The first number where you stand with 20, you know the final total of your hand and you know what your probability of getting beaten is, the odds are set.

When you split, you don’t know your final total, this is why the return will vary slightly, even when using the same formula

If you say 0.175 is correct, what you are saying is that you will win twice as much by standing as you would by splitting, that would officially make you an idiot.

Your expected return in that case would be 0.175 for each hand, that means for every $100 bet you would win $17.50 ?

For 2 handed play you would win $35 per hand

The dealer will go bust 44% of the time, so there is no way your total return can be less than 1/4 of your bet, it is mathematically impossible, the 0.175 says you win less than 1/5 your bet per hand

It is

(0.175 x 2)=0.35 x 4 number of hands = 1.4

and by standing it is

0.675 x 2 number of hands = 1.35

and like i said, the first number varies from 0.35-0.365, i used the smallest total for this example

Just in case you missed it

Now lets analize the wizards gang here

michael – absolutely no comments about math whatsoever, only tries to discredit people, overall, served no real great purpose for being here

nolan – repeatedly put up erroneous numbers for reasons only he would know

his 0.70 is in actuality 0.675

there are no variables here, we know the rules of the game in question from page 1, 4 decks, dealer hits soft 17, splits allowed, etc

first erroneous batch of numbers stated 1.12 return for splitting, 1.4 return for standing

latest edition states 0.70 for splitting, 1.35 for standing

so it went from returning 1.25 times as much to returning 1.93 times as much

you are dismissed, class is over

howard – no doubt the dimmest bulb in this bright ensemble

his math skills come to the conclusion that standing returns 3.85 as much

well now, if this isn’t the sorriest bunch of wannabe mathematicians, i don’t know what is.

[vladcizsol]

Ok boys mixed in with the math I am seeing insults AGAIN. Last chance to tone it down before we lock the thread.

I kinda think everyone has made their case and you all arent going to agree anyway, so it may make more sense to lock this down and move on to other business rather then ruffle feathers. What say you?

[Author]

Posts