I've noticed when looking in all my blackjack books, there seems to be a big disagreement in even basic strategy. Now I am puzzled how something that should be absolute, and proven generations ago with computers, still has controversy. For example: Some tables say NEVER to split 4s, others recomend it. Some say ALWAYS double down on 11 vs anything, others say only vs 10 or less Some say double down on 8 vs 5 or 6, and again others say not to. I asked a few blackjack players who (claimed) to know what they were doing, and again I get conflicting answeres.... How the hell does this confusion arrive with something that should be absolute?
Basic Strategy Whitejack, One single Basic Strategy chart is not absolute or correct for all conditions. ie; number of decks played and/or differing table rules such as if the dealer hits or stands on soft 17. You can produce a correct BS chart on this site for the conditions and rules you will be playing at the table but one BS chart is not exact for all games.
Ok, let's assume game is multi-deck, player can split & double down as well. Dealer stands on all 17s. Which is the correct adjustment now for me? Thanks.
Blackjackinfo.com Go to Ken Smiths other site. Blackjackinfo.com. This lets you put in the rules of any game, and then will give you the correct Basic Strategy.....
Whitejack and basic: You received good info in response to your post. From a work in progress allow me to offer some sacrilegious and blasphenous coments. If you start with Thorpe, incorporate Revere, sprinkle in Arnold Snyder, you will have the pyramid foundation for YOUR game. Remember Thorpe developed THE theory as a theoretical exercise. If you believe the circulated accounts, he only really played two or three times. And did well in then current dollars. After his book, (BOOK!), again if you believe the accounts others picked up on his theory, of which the most important part is that BJ can be a non-random proposition. Much debate and accusations , of certain authors being shills for the casinos, followed in subsequent BOOKS on the proper way to play basic. The various systems, advantage observations and TEAMS, led casinos to change the way they dealt.(and again, question if a book is a shill.) Revere seemed to develop a good "system" for a "normal" player without gazillions of dollars, but even he cautioned that to be successful with HIS, You had to play perfectly. Snyder developed a number of simpler systems, which must be good and are still relevant given the number of successful advocates, whom he has been able to interview and relate their success, not to menton his own. Someone more versed and historical than I would tell you where Uston stands in this. But even the Bishop, Snyder has more than few articles, cautioning players on the absolute certanty of a "system" or style of play. There are all kinds of books and new systems promoted everyday, in the face of the ever changing play of the game. You have to be aware of non-altering probablities and watch out for statistical simulations. Cause in an axiomatic system, the introduction of one flaw or falsehood, can prove or disprove everything. And a lot of stuff out there is an attempt to extrapolate from basic probablities with "leaped to conclusion" results. There would be more on anomolies, deviations, extended improbabilities and where you are on the curve at any particular time. SOOOO, unless you plan to live forever and play 50 trillion hands, you take a reasonable, comfortable stake and find a style of play that is comfortable for you and try to remain as consistant to that style as you can. Hopefully the style is one based on the forefathers, or we'll end up with yet another crazy book.
????? Noman my friend and fellow goat monger WOW; Your flowery explanation overwhelmed me, it was like a 3 volume book explaining why apples don't fall far from the tree. I don't think you ever answered his question which is what he wanted, more is not always better.
Well thanks for the info guys. I checked out the site, and seems i have to un-learn some of the things I have learned. Argggh... At least I THINK I got it right now...
Mr. Main Goat Monger Yes, I know, I can get flowery. My affliction. Apples and goat dew don't go far from the source, but, if the inquirer was really new, some basic history doesn't hurt. and I was hoping to be corrected by the real insiders. aLAS BLACK OPS AIN'T ONLY IN THE US GOV.
The Question Concerned Basic Strategy Rookie789 answered the question in 2-3 succinct sentences. Noman amboled and rambled down memory lane, but forgot to answer the question!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: The short answer is, go to Ken's site, Blackjackinfo.com. Essentially there are three primary basic strategy groups-Single Deck,Double Deck, and Multiple Deck Basic Strategies. Each group is then divided into 4 subgroups:S17,H17,DAS,and NDAS. There's also a "generic basic strategy" version which is sufficient for most players. The only reason I'm posting is to pay Homage to the men who developped Basic Strategy. Parenthetically, none of the individuals mentioned by Noman had anything to do with the Development of Basic Strategy. Basic Strategy was developped by 4 scientists who, with electronic calculators, worked for 3 years to produce Basic Strategy. Their research was published in the Journal of the American Statistical Association. Someone brought this publication to the attention of Ed Thorp. Later, Stanford Wong and Julian Braun (both Revere and Thorp used Braun's work) using computers corrected some of the errors found in the original research. But, some of their work in itself produced discrepencies. The definitive work is credited to Peter Griffin. Lastly, Don Schlesinger represents that he has the most accurate version of Basic Strategy. And that, WhiteJack is much more history than you need to know.
