Blackjack 50/50 odds

[theDotster]

Hi,

I was speaking to someone the other day and they were saying they didn't understand how blackjack wasn't a 50/50 game, because ultimately it is you against the dealer, and I suppose in theory, as they have to draw to 16 and you can stay when you want perhaps it should be in your favour.

Now I know this isn't true, but was having a hard time trying to explain it.

I just found this:
http://www.svenskkasinoguide.com/artiklar/blackjack-isnt-all-about-winning-more-hands.php

and it says near the bottom:
Many players erroneously think that blackjack is close to a 50-50 game with the house. Nothing could be further from the truth. In blackjack, the player loses the majority of the hands that aren't pushes! The statistics show that a player ties approximately 8 percent of the time, wins approximately 44 percent of the time, and loses approximately 48 percent of the time.


Can anyone shed anymore light on why the dealer will win 4% more of the time than the player?

Paul

[stayouttadabunker]

Most players do not follow the basic strategy rules and waste their money on sucker bets like "Insurance".
The house take % varies depending on the rules placed at the table.
 

[rickhunter]

Everything you wanted to know about blackjack odds but were afraid to ask:

http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack

In general if you play "optimally" the house edge is only about .5% (that's right, payback percentage of 99.5%, who wouldn't play that if it was a slot machine) but most players who wing it, and don't do stupid things like hitting on anything above 12 when the dealer has 15 or more, it's closer to 2% to 4%.  Much better than slots, where 8 to 10% is very common on "generous" machines and 15% or more on stingy machines (i.e. penny slots).

I should mention that the blackjack on the video machines has different odds, because they don't have the same rules, like paying even on blackjack (that alone adds 2.27% to the house edge).

The other thing that affects blackjack is that they will kick you off the table if you do systematic betting.  Since it's not all that difficult to win 1 hand in blackjack you could in theory do the following:

Say you want to win $200.00.

Bet $200 on the table at once:

1.  Loose, down $200.  Bet $400. You win, you are up $200.
2.  If you loose on the $400 bet, you then bet $800 winning $1600 while betting $1400 (200+400+800), and so forth.  Of course you can reach the table limit pretty quickly, but on on $10 tables, the limit is usually $2000, so starting with $10 you could double 7 times, the odds are you are going to win your $10 if the casino will let you play it.

10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 640, 1280

Because it will always win, casino's will immediately kick you off the table if they see you doing this.  Sometimes they will let you get away with doubing your bet twice in a row, but do it again, and you are a goner.

[jay]

The other anomoly that people concern themselves with is the other players at a blackjack table.

You get the muppet at the end of the table who is hitting his 14 while the dealer is showing a 6 up.
The mook busts with a 10 and then the dealer pulls a 5 and makes 21.
You grumble because the 19 you are holding goes down in flames.

According to the wizzard of odds among other sites how other people play does not statistcally impact the table.

It still annoys me to no end but a fool and his money.....

[StatFreak]

Hi,

I was speaking to someone the other day and they were saying they didn't understand how blackjack wasn't a 50/50 game, because ultimately it is you against the dealer, and I suppose in theory, as they have to draw to 16 and you can stay when you want perhaps it should be in your favour.

Now I know this isn't true, but was having a hard time trying to explain it.

Can anyone shed anymore light on why the dealer will win 4% more of the time than the player?

Paul

The simple answer is that the player has to act first. When you break, you lose, even if the dealer would have broken later. In a 50-50 fair game, you would push against your opponent (the house) if both of you went over 21. That's the entire house edge in a nutshell. Everything else the player does is to overcome that advantage.

The house gives back some of that edge to the player by giving the player more latitude on how to play his/her hand. The biggest give back is paying 3:2 on blackjack wins and collecting only even money on blackjack losses. Allowing the player to increase his/her bet after seeing the first two cards (double down) gives back some of the edge to the player. And of course, allowing the player to dig his own hole by hitting or standing as he/she chooses is designed to help the player, but can really hurt players who don't know what they're doing.

As for the rest of it, I highly recommend the Wizard of Odds site.

