Players are always yelling at me for the way I play. Why do they do that? How in the world could it affect their odds if the remainding cards are in ...

Enjoy!

She liked shopping, sitting by the pool, even occasionally playing the slots with her... When she eventually came to the end of her money playing blackjack, the ...

Enjoy!

Valid for casinos

Software - MORE

anyway, wtf is with people getting mad when you play blackjack like that?. I'm not a great Blackjack player, and I appreciate people who are ...

Enjoy!

A card counter wants everyone playing basic strategy blackjack around... Or what if they pulled a 4, 5, 2, and J. You might get angry at the 4 ...

Enjoy!

Software - MORE

As a blackjack dealer, I try to please the customers, who are having a good. If the player wins, we drop the tip in what's called a toke box-toke, that is,. Then I get the people who bet $10 a hand, and they're angry if they lose.

Enjoy!

However, if bad players disturbyour enjoyment of the game or your. SITUATION # 2 You've JustLost TwoBig Bets and Are Really Angry As we all know, losing ...

Enjoy!

I deal all sorts of games — blackjack, baccarat, and all of these. I always have players at my table who insist that the casinos cheat, that the.

Enjoy!

Software - MORE

Hit Blackjack so you can spin the wheel. You and everyone else playing could win an additional prize! Bonus Spin Blackjack Progressive: $43477 As of Dece.

Enjoy!

Imagine 2 players at a blackjack table the click at this page player is dealt a 19 the second player is dealt a 15 and the dealer is showing a 6.

The first player decides to stand and the second player decides to hit.

The second player is making a bad move in the sense that his odds of winning would be higher if he decided to stand.

He gets a 7 on his hit and busts.

The dealer then reveals his other card, a 10 and takes a hit.

He gets a 4 which brings him to a total of 20.

Sometimes when this situation plays out in a casino you will see the first player get very angry at the second player because if the second player had made the right move and stayed the dealer would have gotten the 7 on his hit and busted.

I believe that such anger is misplaced because player 2s decision has exactly zero effect on player 1's odds of winning the hand.

Since the deck is shuffled the dealer has the exact same chance of busting or beating the first player whether he gets the first card or the second card.

Despite its clear to me irrationality this reaction is not too uncommon so I was wondering if anyone could defend it.

EDIT: The best way to change my mind would be if you could come up with an analogous scenario ie a person takes an action which doesn't change the probability of an event happening yet after the fact the event can be traced to his choice where I intuitively agree the person should be blamed Hello, users of CMV!

This is a footnote from your moderators.

We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things.

Firstly, please remember to.

If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it.

If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our first.

Any questions or concerns?

Here's the thing, though: an actual tangible shuffled deck of cards is not a random chance after it's been shuffled.

In actual point of fact, if player 2 had not hit, then the dealer would've busted, and both players would have won.

The fact is that while we have to model optimal plays as if the deck is a quantum entity to get mathematically optimal results, in reality it isn't.

That 4 was always going to be immediately after that 10 in our universe at that particular moment.

Player 2 is only at fault if they made a decision that could foreseeably jeopardize player 1's chance of winning.

At the time of making the decision, player 2 did not forseeably alter player 1's odds for the worse.

Choosing to take a hit was a bad call for player 2, but would not necessarily have jeopardized player 1, it could just as easily have helped them.

In other words, if player 2 had the conscious objective of hurting player 1 and didn't care about their own success, there's still no "correct" option in this scenario.

You are unable to forsee whether taking the hit will help or hurt player 2.

All the risk involved in the situation is inherent to playing blackjack, no special risk or danger was imposed by player 2.

It's like if someone came up to you and offered you two boxes, asking you to choose one.

One would make you both win 5 dollars, the other would impose a duty to punch the box-offerer in the face.

You pick at random, get the face punching option, and then the guy is mad at you for punching him.

But why does that justify the anger?

Before player 2 made his choice player 1 was in a position where he will win X% of the time and after player 2 made his choice player 1 was still in a position where he will win X% of the time.

He wasn't affected at all.

Every additional card that is drawn before the https://microrcracing.com/blackjack/blackjack-multiplayer-hacks.html draws affects the remaining cards in the deck, which affects the odds.

No, the dealer is getting a random card from the deck no matter what.

