Posts Tagged ‘blackjack’
So, why aren't blackjack experts singing the praises of the situational systems?
The problem with utilizing this type of strategy is that none of the advantage indicators are very strong. In most games, they would simply indicate that the house had less of an advantage over the player, not that the advantage is with the player. In deeply dealt one-deck games, with good (Las Vegas Strip) rules, all of these indicators combined might provide a player making small bets of $5 and high bets of $100 (1-20 spread) with an expectation of about $l-$2 per hour. In other words, no individual situational indicator is worth more than a few hundredths of a percent, and all of them combined are not worth much more than a few tenths of a percent, in a deeply dealt one-deck game with a big betting spread.
I have nothing against any player making $l-$2 per hour, especially if he would otherwise be breaking even (or worse) just using basic strategy, so why don't I advise players who are not up to the task of card counting to use this easy situational approach? Because this non-counting method looks more like card counting to the game protection personnel than real card counting! Using a system like this is the fastest way to get barred as a card counter! All you have to do is consider the situations that are used as positive/negative indicators. In every case, the positive indicators coincide with a probability that more low cards than high cards have just come out of the deck. The negative indicators come into play when the opposite is true.
For example, Indicator #3 is that a push indicates a drop in player advantage. Why would this be true? It's not that every push indicates this; but the most common push is a player 20 (two tens) against a dealer 20 (two tens), so that pushes taken as a group more often indicate that high cards have been removed from the deck.
Gwynn's and Serf's studies also showed that, more often than not, a player win was slightly more likely with high cards coming out of the deck, and vice versa. Technically, it's not the win, loss, or push that really indicates the more probable result of the next hand, but the removal of high or low cards from the deck.
In fact, this type of situational play—despite the fact that you are not technically assigning count values to the cards—really is just a very weak card counting system. It's not strong enough to win you any money, but it will be recognizable enough to casino personnel to get you kicked out of the game (assuming you can find a deeply dealt one-decker with Strip rules, so that you can even test your 1-20 betting spread).
So, situational play is just an interesting theory, not a practical moneymaking system.
Online Casinos casinoprestigeclub.com
Tags: blackjack, las vegas, online casino, vegas strip rules
Various books and systems purport to contain workable "non-counting" systems for blackjack. Most of these systems are based on some form of betting progression—and there are hundreds of variations on both the martingale and other types of progressions and regressions.
Some systems, however, take a "situational betting" approach. These types of systems are a radical departure from normal card counting systems, and also from the standard "betting progression" systems. The system sellers who propose these types of systems claim that computer simulations show that without counting cards, per se, certain playing situations will indicate that the house advantage will be higher or lower on the next hand to be dealt.
In fact, there is a truth to this claim. As far back as 1978, Dr. John Gwynn and Professor Armand Serf (both of California State University in Sacramento) published a paper that first described valid situational betting techniques—and Gwynn and Seri based their findings on extensive computer simulations.
What Gwynn and Seri determined beyond any doubt were three facts:
1. If a player loses a hand, he will be more likely to win the next one— i.e., losing one hand is a positive indicator that the player has a better expectation on the next.
2. If a player wins a hand, he will be more likely to lose the next one i.e., winning one hand is an indicator that the player's expectation on the next has dropped.
3. If a player pushes a hand with the dealer, it is an even stronger indicator that the player's expectation on the next hand has dropped.
For a number of years following the Gwynn/Seri situational discoveries, blackjack betting systems began appearing that advanced situational betting theory beyond the win/loss/push indicators. Other proven situational advantage indicators are:
4. Following a non-ace pair-split, the player's expectation rises.
5. Following an ace split, the player's expectation drops.
6. Following a hard double down, the player's expectation rises.
7. Following any hand (player or dealer) that requires 4 or more cards, the player's expectation rises.
8. Following any hand in which both the player and the dealer use 4 or more cards, the player's expectation rises more dramatically.
9. Following any blackjack (player or dealer), the player's expectation drops.
10. Following any hand in which neither the player nor the dealer has taken any hits, the player's expectation drops.
All of this can be proven by computer simulation. A player who always raises his bet after positive indicators, and lowers it after negative indicators, will have an expectation greater than a player who puts the same amount of money into action flat betting. (We're assuming that both players are playing basic strategy.)
Now, wouldn't it be much easier than employing a card counting system for a player to just memorize the 5 positive indicators and the 5 negative indicators and to raise and lower his bets accordingly?
Absolutely!
Tags: betting systems, blackjack, online casino