Basic Gosh Rich: Thanks for the comments. You want succinct. I say Thorpe. You say Schlesinger. Thorpe never advocated splitting 4's. More ramblin amblin stamblin in the next post mostly about all the error corrections everyone did to get where we, you, I some one are.
Time Marches On Golly Gee Norman: Thorpe's last publication was 1966. You think that's the definitive version of Basic Strategy??? . Norman, the Smithsonian needs those little, yellowed cards of your, lol.
Smithsonian Rich: You never Know, I might have millions of dollars in those old yellow cards. I still have a better response, but I'm trying to condense it so everyone used to 15 second sound bites won't fall asleep during the discussion, or ramble.
Noman, I'm waiting Noman, my old friend. I have a dilemma. Should I stay with the most current basic strategy (state of the art) or should I return to Thorp’s Basic Strategy- some 40 years past? What would you recommend for WhiteJack and other tyros? Norman you wrote "I say Thorpe (sic). You say Schlesinger. Thorpe (sic) never advocated splitting 4's Norman are you sitting down?? Well, I went up into the attic. There, in a forgotten trunk, was a copy of Ed Thorp’s “Beat The Dealer”(1966). Are you sitting??? On page 28 Table 3.4 (Pair Splitting) Thorp recommends splitting 4’s with a dealer’s 5 upcard. Foraging deeper into the trunk I found my torn and tattered Thorp pocket cards. Yep, same thing Noman. He shows splitting 4’s with a 5 upcard. Don’t say that I didn’t warn you to take a seat. By the way, Ken Smith’s alternate site ,Blackjack.com, for Basic Strategy shows splitting 4’s for H17/S17,DAS house rules. His data expands the 4’s splitting event-as well as other enhancements & subtleties. I guess he’s also wrong. I leave you the last say on this Basic Strategy discussion. Norman, you have my rapt attention. Remember the subject is Basic Strategy. lol
Basic Strategy Whoops! Gosh! Uha, mmmmm. ehh, oh. I'm wriggling in my chair. I'm shuffling my feet and my eyes are darting all over the place. SHUT MY MOUTH! Shazaaamm. I'm so embarassed. I've been put in my place.....Undeniablly by a better, more knowlegeable person. Rich, I've taken so long to reply cause, I'm rumminging through my clutter to find the date of the Munchkin interview with Wong, (which I can't verify), in which wong stated he ran the numbers up to 9 and verified Thorpe's calcs. So he stopped. Revere utilized Braun's 9 million simis to justify his "modifications" to basic. Schlss, was attack! Sooooo. Yea ass, there have been modifications for changes in the way the game is dealt. All good and well. How many times have you played and heard the term "what does the book say." Well it depends on which book you're relying on. a .002 advantage of one play over another is statistically meaningless. If my meandering ramblings are overkill, so are 9 million simulations to prove a basic probability. That's why through all the verbage, what I was trying to get at, was for each individual to find their own comfort level of basic( shiite, sunni and kurd) Who's gonna ever play 9 million hands? And stay consistant. Snyder talks about how the edge one gets in the more complicated formats doesn't out way the posssibilty of mistakes. And everyones' system says play it perfectly. If you're in a big numbers team with big backing and have trained forever, sure, you'll score big, until they find you out. But be a solo,( excuse the use of the term given the new guard, )"grinder", you must be comfortable in what you believe, how you play and consistant with a bet to bankroll ratio that gives YOU the best expectation, without calling attention to yourself as other than a happy go lucky, lucky playa. And I repeat, basic probabilities, are what generate that positive outcome. Even if you have a prediliction to go against a probablity, it's okay, cause no one lives for an eternity and maybe, just maybe, you're in that deviation of the curve, If you're not, you lose. From you're argument, about new variations, I'd agree, that we all can be plants locked in a parochial box for a time. But, growth comes when the lid is lifted. The problem, solution, is at least knowing the basics before embracing a "new fangled" formula for success. And if you are successful doin what you do, then I wish you nothing but continued success. But beware the false prophets. And again in a long winded, tangled web, that's what I was initially trying to get across to a supposed new be. f
