The Basic Strategy of Blackjack for the Novice

The basic strategy is almost a mythic thing. Over the years it’s become a bit of a mantra within the
community of people who are serious about their blackjack game and it should be taken seriously by any
Australians who desire to actually win on a regular basis. Well, maybe not a regular basis, but at least a
semi-regular basis right? There really is no way to predict wins enough to say that you will win
consistently over a given period of time, but with the basic strategy memorized so that you can say that
it is safely tucked away under your belt for use whenever you need it, you will notice a marked
improvement in your game to the point that you will find your finances more often in the black than in
the red.

Now unless I specify otherwise, all subsequent references will be to single deck blackjack as dealt on the
Las Vegas strip at your typical American casino: dealer stands on soft 17, player may double on any two
initial cards, but not after splitting pairs. Furthermore, although it is contrary to almost all casino
practices, it will be assumed, when necessary to illustrate general principles of probability that all 52
cards will be dealt before reshuffling.

Fair enough then?

The first questions to occur to a mathematician when facing a game of blackjack are:

1) How should I play to maximize my expectation?

2) What is that maximal expectation?

The answer to the first question then determines the answer to the second question with the answer to
the second ultimately determining whether the card playing mathematician is actually interested in
playing the game.

So to begin with what would be an accurate definition of the basic strategy?

The basic strategy is the strategy which maximizes the player's average possible gains, or possible
expectations, playing his or her one hand against a casino dealer’s complete pack of cards. Thus, with a
given number of decks and fixed set of rules there can be only one "basic strategy” although there may
be several (ever so slightly erroneous) versions of it. It is even conceivable, if not probable, that nobody,
experts included, knows precisely what the basic strategy is, if we pursue the definition to include
instructions on how to play the second and subsequent cards of a split depending on what cards were
used on the earlier parts. For example, suppose we split eights against the dealer's ten, busting the first
hand (8, 7, 7) and reaching (8, 2, 2, 2) on the second. So without peeking at any of your crib notes would
you hit or would you stand with the 14?

Not quite as easy a decision as you might think right?

The basic strategy, then, constitutes a complete set of decision rules covering all possible choices the
player may encounter, but without any reference to any other players' cards or any cards used on a
previous round before the deck is reshuffled. These choices are basically: to split or not to split, to
double down or not to double down (that is the question... how very Shakespearian right?), and to stand
or to draw another card. Some of the decisions seem very self evident, bordering on common sense
such as always drawing another card to a total of six, never drawing to twenty, and not splitting a pair of
fives. But what procedure must be used to assess the correct action in more marginal cases?

Let us then consider the concept of hitting and standing. As an example consider the choice of whether
to draw or stand with (10, 6) against a dealer’s (9). While relatively among the simplest borderline
choices to analyze, we will see that precise resolution of the matter requires an extraordinary amount of
arithmetic (and keep in mind that if you are playing in an actual American Las Vegas casino you won’t be
able to just reach into your pocket and pull out a calculator).

If we stand on our 16, we will win or lose solely on the basis of whether the dealer busts; there will be
no tie. The dealer's exact chance of busting can be found by pursuing all of the 566 distinguishably
different drawing sequences and weighting their paths according to their probability of occurrence. A
few such sequences which lead to a bust are as follows:

Sequence of Drawing the Probability

9, 2, A, T 4/49x4/48x15/47

9, 7, 6 4/49x3/48

9, 2, A, A, A, A, 8 4/49x4/48x3 /47x2/46x 1/45 x4/44

Now it is more than obvious that a computer would be necessary to carry out these computations with
any hope of achieving the requisite accuracy and speed. And the last time I checked the use of
computers in a Las Vegas casino is HIGHLY discouraged, but we shall for illustration’s sake make use of
one. So we find that the dealer's exact chance of busting is 0.2304, and it is time to determine the
"mathematical expectation" associated with this standing strategy. Since we win 0.2304 bets for
every0.7696 ones we lose, our average return is 0.2304 - 0.7696 = - 0.5392, which has the interpretation
to us that we can "be expected" to lose $0.54 on the dollar by hoping the dealer will break and not
risking a bust ourselves.

Now this has been the easy part; analysis of what happens when we draw a card will be more than
fivefold more time consuming. This is because, for each of the five distinguishably different cards we can
draw without busting (A, 2, 3, 4, 5), the dealer's probabilities of making various totals and not just of
busting, must be determined separately.

