My uncle took some classes years ago trying to learn how to win at blackjack. I googled it/him and they are still teaching the system here in Minnesota.
Cards are assigned a +1, 0 and -1 and you have to keep track of everyone's hand as well as the dealers. At some point your number gets high (or low) and that's supposed to be an indicator as to the next "bunch" of cards.
It never worked for my Uncle. He quit the class.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
I think he is/was some kind of math genius.
My uncle took some classes years ago trying to learn how to win at blackjack. I googled it/him and they are still teaching the system here in Minnesota.
Cards are assigned a +1, 0 and -1 and you have to keep track of everyone's hand as well as the dealers. At some point your number gets high (or low) and that's supposed to be an indicator as to the next "bunch" of cards.
It never worked for my Uncle. He quit the class.
I only play double deck and I count cards. Aces, face cards are good to know for the last hand in the shoe
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@JoeBanzai said:
I think he is/was some kind of math genius.
My uncle took some classes years ago trying to learn how to win at blackjack. I googled it/him and they are still teaching the system here in Minnesota.
Cards are assigned a +1, 0 and -1 and you have to keep track of everyone's hand as well as the dealers. At some point your number gets high (or low) and that's supposed to be an indicator as to the next "bunch" of cards.
It never worked for my Uncle. He quit the class.
I'll tell ya why it doesn't work. Because yes, at some point the deck may slightly favor the player, but the problem is you have to sit there for who knows how long, losing who knows how much money, before you get that chance for a minuscule edge for a miniscule amount of time. And you could still lose even with that edge because the dealer could get 20's while you get 19's, etc.
Also the casino puts a cap on the maximum bet at every table. So say you're down a couple dimes waiting for that miniscule chance and the opportunity finally presents itself. You can't then just bet as much as you like. You're limited by the cap at the table.
So let's say for a couple hands you've got a 1% edge on the casino. Betting $500 a hand that's a "big" $10. Wow, that will buy you a ham sandwich with potato salad at the casino restaurant. LOL
@LarkinCollector said:
In principle, it's much the same as card counting. Casinos frown upon it, but it's a grey area and not technically against any rules here in the US (unless the player is intentionally "marking" the edges). I don't know the technicalities of the other jurisdictions where these lawsuits have been argued.
Card counting should also be just fine. Being good at remembering what's been played is not cheating.
Anyone here ever heard of Vas Spanos?
The only Spanos I know of is the owner of the Chargers. I'm guessing @AFLfan is not a fan of the family.
You sir, would be correct.
Todd Tobias - Grateful Collector - I focus on autographed American Football League sets, Fleer & Topps, 1960-1969, and lacrosse cards.
@JoeBanzai said:
I think he is/was some kind of math genius.
My uncle took some classes years ago trying to learn how to win at blackjack. I googled it/him and they are still teaching the system here in Minnesota.
Cards are assigned a +1, 0 and -1 and you have to keep track of everyone's hand as well as the dealers. At some point your number gets high (or low) and that's supposed to be an indicator as to the next "bunch" of cards.
It never worked for my Uncle. He quit the class.
I'll tell ya why it doesn't work. Because yes, at some point the deck may slightly favor the player, but the problem is you have to sit there for who knows how long, losing who knows how much money, before you get that chance for a minuscule edge for a miniscule amount of time. And you could still lose even with that edge because the dealer could get 20's while you get 19's, etc.
Also the casino puts a cap on the maximum bet at every table. So say you're down a couple dimes waiting for that miniscule chance and the opportunity finally presents itself. You can't then just bet as much as you like. You're limited by the cap at the table.
So let's say for a couple hands you've got a 1% edge on the casino. Betting $500 a hand that's a "big" $10. Wow, that will buy you a ham sandwich with potato salad at the casino restaurant. LOL
Your uncle was smart to quit.
I don't disagree, I actually made some of these exact comments to my uncle back then, but isn't that just another way of counting cards? The theory being that you can play the house fairly even until you get the cards in your favor and lower the boom on them? Hey, it worked in "Rain Man"!
There wasn't a lot of smart in that guy.
Sorry Unk, may you rest in peace.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
I think he is/was some kind of math genius.
