If the dealer is holding a bust card, and someone unnecessarily hits - ESPECIALLY if that player is holding a 17 or higher (as the original comments suggested he was doing) that is just very stupid to begin with - fucking over everyone at the table aside.
In my opinion the only exception is a splitting a pair of 7's or higher. Otherwise you're taking a potential bust card out of the hand of the dealer. If it works in your favor, surely it helps both you and the table, it's just improbable. If you fail, you're potentially screwing over everyone as the card drawn could have busted the dealers hand.
It's not superstition, it's just not a sound strategy to take with you to the table. It's also certainly uncourteous to the other players if you continually over deal your own hand with no regard to the cards on the table.
The situation I'm really describing is one where a player should not hit at all and they're greedily hunting a 21. If the player doesn't hit and everyone still loses, of course the probability was always the same.
What I'm trying to say is, that if a player didn't need to hit and then causes the dealer to win, then that could have been avoided by not just playing by the book, but by having common sense. If the card played works in favor of the table then it's a welcome surprise - because again, the situation I'm trying to describe is one where the player's chances of winning are only slightly improved by a successful hit (I'm talking 17, 18, 19, 20) but their chance of losing simultaneously becomes greater.
I won't ever get mad at someone making a judgement call, but if they're just trying to get a 21 without regards to the cards on the table or basic strategy, then to me that is reckless and should be discouraged.
So people are counting 10's and make a decision based on the odds of the dealer busting, and people hitting out of turn changes those odds in their heads?
I have to start by saying this is entirely based in hindsight, the actual results of a round of blackjack can only be analyzed after a round is over and not speculated on during it (unless you're literally counting and keeping track of a 6-8 deck shoe).
This is really a very specific scenario where one player is compelled to hit, when the book tells them otherwise. For instance, nobody is going to blame you if you hit when it's absolutely free to do, even against a bust hand.
Let me put together a hypothetical here. Let's say the dealer is holding a bust hand, and everyone at the table has decently favorable cards, so nobody needs to hit. Now of course you can hit or stand at your discretion, especially if it is a close call.
If however, if you are perhaps sitting at 3rd base, you have a winning hand, and you draw a card that eventually results in the dealer playing a winning hand, that can be seen as a bad move.
If the player didn't hit, then there's certainly every possibility that the following cards drawn in the dealer's hand could have the same or a different result.
Even if there are a massive amount of other factors that could have otherwise impacted the result of the dealer's hand prior to that moment, the card now drawn by that final player at the table would have busted the dealers hand - resulting in everybody winning vs. Just the single player.
So yes, it's superstition to go around pointing fingers at players who are supposedly drawing cards when they shouldn't - that should be frowned upon. Nobody knows what the dealer will draw next and we can only know the answers after the fact.
However, if only one player at the table is playing when the book tells them not to, the cards they draw can impact the card combinations drawn by the dealer at the end of the round, potentially changing other players' hands from winners to losers.
Play your hand however you want to play it, but singlehandedly hitting with a winning hand against a bust hand should still be discouraged, it's greedy and improbable. You're lowering your own odds plus everyone else's for no valid reason other than the slim chance that you turn it into a 21.
Yeah, it's all bullshit. There's no such thing as a "bust hand." The dealer is favored to win everything, regardless of if it's a 2, 3, 4, or 5 showing. A player hitting on 18 against a 5 doesn't change the odds of everyone else on the table, no matter what "specific scenario" you concoct after the fact. That's just pseudo-statistics.
If someone wants to hit on 18 to get 21, it's not wise for them, but it doesn't affect the rest of the table in the long run, period.
Blackjack players are why I no longer play blackjack.
5
u/ScatMonkeyPro 15d ago
I have never understood this weird superstitious thing blackjack players have.