So for instance (back with our original 16 total), if we draw a (2) we have 18 and presumably would
stand with it. How much is this hand of 10+6+2=18 worth, or in mathematician's language, what is our
conditional expectation if we get a (2) when drawing? We must go back to our dealer probability routine
and play out the dealer's hand again, only now from a 48 card residue (our 2 is no longer available to the
dealer) rather than the 49 card remainder used previously. Once this has been done we're interested
not just in the dealer's chance of busting, but also specifically in how often he comes up with 17, 18, 19,
20 and 21. The result is found in the third line of the table below illustrating the dealer’s chances with a
(9) showing:

Player's Cards 17 18 19 20 21 Bust

10, 6 - - - - - .2304

10, 6, A .1259 .1093 .3576 .1076 .0636 .2360

10, 6, 2 .1248 .1045 .3553 .1265 .0565 .2324

10, 6, 3 .1244 .1060 .3532 .1265 .0621 .2278

10, 6, 4 .1257 .1054 .3546 .1243 .0619 .2281

10, 6, 5 .1252 .1060 .3549 .1256 .0598 .2285

With our player’s hand of (10, 6, 2), or 18, he/she will win .1248 + .2324 =.3572, and lose .3553 + .1265 +
.0565 = .5383. Hence the "conditional expectation" is .3572 - .5383 = -.1811. Some of you may be
surprised that a total of 18 is overall actually a losing hand here. Note also that the dealer's chance of
busting increased a bit, but not a lot, when he couldn't use the player’s (2). Similarly we find all other
conditional expectations.

Player Draws Total of and a Probability Ensuant Expectation To Contribute

A 17 4/49 -.4021 -.0328

2 18 4/49 -.1811 -.0148

3 19 4/49 .2696 .0220

4 20 4/49 .7519 .0614

5 21 4/49 .9402 .0768

Bust - 29/49 -1.0000 -.5918

Bottom line is -.4793

In the "to contribute" column multiply each of the expectations by its probability; the total of this
column, or "bottom line," is the expectation if the player draws a card. Since a loss of $0.48 by drawing
is preferable to a loss of $0.54 from standing, the basic strategy is to draw to (10, 6) v 9.

Analysis of our best strategy and consequent expectation with a smaller total of possibly more than two
cards, such as (5, 4, 3), would be based on a sort of recursive reference to previous calculations of our
optimal expectation and strategy. All this is very tedious and time consuming, but necessary if the exact
player expectation is sought. This, of course, is what computers were designed for as opposed to doing
the calculations by hand.

Okay, I think that that is enough about hitting and standing, but what about the decision on whether to
double down or not? In some cases the decision will be indicated quite obviously by the calculations
that were previously illustrated. Look at this example.

Suppose the player has (A,6) versus the dealer’s 5. So, we know three things:

1. He’d want to draw another card, it having already been determined that drawing is preferable to
standing with soft 17.

2. He won't want a subsequent card no matter what he drew (for instance, drawing to (A, 6, 5) would be
about 7% worse than standing).

3. Our overall expectation from drawing one card is positive-that is, he’d have the advantage. Hence the
decision is clear; by doubling down he’d make about twice as much rather than conducting an un-
doubled draw.

The situation is not quite so obvious when contemplating a double of (8, 2) versus (7). Conditions 1 and
3 above still hold, but if he received a 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 in his draw he’d probably like to draw another card,
which is not permitted if he’d selected the double down option. Therefore, he must compare the
amount he’d lose by forfeiting the right to draw another card with the amount gained by doubling his
bet on the one card draw. It turns out he’d give up about 6% by not drawing a card to his subsequently
developed stiff hands, but the advantage on his extra, doubled dollar is 21%. Since his decision to double
raises expectation it becomes part of the basic strategy.

The Baldwin group (you know, those young mathematics whiz kids back in the mid 1950s who came up
with most of this) pointed out in their original paper that most existing recommendations at the time
hardly suggested doubling at all. Probably the major psychological reason for such a conservative
attitude is the sense of loss of control of the hand, since another card cannot be requested. Doubling on
small soft totals like (A, 2) heightens this feeling, because one could often make a second draw to the
hand with no risk of busting whatsoever.

Due to their infrequency of occurrence, decisions about pair splitting are less important, but
unfortunately much more complicated to resolve. Imagine we have (7, 7) versus the dealer’s (9). The
principal question facing us is whether playing one fourteen is better than playing two, or more, sevens
in what is likely to be a losing situation.

Determination of the exact splitting expectation requires a bloody, tortuous path. First, the exact
probabilities of ending up with two, three, and four sevens would have to be calculated. Then the
player's expectation starting a hand with a seven in each of the three cases would be determined by the
foregoing methods. The overall expectation would result from adding the product of the probabilities of
splitting a particular number of cards and the associated expectations.
Hmmm... my head is now officially starting to swim in a mathematics and probability overload. I think
that after all of this reading in this article and of you actually getting down to the memorizing of the
basic strategy relative to your playing needs you will do okay. I am not making any promises that you will
be rolling in dough, but you will be playing better and smarter. Remember my fellow Australians, that if
you do find yourselves in the US at their fabled Mecca of gambling (aka Las Vegas) remember that they
do NOT like people who are using systems to gain an advantage. So if you appear to be making
calculations while playing blackjack you will find yourself tossed out on your ear. So play smart and
practise before you go there. Other countries don’t seem to get quite as worked up as the Yanks do, but
it is better to work your basic strategy quietly and not loudly.