My uncle took some classes years ago trying to learn how to win at blackjack. I googled it/him and they are still teaching the system here in Minnesota.
Cards are assigned a +1, 0 and -1 and you have to keep track of everyone's hand as well as the dealers. At some point your number gets high (or low) and that's supposed to be an indicator as to the next "bunch" of cards.
It never worked for my Uncle. He quit the class.
I'll tell ya why it doesn't work. Because yes, at some point the deck may slightly favor the player, but the problem is you have to sit there for who knows how long, losing who knows how much money, before you get that chance for a minuscule edge for a miniscule amount of time. And you could still lose even with that edge because the dealer could get 20's while you get 19's, etc.
Also the casino puts a cap on the maximum bet at every table. So say you're down a couple dimes waiting for that miniscule chance and the opportunity finally presents itself. You can't then just bet as much as you like. You're limited by the cap at the table.
So let's say for a couple hands you've got a 1% edge on the casino. Betting $500 a hand that's a "big" $10. Wow, that will buy you a ham sandwich with potato salad at the casino restaurant. LOL
Your uncle was smart to quit.
I don't disagree, I actually made some of these exact comments to my uncle back then, but isn't that just another way of counting cards? The theory being that you can play the house fairly even until you get the cards in your favor and lower the boom on them? Hey, it worked in "Rain Man"!
There wasn't a lot of smart in that guy.
Sorry Unk, may you rest in peace.
Of course that casino blackjack scene in Rain Man was a fictional piece of nonsense. There's no way someone with severe autism such as that is going to be able to effectively communicate a blackjack strategy to someone else live at the table, even if it's relatively simplistic. A strategy which is futile anyway.
Bottom line, casinos are never going to offer a gambling game under their premises whereby a skilled player could beat them, and sorry to say that includes sports betting. Except for poker, as the casinos don't mind winners at that, because all the casinos are essentially doing with poker is dealing the cards and monitoring the game for a percentage of the pie.
Little known fact...many decades ago, casinos had pinball machines on their floor as gambling games. Pinball is a game of pure skill. Well some folks became very skilled at it and starting beating the casino. The casinos then raised the score threshold for payouts. But then the very skilled players became even more skilled and continued to beat them. Well then the casinos simply discontinued pinball machines as gambling games.
I understand the concept of card counting but never understood how it benefits
just the player but not the dealer. Say you wait until the deck is a +8 which is 8
more face cards than numbered cards, isn't there just as good a chance as the dealer
getting a 20 as you? Where is the advantage?
I see Steve did write something that addressed my question.
He said the dealer could get 20's while you got 19's.
That's the part I could never understand.
If the deck favors the player then it also favors the dealer so there's no advantage to the player
playing with a favorable deck (+ deck)
@Darin said:
I understand the concept of card counting but never understood how it benefits
just the player but not the dealer. Say you wait until the deck is a +8 which is 8
more face cards than numbered cards, isn't there just as good a chance as the dealer
getting a 20 as you? Where is the advantage?
I've not read any books on blackjack, so I'm no expert, but many face cards left wouldn't it be to the player's advantage to NOT hit a hand he would normally hit, leaving it to the dealer who hopefully also has to hit into a deck with a bunch of face cards?
Of course that casino blackjack scene in Rain Man was a fictional piece of nonsense. There's no way someone with severe autism such as that is going to be able to effectively communicate a blackjack strategy to someone else live at the table, even if it's relatively simplistic. A strategy which is futile anyway.
No way!
@Darin said:
I see Steve did write something that addressed my question.
He said the dealer could get 20's while you got 19's.
That's the part I could never understand.
If the deck favors the player then it also favors the dealer so there's no advantage to the player
playing with a favorable deck (+ deck)
I think it's because you can see the dealers cards. Theoretically if there's "lots and lots" of face cards, you know when either/both you and the dealer will bust. He/she is required to take a card at 16, you are not.
Bottom line, I don't think you get much advantage when they use several decks and shuffle them often.
I rarely gamble. Tried it a couple of times and felt like I was giving my money away.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Darin said:
I understand the concept of card counting but never understood how it benefits
just the player but not the dealer. Say you wait until the deck is a +8 which is 8
more face cards than numbered cards, isn't there just as good a chance as the dealer
getting a 20 as you? Where is the advantage?