[StatFreak]

The other thing that affects blackjack is that they will kick you off the table if you do systematic betting.  Since it's not all that difficult to win 1 hand in blackjack you could in theory do the following:

Say you want to win $200.00.

Bet $200 on the table at once:

1.  Loose, down $200.  Bet $400. You win, you are up $200.
2.  If you loose on the $400 bet, you then bet $800 winning $1600 while betting $1400 (200+400+800), and so forth.  Of course you can reach the table limit pretty quickly, but on on $10 tables, the limit is usually $2000, so starting with $10 you could double 7 times, the odds are you are going to win your $10 if the casino will let you play it.

10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 640, 1280

Because it will always win, casino's will immediately kick you off the table if they see you doing this.  Sometimes they will let you get away with doubing your bet twice in a row, but do it again, and you are a goner.

Rick, I beg to differ with you on the casino's policy of stopping players using the Martingale system. When I was young and stupid I tried it, and the casino had no problems with it. In fact, it is precisely because of this system that table limits were put into practice. The system only works in theory because you have to have unlimited resources and unlimited betting limits to make it work. The casinos set their bet limit ranges in accordance with their tolerance for just such play strategies. As soon as you impose a betting limit, you smash this system to pieces.

In your example, the player bets $10 per win and doubles up to seven times to a maximum bet of $1280. The casino will be VERY happy to have you bet like this because the first time you lose that 9^th hand, you will lose $1280 with no way to recoup. Since the house wins more than 50% of the hands, you will end up losing far more than you can win back, because it is much more likely that you will lose 9 hands in a row than it is that you will win 9 hands in a row. Their pockets are deep enough to wait you out.

<PS> Any pit boss that kicks a martingale player off of a blackjack table with an established maximum bet is a fool.
<PPS> Another problem with using this system in BJ, as opposed to baccarat pass line bets in craps, or even money roulette bets is that a blackjack player may be required to split and or double down at any time. Splits are especially important. Failing to double down robs the player of an advantage opportunity. Failing to split when required gives back significant advantage to the house, and in some cases (8-8 vs dealer's 4 through 7, for example.) turns winners into losers.

[StatFreak]

The other anomoly that people concern themselves with is the other players at a blackjack table.

You get the muppet at the end of the table who is hitting his 14 while the dealer is showing a 6 up.
The mook busts with a 10 and then the dealer pulls a 5 and makes 21.
You grumble because the 19 you are holding goes down in flames.

According to the wizzard of odds among other sites how other people play does not statistcally impact the table.

It still annoys me to no end but a fool and his money.....

WOO is right. It's human nature to remember the time that the stupid play burned you, and to forget the time that it helped. Nevertheless, the best thing to do in such a situation is to find another table. People go to casinos to be entertained and to relax; there's no reason to stay and get pissed off at the idiot at third base. Look at it this way: if you can't find another table, you'll be able to return shortly because the fool will end up losing his money faster than average.   

[Bettor Slots]

Someone correct me if I am wrong...but is it not possible to to get equal odds 50/50?  It is irrelevant how the other players at the table play their cards as the deck is still random and over the long haul the cards that fall due to certain players "good or bad play" will always favor or unfavor the results randomly.  The percentages are always in the houses favor when a player uses basic strategy in the long run and certainly greater against a player making odd and uneducated plays due to the simple fact that we are making decisions based solely on the the dealers up card and making "assumptions" about the down card.

Consider this strategy:

A player has one advantage over the dealer in that he/she always gets paid 3/2 typically for a blackjack where the dealer does not.  A player loses advantage whether they are playing basic strategy or not, but always making decisions based on the dealers up card without knowing what the hole card is...but always assuming it is a "10".  A player also loses advantage by taking insurance and by varying the size of their bets as well.  So what happens to the odds if a player plays his/her cards exactly like the the dealer does?  In other words, rather than making decisions about hitting or not based on the dealers up card, instead, always hit until a hand of 17 to 21 is made, or bust, exactly as the dealer does.  In other words, play without looking at the dealers cards all and play exactly as the dealer does, then, over the long haul, are not the results always going to be equal between the player and the dealer? 

