Blackjack fallacy

[Flatzem]

thought I would share this from one of my Blackjack books

Blackjack fallacy

The object is to get to 21

Casino literature often mistakenly states that, "The object of the game is to get to a total of 21, or as close as possible, without exceeding 21." This however is a misleading statement.
   The true object of the game is to win, is it not? And to win you must beat the dealer's hand. It's true that having a hand whose value is close to, but does not exceed, a total of 21 means your chances of winning the hand are good.
   But often, the best strategy is to stand, despite the fact that your total is far from 21, especially when the dealer has a weak upcard. In this case you are hoping the dealer will bust, whereby you win no matter what your total.

[Afi4wins]

Getting 21 points is what the name Blackjack means, either getting it by a few numbers, or by getting a picture and an Ace card. Getting 21 points makes your bet secure...it may break even with the dealer, but it gives you a win in every other case. That's the main object of the game.

But as you know, whenever you're playing against a dealer, against another player, or against a group of other players, the main object of the game changes...the main thing is to beat your opponent in the best possible ways, and not necessarily aiming for that 21 points!

[cocopop3011]

Yes I suppose you are correct! I think everyone just wants to get that magic 21! I grew up playing this game with my dad   We used to love a deck of cards, how ironic that in my adult years I went on to love slots just as much  Gambling has been in my blood from a very young age, grew up on a caravan site, spending my pocket money on arcade games and fruit machines.