A player under those circumstances is mathematically likely to be more successful than normal on double down bets, splits, and receive an increased number of blackjacks which pay 150%.
@Darin said:
I see Steve did write something that addressed my question.
He said the dealer could get 20's while you got 19's.
That's the part I could never understand.
If the deck favors the player then it also favors the dealer so there's no advantage to the player
playing with a favorable deck (+ deck)
I've sometimes seen the worst player luck in blackjack with decks that were supposedly favorable.
I wonder if Evan once in awhile wishes he would have kept his PSA 9 '52 Mantle?
I'm sure he's happy where he moved and it helped him buy a new house, etc, so likely he has no regrets about it. But wow, if he would have kept the card and sold now, he could have bought two or three new houses, and some luxury cars to go along with it.
I'll check out that video later. I'll be rooting for Evan, but i have a bad feeling his results won't be good against those Poker after Dark killers.
@Darin said:
I understand the concept of card counting but never understood how it benefits
just the player but not the dealer. Say you wait until the deck is a +8 which is 8
more face cards than numbered cards, isn't there just as good a chance as the dealer
getting a 20 as you? Where is the advantage?
I've not read any books on blackjack, so I'm no expert, but many face cards left wouldn't it be to the player's advantage to NOT hit a hand he would normally hit, leaving it to the dealer who hopefully also has to hit into a deck with a bunch of face cards?
hammer, thanks that makes sense.
Yes I guess that would be an advantage to the player.
@Darin said:
I understand the concept of card counting but never understood how it benefits
just the player but not the dealer. Say you wait until the deck is a +8 which is 8
more face cards than numbered cards, isn't there just as good a chance as the dealer
getting a 20 as you? Where is the advantage?
I've not read any books on blackjack, so I'm no expert, but many face cards left wouldn't it be to the player's advantage to NOT hit a hand he would normally hit, leaving it to the dealer who hopefully also has to hit into a deck with a bunch of face cards?
hammer, thanks that makes sense.
Yes I guess that would be an advantage to the player.
It's good for trying to put the dealing over and splitting, soft seventeens, doubling and black jacks as mentioned.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
If you're too lazy to count cards there's another method.
If you can determine which player might be a 'sharp' (professional) , pushing out larger bets near the end of the deck, and winning. Tail his bets at the end of the deck, and increase your bet when he does.
It ain't perfect, but it's better than blindly increasing your bet at the end of the deck, just because it's the end of the deck, and you don't know what's left.
I don't know, but Mike is a good example of the Peter Principle as far as poker, rising to his level of incompetence.
Matusow is a decent poker player, and can beat up on chumps. However it's often painful to watch him on Youtube videos trying to compete with the big boys, because he just doesn't have the talent or the temperament to do it.
The last poker that i saw Matusow play was on Live at the Bike, and Phil Hellmuth had to stake him 10k to sit in the game. Well of course Mike wound-up getting felted.
Comments
I think he is/was some kind of math genius.
My uncle took some classes years ago trying to learn how to win at blackjack. I googled it/him and they are still teaching the system here in Minnesota.
Cards are assigned a +1, 0 and -1 and you have to keep track of everyone's hand as well as the dealers. At some point your number gets high (or low) and that's supposed to be an indicator as to the next "bunch" of cards.
It never worked for my Uncle. He quit the class.
I only play double deck and I count cards. Aces, face cards are good to know for the last hand in the shoe
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I'll tell ya why it doesn't work. Because yes, at some point the deck may slightly favor the player, but the problem is you have to sit there for who knows how long, losing who knows how much money, before you get that chance for a minuscule edge for a miniscule amount of time. And you could still lose even with that edge because the dealer could get 20's while you get 19's, etc.
Also the casino puts a cap on the maximum bet at every table. So say you're down a couple dimes waiting for that miniscule chance and the opportunity finally presents itself. You can't then just bet as much as you like. You're limited by the cap at the table.
So let's say for a couple hands you've got a 1% edge on the casino. Betting $500 a hand that's a "big" $10. Wow, that will buy you a ham sandwich with potato salad at the casino restaurant. LOL
Your uncle was smart to quit.