[theDotster]

Someone correct me if I am wrong...but is it not possible to to get equal odds 50/50?  ...

 In other words, rather than making decisions about hitting or not based on the dealers up card, instead, always hit until a hand of 17 to 21 is made, or bust, exactly as the dealer does.  In other words, play without looking at the dealers cards all and play exactly as the dealer does, then, over the long haul, are not the results always going to be equal between the player and the dealer? 

I've considered this before, and the answer is this:

The simple answer is that the player has to act first. When you break, you lose, even if the dealer would have broken later. In a 50-50 fair game, you would push against your opponent (the house) if both of you went over 21.

Thanks to SF for reminding me of the answer and to the rest of you for your thoughts.

Paul

[StatFreak]

Someone correct me if I am wrong...but is it not possible to to get equal odds 50/50?  ...

archjds, I'm not sure whether you are asking whether some playing strategy can create a scenario whereby you win the same number of hands that you lose, or whether you are asking if some playing strategy can create a scenario whereby you win back as much money  as you lose making only flat bets? (This would include doubles and splits.)

The answer to the first question is definitely no. The answer to the second question is a qualified yes.

First, I ran a simulation of 500 million hands using a decent count strategy, Hi-Opt II with full indexes to decide how to change the play of the hands, but using flat bets. Full indexes is more than most counters would ever use. I set the player up as the middle player of five at a table of average players. I used six decks dealt down to 1.5 decks, gave the player favorable rules (dealer stands on soft 17, double after split, late surrender). I created a player who buys in at $200, plays $10/hand, and quits when he either loses the $200, doubles it to $400, or has played for 4 hours (This affects simulated shuffle points). The results were that the player lost at a rate of 0.167%. I ran the same setup using basic strategy and the basic strategy player would lose at a rate of 0.321% under the same circumstances.

Next I tried the same simulation under ideal circumstances: at a single deck table with only the one player playing alone (Impossible in a real casino. The low-limit single deck games are always packed with seven players, so you can only get two hands dealt per deal) and with the best possible rules: deal down to 13 cards (1/4 deck), double on any two cards, double after split, dealer stands on soft 17. I didn’t add surrender because we’re already in fantasyland. In this scenario making flat bets, the basic strategy player was dead even – 0.000%. The couning player did win at a rate of 0.111%, or $2.26/hr betting 200 hands/hour at $10/hand. But to win in this way required full-on advanced card counting with full indexes while only making flat bets (a lot of work for nothing). Full indexes means doing things like splitting 10’s, standing on a hard 7, and hitting 17 when the count gets wild enough. No one plays all of these changes.

...
In other words, rather than making decisions about hitting or not based on the dealers up card, instead, always hit until a hand of 17 to 21 is made, or bust, exactly as the dealer does.  In other words, play without looking at the dealers cards all and play exactly as the dealer does, then, over the long haul, are not the results always going to be equal between the player and the dealer? 

This is called "mimicing the dealer". The Wizard of Odds make this answer a simple cut and paste

Bad Strategies

Three popular bad strategies encountered at the blackjack table are never bust, mimic the dealer, and always assume the dealer has a ten in the hole. All three of these are very bad strategies. Following are my specific comments on each of them, including the house edge under Atlantic City rules (dealer stands on soft 17, split up to 4 hands, double after split, double any two cards) of 0.43%.

Never bust: For my analysis of this strategy I assumed the player would never hit a hard 12 or more and based all other decisions on maximizing expected value under this assumption. This results in a house edge of 3.91%.

Mimic the dealer: For my analysis of this strategy I assumed the player would always hit 16 or less and stand on 17 or more. The player as well as dealer stood on soft 17. The player never doubled or split, since the dealer is not allowed to do so. This results in a house edge of 5.48%.

Assume ten in the hole: For this strategy I first figured out the optimal basic strategy under this assumption. If the dealer had an ace up I reverted to the proper basic strategy assumption of assuming the dealer did not have a ten. Then I went back and used this strategy under regular playing conditions. This results in a house edge of 10.03%.

