J.Clints
05-20-2007, 06:08 AM
FREEDOM OF SPEECH VS. BLACKJACK MYTH OR IN DEFENSE OF O&A
From the book "Blackjack Bluebook II" by Fred Renzey:
"Most serious blackjack players object to the order of the cards being changed only when things are going well. And if they're losing, then they in fact want to change the cards around so as to break the dealer's "hot streak". This suggests that if you're winning, then the following cards in the shoe are stacked in your favor, and shouldn't be tampered with. But in reality, all it means is that the previous cards in the shoe were stacked in your favor.
An enlightening study on just this kind of "streakiness" was reported on in Stanford Wong's highly recommended book, Professional Blackjack. In that experiment, 20 million computer hands were run, recording the win/lose results for the player immediately following two consecutive wins, two consecutive losses and every possible two hand combination of wins, losses and ties. The results?
VIRTUALLY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY OF THEM!
The player was no more likely to win his next hand just after having won two in a row, than immediately after losing two in a row. So then, what is there to be preserved in the order of the cards? In that regard, every next hand is a brand new ball game."
____
John here.
In the case of Opie and Anthony, and yes, even Don Imus, they were hired and respected for their ability to stare the dealer in the eye and hit on their 16 against an ace. When they drew a five, they were revered for their gambling acumen. But when they busted, as anyone in the ongoing gamble of speaking freely (now semantically different than "free speech") does from time to time, they were asked to hand in their player's cards and escorted to their vehicles.
I believe that free speech protects not what has already been spoken, but what has yet to be said. Sure, once a sentence is constructed, the words can be determined to be either winning or losing, as are the cards in the discard pile. Except instead of obeying a static, rule, society is left to sift through the played cards and argue what should beat the dealer, when we should have hit and stood, and just what the hell we were doing that night in Vegas in the first place.
It seems to me that in this gamble, we should change either the odds or the payout.
From the book "Blackjack Bluebook II" by Fred Renzey:
"Most serious blackjack players object to the order of the cards being changed only when things are going well. And if they're losing, then they in fact want to change the cards around so as to break the dealer's "hot streak". This suggests that if you're winning, then the following cards in the shoe are stacked in your favor, and shouldn't be tampered with. But in reality, all it means is that the previous cards in the shoe were stacked in your favor.
An enlightening study on just this kind of "streakiness" was reported on in Stanford Wong's highly recommended book, Professional Blackjack. In that experiment, 20 million computer hands were run, recording the win/lose results for the player immediately following two consecutive wins, two consecutive losses and every possible two hand combination of wins, losses and ties. The results?
VIRTUALLY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY OF THEM!
The player was no more likely to win his next hand just after having won two in a row, than immediately after losing two in a row. So then, what is there to be preserved in the order of the cards? In that regard, every next hand is a brand new ball game."
____
John here.
In the case of Opie and Anthony, and yes, even Don Imus, they were hired and respected for their ability to stare the dealer in the eye and hit on their 16 against an ace. When they drew a five, they were revered for their gambling acumen. But when they busted, as anyone in the ongoing gamble of speaking freely (now semantically different than "free speech") does from time to time, they were asked to hand in their player's cards and escorted to their vehicles.
I believe that free speech protects not what has already been spoken, but what has yet to be said. Sure, once a sentence is constructed, the words can be determined to be either winning or losing, as are the cards in the discard pile. Except instead of obeying a static, rule, society is left to sift through the played cards and argue what should beat the dealer, when we should have hit and stood, and just what the hell we were doing that night in Vegas in the first place.
It seems to me that in this gamble, we should change either the odds or the payout.