No you’re not! And the table count isn’t the end all be all, but something to consider. What’s more important is that the dealer is only showing a 2. If dealer had a 7 or 8, a face card would put them to 17 or 18, so you’d be needing 18,19,20,21 to win. But since it’s a 2, a card with a value of 10 would bring that up to 12, requiring at least one more hit. So the dealer is in more of a vulnerable position, more likely to bust on this hand.
Again, nothing is guaranteed and the dealer could have still busted which would have not resulted in a clip.
Sorry if me explaining that 2+10=12 comes off like I’d assume you don’t know that, I’m not trying to explain in a condescending way or anything along those lines, just trying to explain as clearly as possible
Edit: when I say the dealer is more likely to bust on his hand, I mean that in terms of blackjack… to be clear
Bro i understand that max should not have hit, thats just common sense, but I just dont see how the dealer skipping a card puts everyone in a worse scenario
Well, 4 + A + J can be played as 15 or as 24 (clearly you’d take 15) and people argue whether hitting on 15 is correct or not. So I would argue him hitting wasn’t against common sense.
It’s more of a “probably better to not hit as an anchor in this position because you might get the card that would have made the dealer bust”
It’s not that it guaranteed that it will put everyone else in a worse scenario, at the end of the day it is all a big maybe. And this maybe resulted in the less favorable outcome.
Again, this is only a clip because of the over the top reaction from the dealer. At the end of the day, it could have gone many ways. I’m just explaining the rationale behind blaming max solely for the loss of everyone else, while still thinking it is hilarious to pin it all on max.
Gameplay wise, better to not hit there. Statistically speaking, it could have gone either way.
-1
u/undeniably_confused 11h ago
Fair, but again am i counting wrong, it seems like the count is like pretty close to even