Question for the board
-
How many of ya'll typically play at a table at which there are more than 2 other hands being played against the house? I imagine lots of players here play with 4 or 5 other hands at the same table.
For those that do play at crowded tables, are you at least doing so begrudgingly and because you can't float the quieter tables' higher limits?
Could someone convince me that you can win at a crowded table regularly? My experiences have overwhelmingly concluded that you cannot. Playing one-on-one or with maybe one other hand against the dealer seems to be optimal IMHO: no one to swerve from BS rules, less dilution - more face cards for you and more for the dealer to bust on, etc.
What is the most hands in a row anyone has ever won at a full table? I'd be impressed to hear 6. Watching buddies of mine play one-on-one, I've frequently seen 8,9,10 in a row. At one time 15 in a row. When progressing every bet, not bad, eh? -
ndlarryj: There is some evidence of bias in the players favor at a full
table, rather than one or two. I first ran accross this when looking at
sims that were done to disprove the card clump theory. However, this
says nothing about streaks and their frequency. I would suspect that
streaks that occur in a head to head situation would be more noticeable
than otherwise. Maybe Walter or Alex might have more information
relating to streaks and their possible occurance with progessions and
player/table mix.
I don't play a progression, but I still like streaks and just retured from
a day and a half of nothing, good or bad.
Ray -
ndlarryj:
I prefer heads-up play if at all possible, so I am usually scouting tables at 6:00 AM. One trip last year, while ready to leave the casino to go home, I
had three red chips left in my pocket, stopped at a full CSM table, threw a red chip down and drew a five-card 21. That was the first of six 21 hands in a row! The dealer was also quite amazed. I was flat betting at first but then started chipping up since the streak continued pretty good. After about 45 minutes that nickel chip had won me $500! Probably my best session ever at a $5 min. table. I still would rather play with less crowded conditions, but this experience showed me anything can happen. -
My take on the full table rule is, "There is a greater possibility for bad strategies to be present and active". I prefer a 4 handed game or less.
If I see "no-hit 12" coupled with "no-surrender 16" player strategies, I leave. That "rule-book" looks like higher win% at the expense of higher house advantage %. Sims will prove it.
N&B -
I have mixed opinions about "full tables" and whether or not one should play them...
Like N&B suggested, there are the odd players that divert from Basic Strategy, or just don't know any better (ie. hitting 16's against a dealer's 6!) and as a result, it can prove to be favourable to the house... Personally, I'm starting to feel the same.
I've played at full tables where practically every single player knows perfect BS, and have left the table with 2x and sometimes even 5x my bankroll! Just last night, I played at a table where people were hitting 16 vs. 6, standing on A6 vs. 10+, and consequently, the dealer would turn up three-card, "5,6,10" combinations every third or fourth hand.
Was it luck? Well normally, I'd say "yes," but I'm starting to doubt that now. I guess my only hope is to run some sims and come to my own conclusions. :D
Regards,
Vile -
I too prefer lesser players, and have won the most money doing so heads up!! In just 10 mins I swindled $1500 on a $50 table and the next shoe I got up another $875 so $2375 in what, 15 mins? Come to think of it, I think everytime I have won a significant amount it has always been with 2 or less players at the table. Unless you have a lot of time to kill, what's the sense in waiting for 6 other people to play their hands if you could easily get the hot streaks coming your way with only 1-2 other players (or headsup!)?vilehand said:and consequently, the dealer would turn up three-card, "5,6,10" combinations every third or fourth hand.
Realize that if they have 11 from the original 2 cards, that they'll make a hand more often than not... 11 is a very powerful total, second to 21, and any 20 that we are dealt to win... (again, Grifter, feel free to check up on that to make sure I'm not lying and am 100% accurate with my info so I'm not "misleading" the 260 users here) so if the dealer has 11 in the hole and you're stuck with a stiff you're pretty much screwed no matter what you do, so... just take it like a grain of salt because that WILL happen. -
If you play head to head vs a full table, you will get in about 4 times as
many hands and your win/loss column will reflect that in short order.
I doubt if there is any usable bias for the basic strategy player regarding
the number of players, but it's a different story if you count cards. Playing
at tables that have one or two players tends to increase the penetration. This effect makes a big difference due to the impact of card removable
for all games, but especially so for single or double deck. Counters or
basic strategy players who are good at board counting may want to
spread to two hands at 70% when they have the advantage. This tends
to help PEN just a little and will allow you to get in an extra hand or two.
Board counting is a practical strategy for B/S players in single or double
deck games. There just is not that many hands and knowing that you
have an advantage, no matter how small, makes the 70% spread a good
bet that allows more money in play with less heat.
Ray -
PJ: Yes, its the only 2 places around here. Surrender is offered, and I use it as recommended by basic strategy or Ace-5. My informal analysis suggest if you don't hit 12 at all, and don't surrender at all, the house advantage increases from 0.33% to 0.42%.... this based on a few (4) 500 meg simulations. I am speaking of 6 or 8 deck S17, DAS, RS4, No RSA, LS, and DOA. These 2 versions are currently the only game types here in CT. I have noticed the 5-deck CSM's have been removed from MS. I only wish for 2-deck here... have to go west for that.
N&B -
Ray, you are correct. There is no usable bias for BS players regarding the number of players at the table. If you sit down to play at a table where the HA is 0.50, it remains 0.50 regardless of the number of players.....So the common sense answer is simple: Play at the tables where you feel the most comfortable.
Regards....Grifter -
Griff... do you think that the table rake % (the actual amount of $ taken by the house) increases, decreases, or stays the same depending on the above?, and do you think that "lesser" strategies than Basic contribute?
N&B -
BughouseMaster,
I am like you that I don't like to wait on 5 or 6 players. I go to play fast, bet fast, win fast, get paid fast, and get the next bet down. I don't mind interacting with people socially and I have met many kind and intelligent people at the tables. But I still prefer one or two at the most. I, also, have had more winning sessions during heads-up play which naturally makes me more comfortable in that mode. Another thing that I hate is SLOW dealers who take their time. Another thing that bothers me is when I finally get a 20 against a dealer's 6 up and she draws to 21! -
I prefer tables with no more than one or two other players... seems like the streaks are longer, but it might just be because play is faster. I've won or pushed every hand in the shoe, playing head-to-head and at a crowded table, but I've made the most money playing head-to-head.
-
More about dealer speed: Played once against a LIGHTNING FAST dealer on a full table at Monte Carlo in Vegas. She was young, couldn't have been older than 22 or 23. NEVER made a mistake, either. She could deal, pay off the bets, pick up the cards, and have new cards out, waiting on ME to decide should I hit or not. She could even recall all the player's hand compositions from the previous round. I learned how to count my own hand much faster after an hour at that table!
-
Nickels_n_Bullets said:Griff... do you think that the table rake % (the actual amount of $ taken by the house) increases, decreases, or stays the same depending on the above?, and do you think that "lesser" strategies than Basic contribute?
N&B
N&B - In my opinion, the % of table rake has nothing to do with the number of players at the table; it will fluctuate in direct proportion to the level of skill of the players. i.e. We can calculate the 'rake %' if we have six BS players at a table with HA of 0.50%. For every counter you substitute for a BS player, the 'rake %' will go down. For every newbie you substitute, the 'rake %' will go up.
Greatly oversimplified, but that is my take on it.
Grifter -
That does seem reasonable. And I gather the rake goes up due to losses from the newbie, and that others maintain a more-or-less flat rake, albeit lower from counters. I was curious, because overall, that table rake has diminished over the years from 17% to about 11%. The other low-house-edge game craps still rakes in a solid 14-16% last I looked, as it should.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!