The dealer is getting a card from a deck that has 1 less card in it.

What are the odds of drawing an ace from a shuffled deck that is full?

What are the odds of drawing an ace from a shuffled deck that has had 4 cards drawn from it, with 1 being an ace?

The more pertinent question is "what are the odds of getting an ace from a shuffled deck with the top card removed?

If you don't know what cards are going to be removed the odds don't change.

That's not how probabilities work.

A probability isn't a or b.

If that was how they worked then you could always say the probability is either 1 or 0 because if it happens it's 1 and if it doesn't its 0.

Probabilities don't describe the world.

The describe a state of knowledge about the world.

In either example you're assuming an ace was taken or wasn't taken.

We don't know what card was pulled and the probability must be based on that.

This is the very basis of why card counting works.

EDIT: Also, downvoting doesn't make you more right.

That's if we know the removed card wasn't an ace.

If you don't know what cards are going to be removed the odds don't change.

Not knowing what the top card was has absolutely 0 effect on the fact that it can no longer be drawn from the deck.

Of course it doesn't.

I was already 100% right before I source you :P EDIT: I took away my downvotes though.

I'm certain I am right about the math so I knew this wasn't going to change my mind but I decided it was better to not downvote Downvoting is bad form on this subreddit, read the rules.

You're only making people less likely to actually debate you in good faith.

Whether or not I'm mistaken, actually take the time to point it out, rather than downvoting.

Downvoting is an anti-troll measurement, censors posts, and isn't an "I disagree" button.

Also you might want to rethink your attitude; you haven't shown much willingness to have your view changed thus far, going back to probability when confronted with the idea that a sub-optimal play has demonstrably cost this man victory for his hand.

Your CMV wasn't check this out that statistics and probability is wrong", it was that "anger is irrational".

And you know what?

That's an unchangeable view, really; emotions are irrational.

Next thing I know you're gonna be telling me that birds can fucking fly.

So, yes, the anger is irrational because the rational part of our brains doesn't control emotion.

But it's justified by the fact that A game theory and computer models show that Player 2 made a suboptimal move, and B post-facto it's revealed that that move not only cost Player 2 his hand, but Player 1 as well.

Most blackjack is played with multiple decks in the shoe.

So while you are correct that one card has changed the odds, the effects are minimized by the number of decks used.

That's only assuming the result is random no matter what, which it isn't.

The shuffle creates a random static stack.

Or to put it more bluntly: No, the dealer isn't getting a random card from the deck no matter what, the dealer is getting the top card of a deck that has been randomized no matter what, and that's a crucial difference.

This is distinct from, for instance, a game of craps where someone rolls badly I don't know the exact way rolls go bad in crapswhere each roll is random.

The order of a deck of are casino orlando blackjack are is not random in the same way a die roll is random; if I roll a die 1,000 times, I'd expect a fairly even click here of numbers 1-6 if the die is fair.

If I take a deck of cards that has been ordered the same way and take the top card 1,000 times, I expect exactly 1 result.

Or to put it another way: If we take the "alternate universes" theory of probability, if we do our splintering of universes after that deck is shuffled, you should realize that no matter how many alternate universes split off after that same shuffle, the top card is always going to be the same.

No, the dealer isn't getting a random card from the deck no matter what, the dealer is getting the top card of a deck that has been randomized no matter what, and that's a crucial difference.

Let me phrase it differently.

After the hand has been dealt and before anyone decides to hit or stand we know the dealer is going to take a hit and that the card he gets is going to be some card from the cards remaining in the shoe and that we have no knowledge about which card it will be.

So whether p2 hits or stands the dealer is getting a card from the shoe that given our current state of knowledge is equally likely to be any card in the shoe The thing is that it's only our current state of knowledge that makes the cards seem to have that probability, and the only rational thing to do at that time is to play to the best of the model.

The other caveat, though, is that blackjack has very precise models on what to do in certain situations.

We can't know between the 10 getting drawn and the 4 getting drawn how the game will be affected by the sub-optimal play, neither player 1 nor 2; but after the fact it is clear just how badly the sub-optimal play affected the game: it went from a player win to a house win.