If you are really interested in learning the game and why certain plays are made there are many books that can teach you everything that you want to know.

[StatFreak]

Here is a link to a list of good blackjack books. Btw, I used Qfit's CVData to run the simulations in the last post.

http://www.qfit.com/blackjack-books.htm

[Bettor Slots]

Hi Stat...

Yes that was my question...was it possible to get flat 50/50 odds by not varying your bet and playing exactly as the dealer does.

Thanks for the info....very interesting to see the computer generated results.

Jim

[JRR4]

The main reason why the odds are in the dealers favor is that if you both bust, you lose, it's not a tie.

[jay]

If you bust you lose.
The dealer doesn't draw his cards until after the players have finished.

[JRR4]

But if you play by the dealers rules and hit on 16 or less and you bust and the dealer 'would' have busted if he drew they you both busted but you lose. 

[theDotster]

I think what JRR4 is getting at is, assuming three players:
Player 1: busts
Dealer takes his money
Player 2: stays on 19
Player 3: busts
Dealer takes his money
Dealer has 16 takes a card and busts
He pays Player 2, but has already taken Players 1 & 3 money even though HE and they both busted and technically that is a tie.

[rickhunter]

<PS> Any pit boss that kicks a martingale player off of a blackjack table with an established maximum bet is a fool.
<PPS> Another problem with using this system in BJ, as opposed to baccaract pass line bets in craps, or even money roulette bets is that a blackjack player may be required to split and or double down at any time. Splits are especially important. Failing to double down robs the player of an advantage opportunity. Failing to split when required gives back significant advantage to the house, and in some cases (8-8 vs dealer's 4 through 7, for example.) turns winners into losers.

I got denied a hand in a Cruise casino by doing it.  It was my 4th hand and the dealer said systematic gaming was not permitted.  So it may work in Vegas (I have not tried there), but in Royal Caribbean with the dealer I had, it was a no go.  This was about 4 years ago.  The one and only time I tried to win $25 "for sure"

[StatFreak]

<PS> Any pit boss that kicks a martingale player off of a blackjack table with an established maximum bet is a fool.
<PPS> Another problem with using this system in BJ, as opposed to baccarat pass line bets in craps, or even money roulette bets is that a blackjack player may be required to split and or double down at any time. Splits are especially important. Failing to double down robs the player of an advantage opportunity. Failing to split when required gives back significant advantage to the house, and in some cases (8-8 vs dealer's 4 through 7, for example.) turns winners into losers.

I got denied a hand in a Cruise casino by doing it.  It was my 4th hand and the dealer said systematic gaming was not permitted.  So it may work in Vegas (I have not tried there), but in Royal Caribbean with the dealer I had, it was a no go.  This was about 4 years ago.  The one and only time I tried to win $25 "for sure"

Anything can happen. Hey "It's Vegas!... at sea"   (just kidding)

I've seen casinos implement ridiculous policies and I've seen pit bosses make completely arbitrary decisions, so I guess that I'm not surprised. Casino personnel today have higher levels of education, are generally smarter, and are more knowledgeable than their counterparts of the mob years, but it still amazes me how little they know.



The Sahara in Vegas in a Circus Circus property, or it was the last time I was there several years ago. I had walked down the street from the Strat to play some low-limit blackjack just for fun since I had already won a substantial amount at my usual $25-$200/hand.

I bought in for $40 and was playing flat bets of $5 by basic strategy, but I got lucky and started pressing my bets. I eventually ended up betting $25-35 a hand (still no counting, just basic & luck) and asked if they would pay me in green. They refused, stating that they could only pay with the same cheques that were bet. I asked them to color up some of my cheques so that I could start playing green, and was refused again with the statement that they only would color up a patron when they were done playing.  

I politely reminded them that this was the 21^st century and that customer service was the general rule of thumb at table games nowadays. They still refused. 

I ended up with several hundred dollars in red and they ended up with an empty tray (others had been winning too). So naturally, when I got up to leave they asked me to color up...    ...I carried every last red cheque to the cage after telling them go shove it and to call for a fill.    I've never been back.