Discussion in 'Table Games' started by Breeze147, Aug 14, 2019.
Yes, but didn't he end up picking up a gorgeous babe at the diner?
I think I ran across that same guy at TI. He also ordered a Captain and DIET Coke. I asked him if he was concerned about his weight (he was skinny as a rail). He said no, I don't want the sugar. I said what do you think Rum is. He was stumped for an answer.
Well, it is a little less.
I've conquered my instincts and recognized that it doesn't matter. It makes it much more fun once you get to that point and can merely enjoy the action of people making wildly reckless bets.
I figure that the worse people play, the more likely the casino is to relax rules over time and get more generous on comps. If blackjack was more profitable due to shitty players, there would be more competition among casinos to attract that player base.
I have a feeling that prior to the proliferation of strategy guides and especially the internet, there was a much higher built in house edge from player ignorance.
It would have been very hard in any era for a casino to be profitable at 3:2 blackjack with good rules if their players were consistently keeping the HA at ~0.50% due to perfect basic strategy.
When you really get down to it, frugal gamblers, comp hustlers, and advantage players all depend on a large installed base of suckers with a weak grip on their wallets who create the very fat in the industry that they skim. Casino gambling as we know it wouldn't exist in a world were every player was as savy as them. There'd be no money in it.
You have to know that in the "good old days" of cheap buffets, good rules, and generous comps that SOMEBODY was paying for it all. It's not like gaming companies all of a sudden decided in the mid 2000s that they finally wanted to make some money.
Long rant but bottom line is the more bad players the better...as long as you aren't one of them.
The only statement that ever pisses me off is "You took the dealer's bust card". How someone plays has zero statistical impact on the probabilities. Certainly splitting 10's means you can 'take' a dealers bust card but playing by the book can ensure the exact same thing. Either of those strategies are equally as likely to help you as they are to hurt you.
Now, of course, some people will say that playing a certain way makes the table unlucky but then that is the same as saying "I think wearing a blue shirt makes the table unlucky". I knew an Asian guy once who hated it when anyone at the table patted anyone else's back (not even his own) because touching the back is somehow unlucky in Asian cultures. Splitting 10, wearing a certain color shirt and touching someone's back are equally likely to statistically impact the table or the dealer.
Personally, I am a perfectly by the book player. I had an unpleasant experience with a very drunk person in Vegas who kept lecturing me that i should deviate from the book and make stupid plays. And every time he was *proved* right (roughly 1 out of 4 times), he would say something like "There, see ... that is the dealer's bust card". 30 min in, the pit boss told him to stop and that everyone can play however they like with their own money. Another 10 min later, he got kicked out.
Speaking for myself, I find it funny when people split 10's or hit hard 16's against a six. It's like watching tourists in the streets of NYC get scammed by a hustler.
Um, lighten up, Amigo. This was supposed to be a lighthearted discussion of seeking out 3rd base and you have taken off on a wild tangent.
I also consider that someone has to pay for my comps and I'm glad it's the idiots and not me.
Well, the guy who splits 10s does change his own math. . . . . The mathematical probability of such a player winning with his own cards will be substantially reduced by such a bonehead play. Sounds like Darwinian natural selection to me.
It certainly is possible for the person at 3rd base to "take the dealer's bust card". Sometimes that happens. Sometimes they also take the card that would have cause the dealer to make a hand - and in some cases also cause the dealer to bust. It is a fact in blackjack that the decisions made by one player do alter the game for the other players - potentially for that hand - and also for every hand in the deck or shoe that comes after. It is also a fact that the decision is just as likely to help the other players as it is to hurt them. Having a bad player at the table does not statistically reduce or increase your chances of success at the table - but it does factually change what happens in the game.
It is also human nature to react most strongly to personal impacts that are both negative and immediate. Unless you are Rainman you don't really follow how a bad play impacts the result of your bet five hands later. Theoretically a bad play by someone else may cost you to lose that hand -but also change the cards so you win the next four. But no one really thinks beyond the outcome of the hand where the bad play occurred. When someone's bad play makes you win the current hand, you realize it happened at the time - but you just smile and don't really put it in your memory bank. On the other hand when the bad play causes you to lose the current hand - it has more of a personal impact on you. Logic and statistics will tell anyone who pays attention to them that in the long run it evens out - but it doesn't change the natural reaction. For some people that natural reaction outweighs their knowledge - or at least current recognition - of the fundamental statistics and logic.
Getting to the point of the thread - while it is not necessarily logical there is a human nature negative reaction when the player on third base makes an incorrect play that causes you to lose the hand. I like to think I am logical enough to minimize that reaction and keep it hidden - but I still think dammit why did he do that in my head. Others have a harder time keeping it in - sometimes dependent upon the circumstances. Gets me to the story I thought of when I saw this thread :
Was playing with a couple friends a couple years ago at PH. I was sitting one seat from 3rd base and my friends were on the 1st base side. 3rd base opens and a young guy sits down there. He was obviously inexperienced - didn't really know the etiquette or procedure for buying in. I usually don't try to help people unless they ask but after he made a couple bad plays I did kind of whisper to him that the "book" would say to play differently. He really did not acknowledge that either way. Then we have a hand where the dealer has a 6 showing. My buddy in the middle of the table had been losing and his chip stack was getting low so he was in a bad mood already. He gets a hand he can split and then doubles one of the splits - so he is out 3X his initial bet and I think pretty much "all in" on the hand in terms of the chips he had. I see the guy on 3rd base has 13 - and I whisper loud enough to be sure he hears - "don't hit that". Well sure enough he says he wants a card - and insists he wants one even when the dealer says "are you sure"? Well as you would guess he gets a 10 to bust his hand - dealer turns over a 10 for the 16 but then draws a 5 for 21. My buddy did not say anything to him directly - but certainly did make enough of a scene to make it obvious he was upset - and why. Said something like "can you believe he hit that?" loud enough for the entire table to hear. Guy at 3rd base was obviously uncomfortable - and I felt sorry for him even though I tried to stop it from happening and he purposely ignored me. Now - my buddy was wrong to react the way he did - and down deep he knew he was wrong too. But his reaction was basic human nature under the circumstances. It also gave the guy at 3rd base a bad experience in one of his first times at a blackjack table - which is too bad because it is a fun game. He did not leave immediately - but did leave before too long. Hopefully it did not cause him to give up the game and maybe instead caused him to reflect and decide to learn how to be a better player.