Since our knowledge of the probabilities changed, the probabilities changed; Player 2's hit had no option but to cause Player angry blackjack players to lose, because at the point when Player 2 hit the cards were slots blackjack john set.

And he should have known not to hit, therefore he's the cause for the game going differently than the numbers say it should have went.

There's no way that player 2 could have known that his hit would cause Player 1 to lose, but player 2 should have known that his hit would more likely than not cause him to lose, and so he still should have known not to do that.

I agree that player 2 angry blackjack players have known not to hit.

But only because of the fact that hitting hurts him.

His choice to hit has no effect on player 1.

Sure there are some cases where his hit will cause player 1 to lose, but these are exactly balanced out by the cases where his hit causes player 1 to win And in those instances, Player 1 won't be mad.

Anger isn't a response to probability, it's a response to being hurt.

If I load a revolver with 3 bullets, spin the cylinder, pull the trigger, and it hits you in the shoulder, are you going to be less angry because in half of the scenarios that could have occurred, you didn't get hurt, or angry that I made the wrong move by pointing a gun at you and pulling the trigger in the first place?

The gun scenario is different.

Since your choice changed the probability of something happening to me that means your choice affected me so I am justified in being mad.

That's different than the blackjack scenario because in blackjack the players choice to hit did not change any of the other players probabilities.

Because they weren't actually in that situation; the next card after the deal was always going to be a 10.

The only way that that would've changed was an immediate shuffle after every draw.

If you play blackjack and shuffle the cards in the shoe after each card is drawn all of the odds remain exactly the same.

Shuffling does nothing because both before and after the shuffle we were in a state of knowledge where each ordering of the cards was equally likely Theoretically true, and from a play standpoint it makes no difference as to what your optimal play is.

Realistically though, the card orders are still set, so after the fact, we can say what past mistakes allowed to this web page, or what not making them would have made the game play out to be.

If there were shuffling between each draw, then you don't even have that after-the-fact advantage.

The fact is that while we have to model optimal plays as if the deck is a quantum entity to get mathematically optimal results, in reality it isn't.

That 4 was always going to be immediately after that 10 in our universe at that particular moment.

In this case hitting would deny you the chance to play another hand on the good count.

However this is very different than the situation I described in the OP.

You're correct when you say they will help you just as much as they hurt you.

In the end, it really doesn't matter what third base does.

Blackjack has been studied and in your example, the second player taking a hit has statistically been proven to be a wrong choice.

Models have been set up to show that, against a dealer 6, anything 12 or higher should stand.

His choice to hit, against all mathematical models, has directly affected the other player by taking another card out of the deck.

Blackjack has been studied and in your example, the second player taking a hit has statistically been proven to be a wrong choice.

Models have been set up to show that, against a dealer 6, anything 12 or higher should stand.

I said as much in my post.

His choice to hit, against all mathematical models, has directly affected the other player But it didn't affect the other player, his odds did not change at all.

We can put this in mathematical terms using conditional probabilities.

To them, player two's decision to hit clearly shows they WOULD HAVE won had player two not hit.

So it's not the statistics that they care about, but the perception that player two impacted them.

The anger is not based on math or statistics but rather the outcome after-the-fact.

People lost and want to place blame somewhere.

When they lose because the dealer got a better card that is easy to accept.

They have no control over the dealer's card.

If player 2 makes a bad call and positively impacts player one you can bet player one also wasn't thinking about math - but rather the positive emotions from an undeserved win.

But it's not irrational in this specific case.

In your example the math says to stay because the chance of the dealer busting is greater than the dealer winning.

Player one knows this and sees that player two made a bad decision.

If player two would have made the correct decision he would have won.

So, in this example, player two directly affected player one based on what card came out next.

Before the dealer's card came out all we have is statistical models.

There is a clear chain of events that cause player one to lose.

But it's just as likely that p2's hit would have caused him to win when he was going to lose.

Because the deck order is unknown the probabilities are all that matter.

Because the deck order is unknown the probabilities are all that matter.

You're right, sometimes you do lose in that situation, but the models say you are more likely to win by not hitting.

But the only person who is hurt by p2's decision to hit is p2.

Why shouldn't player one be upset that player two went against statistical models?

Because it didn't affect him.

P2 hurt his own odds of winning the hand by hitting but he didn't alter p1's odds at all.