You sir, would be correct.
I don't disagree, I actually made some of these exact comments to my uncle back then, but isn't that just another way of counting cards? The theory being that you can play the house fairly even until you get the cards in your favor and lower the boom on them? Hey, it worked in "Rain Man"!
There wasn't a lot of smart in that guy.
Sorry Unk, may you rest in peace.
Of course that casino blackjack scene in Rain Man was a fictional piece of nonsense. There's no way someone with severe autism such as that is going to be able to effectively communicate a blackjack strategy to someone else live at the table, even if it's relatively simplistic. A strategy which is futile anyway.
Bottom line, casinos are never going to offer a gambling game under their premises whereby a skilled player could beat them, and sorry to say that includes sports betting. Except for poker, as the casinos don't mind winners at that, because all the casinos are essentially doing with poker is dealing the cards and monitoring the game for a percentage of the pie.
Little known fact...many decades ago, casinos had pinball machines on their floor as gambling games. Pinball is a game of pure skill. Well some folks became very skilled at it and starting beating the casino. The casinos then raised the score threshold for payouts. But then the very skilled players became even more skilled and continued to beat them. Well then the casinos simply discontinued pinball machines as gambling games.
I understand the concept of card counting but never understood how it benefits
just the player but not the dealer. Say you wait until the deck is a +8 which is 8
more face cards than numbered cards, isn't there just as good a chance as the dealer
getting a 20 as you? Where is the advantage?
I see Steve did write something that addressed my question.
He said the dealer could get 20's while you got 19's.
That's the part I could never understand.
If the deck favors the player then it also favors the dealer so there's no advantage to the player
playing with a favorable deck (+ deck)
I've not read any books on blackjack, so I'm no expert, but many face cards left wouldn't it be to the player's advantage to NOT hit a hand he would normally hit, leaving it to the dealer who hopefully also has to hit into a deck with a bunch of face cards?
If anyone has a PokerGo account (or you get lucky find the right episode on one of the NBC sports channels), you can catch SB champ (forum member at one time) Evan Mathis playing a cash game with the big boys on Poker After Dark: https://www.pokercentral.com/articles/jennifer-tilly-bill-perkins-antonio-esfandiari-poker-after-dark/
No way!
I think it's because you can see the dealers cards. Theoretically if there's "lots and lots" of face cards, you know when either/both you and the dealer will bust. He/she is required to take a card at 16, you are not.
Bottom line, I don't think you get much advantage when they use several decks and shuffle them often.
I rarely gamble. Tried it a couple of times and felt like I was giving my money away.
A player under those circumstances is mathematically likely to be more successful than normal on double down bets, splits, and receive an increased number of blackjacks which pay 150%.
I've sometimes seen the worst player luck in blackjack with decks that were supposedly favorable.
I wonder if Evan once in awhile wishes he would have kept his PSA 9 '52 Mantle?
I'm sure he's happy where he moved and it helped him buy a new house, etc, so likely he has no regrets about it. But wow, if he would have kept the card and sold now, he could have bought two or three new houses, and some luxury cars to go along with it.
I'll check out that video later. I'll be rooting for Evan, but i have a bad feeling his results won't be good against those Poker after Dark killers.
hammer, thanks that makes sense.
Yes I guess that would be an advantage to the player.
It's good for trying to put the dealing over and splitting, soft seventeens, doubling and black jacks as mentioned.
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
If you're too lazy to count cards there's another method.
If you can determine which player might be a 'sharp' (professional) , pushing out larger bets near the end of the deck, and winning. Tail his bets at the end of the deck, and increase your bet when he does.
It ain't perfect, but it's better than blindly increasing your bet at the end of the deck, just because it's the end of the deck, and you don't know what's left.
What's become of Mike Matasow?
I don't know, but Mike is a good example of the Peter Principle as far as poker, rising to his level of incompetence.
Matusow is a decent poker player, and can beat up on chumps. However it's often painful to watch him on Youtube videos trying to compete with the big boys, because he just doesn't have the talent or the temperament to do it.
The last poker that i saw Matusow play was on Live at the Bike, and Phil Hellmuth had to stake him 10k to sit in the game. Well of course Mike wound-up getting felted.