Latest Cronley Article- "hitting 17 with dealer showing a 5-spot"

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by chucklestheclown

Which of those last two posts are funnier?

The Jennifer Tilly one. The other one needed a happy face to be funny. Without it, it was scarily clueless.

--Dunbar

[booner]

Good article. I even printed it out on paper to get the full effect so I wouldn't just scan over it.

[Slewbopper]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

The Jennifer Tilly one. The other one needed a happy face to be funny. Without it, it was scarily clueless.

--Dunbar

Well, you keep hitting 12 to 16 and see how long your bankroll lasts.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Slewbopper

Well, you keep hitting 12 to 16 and see how long your bankroll lasts.

This is not a debatable topic. Experts have programmed computers to play tens of millions of hands and figured out the optimal strategy (this is referred to as "basic strategy"). You are correct that if you have 13 or higher, you should stand if the dealer is showing 2-6. But if they are showing 7-10 or A, you should hit until you have hard 17 or higher. In other words, if you have 13 and the dealer is showing a 10, you need to hit. If you have 12 and the dealer is showing a 9, you need to hit. In both of those examples, you are going to lose money in the long run no matter what you do. Those are both big-time losing hands in the long run. But if you hit those hands, you will lose less money in the long run than if you stand.
If you don't believe it, program a computer to deal the hands several million times and you will see that you are a better off hitting those hands. If I were you, I wouldn't waste my time doing the work because it's already been done by many of the best mathematicians in the world and they all came up with the same results.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

This is not a debatable topic. Experts have programmed computers to play tens of millions of hands and figured out the optimal strategy (this is referred to as "basic strategy"). You are correct that if you have 13 or higher, you should stand if the dealer is showing 2-6. But if they are showing 7-10 or A, you should hit until you have hard 17 or higher. In other words, if you have 13 and the dealer is showing a 10, you need to hit. If you have 12 and the dealer is showing a 9, you need to hit. In both of those examples, you are going to lose money in the long run no matter what you do. Those are both big-time losing hands in the long run. But if you hit those hands, you will lose less money in the long run than if you stand.
If you don't believe it, program a computer to deal the hands several million times and you will see that you are a better off hitting those hands. If I were you, I wouldn't waste my time doing the work because it's already been done by many of the best mathematicians in the world and they all came up with the same results.

Rupert, your answer shows much more patience than mine would have. But I will add some resources and references.

Good sites for accurate basic strategy:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bjbse.php
http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack

Good place to ask a question and get some knowledgeable answers:
http://bj21.com/boards/free/free_board/index.cgi

Good books:
"Basic Blackjack", by Stanford Wong
"Professional Blackjack", by Stanford Wong
"Blackbelt in Blackjack", by Arnold Snyder
"The Big Book of Blackjack", by Arnold Snyder

"Professional Blackjack" has tables in its appendix that can be used to illustrate Rupert's example above. If you hit your 12's when the dealer shows a 9, you will end losing on average 34% of the money on those hands. Sounds bad, right? But if you stand on your 12's when the dealer shows a 9, you will end up losing on average 54% of the money on those hands. For every $10 you bet, you average $2 better when you hit 12 vs standing on 12. That's a huge difference in outcome.

--Dunbar