In the long run the guy at 3rd base probably won't affect your cards but if his action causes you to lose you perceive that as his mistake costing you.

You're right, but I'm going to make an argument for why this kind of thinking is actually maybe not so "irrational.

He had the same chance of changing a win to a loss as a loss to a win.

But now let's consider that blackjack is a very artificial environment where we know the odds and what's happening is completely transparent.

The real world isn't like that though; we can't engage in perfect ex post analysis or fully know the odds.

Take war as an example.

A commander may have two different options before him, but he doesn't have definitive knowledge of the odds of success with each strategy.

He picks Angry blackjack players A, loses the battle and thousands of soldiers die.

We don't know if he picked the worse strategy or if he picked the better one and just got unlucky.

Now time for a little bit of math.

Let's say the good strategy had an 80% chance of success, while the bad strategy had a 20% chance of success.

When he loses the battle, there's an 80% chance it's because he picked the bad strategy and a 20% chance he just got unlucky.

Of course we don't know if the odds are 80% and 20%; 50% and 0%; 90% and 80%.

What we do know is the failure is more likely the result of picking a worse choice than getting unlucky with the right choice.

When our ape brains see someone make a choice and then be met with failure, we react by thinking it's probably because they made a bad choice.

When your choice has negative impacts on others, we get pretty ticked off at you.

People making bad choices that harm others are a danger to society.

Back to the blackjack example, they are responding irrationally without that context, but the instinct itself is actually a quite rational way of dealing more info a very complex world.

So they are blindly applying their instincts to a situation rather than mathematically and logically analyzing the situation to see if the instinct applies.

That sounds like irrationality to me.

If you were choosing to use a kind of analysis that is inappropriate to the situation, then yes, that would be irrational.

But, they're not making that choice.

Instead, we've evolved with a default rule for how to interpret such situations, and even though there are some instances where the rule fails, in general it works, and it's quite rational to have a rule that's going to work most of the time.

Instincts don't come and go based on mathematical formulas.

Instincts are ingrained within your brain based on previous experience and Human Condition.

You continue to focus on statistics for the basis of anger when in all reality having someone else, or the perception of someone else, impacting your outcome makes people angry.

The conversation really is not about one person statistically impacting another angry blackjack players />The conversation is about why humans get angry or have anger at others.

By your logic humans should angry blackjack players have emotion until they've gone through not only all the statistical analysis is of whatever their current situation is, but understanding and intent from everyone else around them.

Anger is part of the human condition especially when we are able to clearly see how another's outcome affected us.

It has nothing to do with Blackjack and everything to do with the perception.

It's entirely rational if you derive pleasure from seeing fellow players do well.

That's really all it takes.

Getting angry isn't really an appropriate emotional response, but the behavior isn't necessarily irrational if it's coming from a place of altruism.

Given that, the anger is rational if you believe that acting angrily toward someone is going to compel source to change their behavior and start winning.

Whether or not your action is rational depends on whether it's the logical conclusion of the information you have.

That is, you can still act rationally based on factually incorrect axioms.

Whether or not the person's belief that anger helps is factually true or not, such a belief would rationally lead to the conclusion that expressing anger will help the person.

However, if your goal is ultimately altruistic, in that you want the player to have a good time, then it depends on how much your anger ruins their experience and how that would stack up against the enhancement of their experience caused by winning more.

So, in a nutshell.

I don't gamble money, but I reckognise the feeling.

It goes: Damn it, gods of luck.

Why are you giving me this crap hand and then giving the good hand to the guy over there who doesn't even know what to do with it.

If I had had that, I would have won.

So it's kinduva anger at the world in general.

It's just that the other player is the only person there to take it out on.

Since the deck is shuffled the dealer has the exact same chance of busting or beating the first player whether he gets the first card or the second card By reducing the number of un-drawn cards, the second player actually changes the probability that the dealer will draw a bust card.

Let's fill in your example with some more details.

So it ends up being more likely in this event.

The actual math is a little bit more complex i.

That said, I agree with you that the guy complaining about it is a fun-hating jerk who doesn't understand what the word "gambling" means, but your assertion that a player's decision doesn't affect the probability is incorrect.

Once the card that player 2 gets on his hit is revealed then we can update our probabilities, that's true.

