Why is counting cards such as bad thing?

And no one ever credits the guy taking a hit at 12 and drawing a five that would have given the dealer 21. I understand the "team" aspect of everyone hoping the dealer busts, but in the end, that's all it is -- hoping.

 

The biggest win I ever had at a blackjack table (an intoxicated letting a few bets ride and a marginal double down) was as a result of the player on 3rd base standing on a 12 against a king. After that I learned not to complain.

 

How about when that guy takes the five, dealer flips over 11 and then pulls the king for a 21? Or the guy who hits the 12 against a 6, gets a 3, then decides to try his luck again?
Those are the moments where, if murder were legal, there would be some clean up crews needed on the casino floor.

As for the randomness of it all ... of course the cards themselves are random, and it resets with each shoe, but how you play them certainly affects the game. There's no way to know how much, of course, but each decision alters the game. Taking the five from the dealer that prevents a 21 on the first hand might set the cards up to run against you for the next five hands, and vice versa.

 

This. Why would you drive past several casinos to get to Atlantic City if you had the choice?

 

The point is that whether you played right or wrong has no impact on whether that decision helps or hurts another player.

A person taking the wrong card can just as easily help you.

 

People bitch about that all the time. That's my point. They never, ever say anything when the "wrong" play helps them.

 

I'm sorry if I came off too critical.
You will lose money playing that strategy because there are more permutations that cause you to lose than there are permutations that cause you to win, unless you have a count on the deck.
Let'
Let's say theoretically it's a new six-deck shoe with no cut card.
Throw out As because the dealer didn't turn up BJ.
There are 168 cards that beat you outright.
There are 144 cards that cause the dealer to hit, but they don't automatically lead to a bust

 

I hear you . . . but hear this: That specific game was one of the most-infected with the dreaded "preferential shuffle" I've ever seen, anywhere. If the count began to get juicy, you started to press and the house didn't like you even a little bit, they shuffled up in an instant. And I'm fond of the El Cortez as an historical artifact, but nobody looking for a sustained advantage at worthwhile bet levels was going to last at that game, for long. Those dealers followed house orders, in lockstep.

 

I've seen people make astoundingly stupid plays all the time but almost never splitting 10s.

 

That's getting more popular with the rise of tournament blackjack, where you're in all-or-nothing mode and you're playing against the rest of the table anyway so don't even care in the least about the glares you'll get.

Against a 5 or 6 you can kind of see the rationale, which is the same as doubling down with your 8 or 9 or soft 16 -- you don't even care what your hand is, you're just getting your money out there for the dealer bust.

Not that I do it. I'd rather win one hand than lose two.