Moral of the story - if you do not know how to play, it is best for you (and everyone else at the table) if you don't sit at 3rd base. Not saying that is logical - but it avoids situations like the one I described - if the guy had made the same play at 1st base my buddy would have just thought he was stupid, but would not have had any reaction at all.
Rum itself contains no sugar (unless added by the manufacturer), even though sugar cane is the basic ingredient that gives us the the most delicious of the brown liquors.
The sugar refining process produces molasses as a by-product. Then by the miracle of fermentation, the sugar present in molasses is converted into the much more useful alcohol, and the whole mess is then distilled into the even more useful rum.
I'm sorry - I'm terrible, I drink too much, and I apologize.
But I'm with you - screw that guy. He sounds like a jackass to me.
I was playing at the Palazzo about 10 years ago at a $10 BJ table( the payout was 3:2) with a clueless guy sitting at 3rd base, along with his two friends who both knew basic strategy. He kept playing badly even though his two buddies were trying to help him make the correct plays. He was a pleasant fellow and I was winning so I didn't leave the table. A well dressed gentleman sat down at 1st base and started betting $100 a hand. First hand the 3rd base guy hits a 12 vs dealer 6 and busts with a face card. The dealer draws a 7 then a 6 for a total of 19.. First base guy had stayed at 18 and lost the hand and I saw him squirm in his seat. A few hands later 3rd base guy decides to split his tens vs a dealer's 9; even though his friends strongly advised against it. His response was, "I have a feeling". First base guy had bumped his bet to $200 and was sitting on a 20. Of course the dealer ended up drawing to 21 and everyone at the table lost. The death ray like stare coming from the gentleman at first base towards the guy at 3rd base was classic. To his credit he just quietly picked up the rest of his chips and moved to a different table even though I could see the "steam" coming out from his ears. I usually play with a basic strategy card on the felt next to my chips and refer to it from time to time. I never give advice to another player and if I am asked by a player I'll give him my strategy card for the correct play. The only time I intervened was when a player doubled on a 12 vs dealer 9 and busted with a 10. Next hand he split his 10's vs dealer 8, drew two 17's and lost to the dealer's 18. He then loudly called the female dealer a "Bitch". That's when I piped up and told the mortified dealer that she didn't have to take that kind of abuse because of his dumbass play. I motioned for the pit boss and explained what had just transpired and one minute later two burly security guards were escorting him off the property.
I prefer to play first or third base but will at times sit in a middle seat only if the table is not packed. While third base has the advantage of seeing a lot of cards in play which may, but not often, influence my decision, I don’t think it matters at all due to the variance factor. When studying the game years ago, I read more than once it really does not matter where you sit as the bottom line is you are playing against the dealer and you should play your hand accordingly. This has been my mindset (me against the dealer) for many years but I will still get up and leave if there are loud, obnoxious players making stupid plays—not so much for their stupid plays, but because they are jerks that I don’t care to be around.
I think it happens quite often.
Think about it...how many times have you had hard 16 vs a 7-A, and you have the opportunity to see how many 4s & 5s other players have... (or don't have)?
How often are you sitting at 3rd with a hard-12 vs a 2 or 3, and not a single 10-value card is visible with the other players?
I've even reversed my plan to double with 10 or 9 based on how many 10-value cards came out before I had to make my decision.
Sure, there are way more hands where it makes no difference (e.g. - hard 17 through 21), but there are still plenty where it does!
Why do people only remember or perceive the first part, but not the second part?
Well yeah, it doesn't affect your odds one bit, but for me also it makes it less fun, and also can be distracting. Your biggest problem was playing blackjack at 4Q though!
That is true. I have had very few winning sessions at 4Q. And with this mandatory bonus, I think I'll try Craps or VP in there next time.
Hard to beat VP at the 4Q! I really enjoy playing the 100 hand machines even though they arent full pay, still pretty good payables for 100 hands.
I seek out 3rd base because I'm a masochist who loves an entire table losing their mind at him for hitting A7 vs 10 and then absolutely rage and leave when the dealer ends up with 21 after I do so.
So, were we sitting at a table in Hong Kong, Macau or Tokyo? 'Cause if we're in Vegas, we - and you know who we are - are immune to "imported" luck & superstitions. That's why cocktails are comped in Vegas, and not Balut.
Granted I don't play much but when I do I prefer playing 3rd base with a full table.
With a full table a large number of cards get exposed to help determine if I hit or not.
Sure it isn't a true "count" but if I see 4 face cards appear, I may just hit when I probably shouldn't. (but I won't split 10s)
Yeah so you may not want to play at the same table.
Separate names with a comma.