Many people are arguing from probability and theres a lot of going on but there is another reason to be mad.

Being mad at the other players incompetence at the game is valid.

I don't know much about the strategy of blackjack, but if someone makes a definitively bad play and that changes your strategy for the worse, you'd be pretty mad that they outplayed you through incompetence, and not skill.

P2's bad move did not affect P1's chance of winning I'm talking about strategy, not probability.

I'll give an example from poker, because I know the game better.

If someone raises 40 bucks in a game with your mates i.

If it turns out they only had a pair of 3's, i'm gonna be pissed off, because they were obviously not playing smart.

Poker is a completely different game, there is much more chance for the players to affect each other in poker.

Your point angry blackjack players an interesting one.

Here's an analogy, which I'm not entirely sure about but is somewhat thought-provoking.

Adam decides to get drunk before bicycling home through a large city.

He knows that there is a person called John Smith in that city, but since he has no idea where John Smith is thinks that the probability of him hitting John is about one in a million assume the probability of him hitting John while sober is 0.

Actually, John is just around the next corner, and Adam swerves and hits John.

John is angry at Adam.

But Adam says "Hey, hey, calm down.

From my perspective, the probability that I would end up hitting you, given that I got drunk, is about one in a million higher than if I hadn't gotten drunk; the change is vanishingly insignificant.

So you can't really blame me.

In your example the probability doesn't change at all.

In my example the probability changes by one in a million.

So surely, if it's legitimate for John to be angry at Adam, then your player 1's anger is very nearly as legitimate.

Otherwise you'd have angry blackjack players argue that a tiny tiny change in the probabilities can make the difference between anger being totally justified or not justified at all.

In your example the event we https://microrcracing.com/blackjack/ill-have-my-own-party-with-blackjack.html looking at is John being hit by adam's bicycle relevant probabilities are the probability that he is hit if Adam wasn't riding drunkenly and the probability he will be hit if Adam was riding drunk.

Both of these probabilities are small so their difference is also small, but what isn't small is their ratio.

EDIT: The best way to change my mind would be if you could come up with an analogous scenario ie a person takes an action which doesn't change the probability of an event happening yet after the fact the event can be traced to his choice where I intuitively agree the person should be blamed Sure.

Let's consider Crazy Bill's Casino, which plays with a 1-shoe deck that is only shuffled when the deck has been completely exhausted.

Regardless of what card the dealer is holding, if both players stay the dealer will be forced to hit, landing at 17.

Therefore at this juncture, both players are guaranteed to win if both players stay.

Player 1 stays but player 2, sadly, is a glory seeker and can't resist the 50% odds of a blackjack.

Player 2 hits and busts on the 10 which was in the deck.

Deck is reshuffled, dealer reveals the 3 to total 7.

Dealer is dealt two more 7s, making 21 and therefore wins.

I submit player 1 is permitted to skewer player 2 for the suboptimal play that cost them both the game.

In your example p1s choice did change p2's odds so yes p2 is right to be mad However thats impossible in normal blackjack where the deck is reshuffled while there's still lots of cards left in the shoe so you never reshuffle in the middle of a hand.

I used player 2's foolishness to change the odds of player 1 winning from 100% to something less than 100%.

You agree that player 1 is permitted to be angry at player 2 here.

I submit that it therefore follows if player 2's foolishness ever lowers the odds of player 1 winning, player 1 is permitted to be angry.

Aside: Looks like I swapped around player 1 and 2 in my previous post to align with OP while you were writing your reply.

This reply is written assuming you'd seen my edit.

My main point was that in normal blackjack this never happens.

Of course it does.

In every situation Player 1s chance of winning is the same no matter what player 2 does.

This is because if player 2 takes the hit the dealer will get the 2nd, 3rd 4th etc cards on his hits instead of the 1st 2nd 3rd.

However when he's deciding to take the hit or not the deck is shuffled with each configuration being equally likely so there is perfect symmetry between the 1st card and the second so the probability won't change.

But gotta give me credit, I did at least create a legal blackjack scenario where a player can legitimately be angry at another player for a suboptimal move.

Even if it is impossible in a real-world setting due to casino rules.

