Bet or Cards - whats most important?

Discussion in 'Blackjack Tournament Strategy' started by fgk42, Dec 10, 2006.

?

What is more important to you?

Poll closed Jan 9, 2007.

1 vote(s)
5.9%

7 vote(s)
41.2%

9 vote(s)
52.9%

0 vote(s)
0.0%
1. MonkeysystemTop MemberStaff Member

Aggressiveness

RKuczek, okay now I understand where you were going. I agree, minimum bets until the bitter end in EBJ don't work.

You should still try to keep your risk to a minimum. Don't use up your ammo before you know where the targets are.

2. fgk42New Member

There are several points about your reply that I would like to discuss. However, this one paragraph is, in my opinion, very applicable to this thread – which is more important card playing versus betting.

It has been and continues to be that until such strategy can be formulated that takes into account the about conditions that you discussed, that betting is more important than the actual playing of the cards – to a point.

In this PARTICULAR circumstance, as it relates to THIS THREAD, if I was given a choice between playing BS in an EBJ tournament and placing bets that in my mind, formulating, placing, chip accumulation, etcetera is slightly more important than the few situations that one would gain an advantage by deviating from BS.

With regard to your statement that more aggression during the first 8 hands of an EBJ table is advantageous that is a statement that I would respectfully disagree. It is my opinion that unless you are ½ and greater MAX ahead of BRL the ROR from overzealous betting, especially in the first 8 hands, outweighs the advantages gained.

RKuczek, I've been thinking about this probability drift thing, and I keep coming back to the same fundamental problem.

Earlier in this thread, you posted
This can't be, since we could consider every blackjack session as a series of 8-hand mini-sessions, each with positive EV. Presto-Chango, basic strategy blackjack is now a money making proposition.

I understand your point about mapping the probabilities into discrete outcomes with the binomial distribution, but somewhere you are drawing conclusions that aren't warranted.

I suspect it has to do with the use of 'not drawing a stiff hand' as a proxy for 'having a winning hand'.

Here's a similar thought. Can't we use the same logic applied to the dealer, to say that the dealer will have favorable cards in the first 8 hands on 53% of tables?

I admire your application of innovative ideas here, but I remain skeptical of this particular approach.