Don't you think that spouting bullshit you know to be false in an attempt to "trick" someone into changing their view is somewaht against the spirit of this subreddit?

Goal is to change OP's view.

Nothing wrong with playing a little devil's advocate if I agree with OP.

I also met the OP's challenge and in doing so made them refine though not change their view.

As far as I can tell that's the best anyone has done.

By taking a card, P2 is reducing the number of possibilities the dealer has to draw from, as well as either a safe or bust card from those possibilities.

It may not be relatively significant, but there is a non-zero change to P1s odds.

I would argue it would be irrational for P1 to not be upset at P2.

It's not about changing the outcome across an infinite number of plays.

It's not even about changing or not changing the odds on that hand.

It's the evident reality that had P2 not taken a card, P1 would have won the hand.

By taking a card, P2 is reducing the number of possibilities the dealer has to draw from, as well as either a safe or bust card from those possibilities.

It may not be relatively significant, but there is a non-zero change to P1s odds.

Once the card that p2 gets on his hit is revealed the odds are ever so slightly changed.

However just the decision to hit instead of standing does not change the odds at all.

P2's decision to hit directly leads to the hit and the slight change in odds.

Even if the hit is dealt face down, the odds change, just no one is sure in which direction.

To claim a distinction there is absurd.

Would you care to address my much more serious point at the end of my first post?

P2's decision to hit directly leads to the hit and the slight change in odds.

Even if the hit is dealt face down, the odds change, just no one is sure in which direction.

To claim a distinction there is absurd.

If we look at the board before anyone makes their decisions and ask "what is the probability of p1 winning if p2 decides to hit?

That means p2's decision to hit does not affect p1.

It's the evident reality that had P2 not taken a card, P1 would have won the hand.

Yes but that choice was, given the state of knowledge at the time, equally likely to switch a loss to a win as it was to switch a win to a loss so the fact that it was made did not change his position equally likely to switch a loss to a win as it was to switch a win to a loss But in this instance it didn't.

A hand of blackjack isn't about likelihoods, its about outcomes.

P1's not upset because he thinks P2 changed his odds of winning the hand.

He's upset because practically speaking, P2 hitting changed what would have been a win to a loss.

It doesn't matter if P2 changes the odds or not.

P2 changed the outcome.

P2 hitting instead of standing means P1 lost the hand instead of winning it.

How is that not affecting P1?

We're talking about a single hand of blackjack.

If there is a clear, 99% correct way of doing things, like having a rule where you clean the coffee pot after using it - for the benefit of all - and the person before you fails to follow the rule out of ignorance or otherwiseare you saying that you have "no right" to get upset?

I think you have every right to get upset when someone does something incorrect when there is a clear right and wrong way of doing things.

It might slightly change the next round in the sense that a card counter will adjust his count because he saw an extra card but it will not affect the current round at all.

Every time a face card is given to a player, that's one less face card the dealer has in the deck to bust with.

Actions by other players most definitely affect the odds.

At the time P2 makes his decision to hit or stand, nobody has any information leaving aside the issue of card counting about what cards are going to come up.

The probability of P1 winning given that P2 hits is exactly equal to the probability of P1 winning given that P2 stands.

And both of them should know this.

My friend the Blackjack Pro discusses what it's like to play in Las Vegas now.

Enjoy!

Valid for casinos

The dealer showed that her face-down card was a face card for a two-card 15.Instead, the dealer drew a six, completed a 21 and beat everyone at the table.

A legitimate reason to be angry at the player who drew the 10?

What if the cards drawn were reversed in the deck?

What angry blackjack players the player drew the six, leaving the 10 for the dealer?

Player mistakes help the rest of the https://microrcracing.com/blackjack/blackjack-shuffle-rules.html just as angry blackjack players as they hurt.

Memories tend to be selective, and we angry blackjack players upset by the times the misplays by others cost us angry blackjack players />In the long run, our bottom line winds up in just about the same place as if the others were playing perfect, basic strategy.

If the mistakes of others upset you, change tables.

But the decisions are theirs to make, and in the long run the times they hurt you and the times they help will balance out.

Software - MORE

However, if bad players disturbyour enjoyment of the game or your. SITUATION # 2 You've JustLost TwoBig Bets and Are Really Angry As we all know, losing ...

Enjoy!