3:1 on suited blackjacks?

[MGP]

I read your post and it gave me a headache. I was hoping being armed with the sure and certain knowledge of the right answer would inspire you to find your mistake.

If you agree that suited BJ's occur 1.18628% of the time, how can u disagree with the conclusion? Can you tell me that? It's axiomatic. How you can continue to think you have not made an error is beyond me.

I'm sorry I gave you a headache but this statement will come come back to bit you in the a--. It is you who has the error and needs to open your eyes to see your mistake

Put another way, if ALL BJ's were ALWAYS paid 3-1 that would be worth 0.047451344*1.5=0.071177016 wouldn't it? Can you see that as a starting point?

If suited BJ's occur 1.18628% of the time, and we've already agreed they do, then non-suited BJ's occur 0.047471344-0.0118628=0.035588544 of the time. Can we agree on that?

Which would be worth 0.035588544*1.5=0.053382816.

So the difference between the 2 has to be what suited BJ's are worth or 1.7794%.

It's really pretty straightforward and much easier to do since you don't even have to worry about tied BJ's.

This is where your mistake is... Read it again and again and see if you can see your error before you read further down.

The only think you need to find out is the frequency of suited BJ's. What else is there to find out if they always win?

Maybe you can do your CA thing with a base EV of all BJ's being paid 3-1 and see if it changes by the first number above and work from there?

Somewhere I think you're counting the 1.5 units twice on the value of a tied suited BJ. A tied suited BJ will occur 0.0005463029 of the time. Multiply that by 1.5 and add it to our original result of 1.69747 and you will also get the 1.7794%. You've added it twice to get your 1.86%.

For 1.86% to be correct, suited BJ's would have to occur 0.0124091 of the time wouldn't they? Since that *1.5 = your 1.86%.

You're answering your own question but missing it. Non-suited blackjacks don't pay 1.5 for pushes, they pay 0. Suited blackjacks on the other hand pay 3. So the difference for pushes is not 1.5*p(Push) but it's 3*p(Push).

So I guess you either you still need to show me where I'm wrong or you need to redefine "axiomatic" and "certain knowledge"

BTW - I hope you know I'm just playing with the banter - it can be very confusing. My ca doesn't just do straightforward BJ always wins and must wins but also applies bonuses to specific suits and can apply suited bonuses to specific hands with or without the dealer peaking - so believe me, I had to think this through a lot.

 

[Kasi]

BTW - I hope you know I'm just playing with the banter - it can be very confusing. My ca doesn't just do straightforward BJ always wins and must wins but also applies bonuses to specific suits and can apply suited bonuses to specific hands with or without the dealer peaking - so believe me, I had to think this through a lot.

Not a problem at all lol.

If we are trying to find the value of a suited BJ always being paid 3-1, I don't care if u pay non-suited BJ's nothing or 10-1 or pay nonsuited BJ pushes 0 or 100-1, the value of always paying a suited BJ 3-1 will always be the same regardless of any other rule changes. It is what it is.

And the value of a suited BJ always being paid 3-1 will always be the frequency of a suited BJ times the extra units it's being paid.

Ken, Fred, Norm somebody help me! Is the above statement correct or not?

I feel like Cassandra warning the villagers war was coming but nobody would believe her either. So they all got killed.

 

[MGP]

And the value of a suited BJ always being paid 3-1 will always be the frequency of a suited BJ times the extra units it's being paid.

EXACTLY!!! We are looking at the EXTRA units being payed. You are not taking into account that for pushes regular BJ doesn't pay anything so the extra units are 3*p(Push).

Ken, Fred, Norm somebody help me! Is the above statement correct or not?

I feel like Cassandra warning the villagers war was coming but nobody would believe her either. So they all got killed.

Ditto

 

[MGP]

Ok here, this is my last try. You seem to believe the Wizard more than me and in this particular instance he's correct.

Based on your certain knowledge - the added value of a 2:1 BJ payoff shoud be:

Blackjacks pay 2 to 1 0.047451344*0.5 = 0.023725672 = 2.37%

And yet, on his site (http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack) he gives the value of a 2:1 BJ as:

Blackjacks pay 2 to 1 +2.27%

Please show how your axioms explain that difference.

p.s. Let me give you a hint as to why the difference is there using different axioms - look at the percent of time the BJ's push

 

[MGP]

I guess by your silence Kasi that you're either busy, still convinced that you're correct and have given up, or have seen the error of your ways and couldn't bring yourself to admit it.

In case you're busy let's look at the Wizard's number again which pretty much matches mine btw (it should be 2.26%). Instead however of looking at the difference of just a 2:1 BJ and a 1.5:1 BJ, let's look at the difference between the 2:1 BJ and the 1:1 BJ.

If you look at his page, it's simply 2*2.27% = 4.54%

According to your method - the net gain by switching from a 1:1 BJ to a 2:1 BJ should simply be the probability of BJ - agreed?

This is as you've pointed out 4.75%. You'll note that these two numbers don't match. The difference of course is the the percent of time the player pushes - i.e. 0.22%.

Why you ask? It's for the reason I tried to explain before - the player receives nothing against a push with regular BJ's and so the difference in EV between the two is not effected by pushes.

It's obviously the same reason why 1.86% is correct for the difference in EV between a no bonus game and a game with a suited bonus that beats dealer BJ. Because while the value of regular BJ is 0 for pushes, it's 3 for suited pushes.

Ok - that really was the last attempt.

 

[Kasi]

I guess by your silence Kasi that you're either busy, still convinced that you're correct and have given up, or have seen the error of your ways and couldn't bring yourself to admit it.

You're right. I'm wrong.

I don't mind telling u that nearly as much as my wife lol!

Actually it came to me right after your post #43 while driving to get Turbo Tax.

Thanks for sticking with me - that's how I learn - a little bit at a time. This time my math was good, which is usually the problem and my brain was bad lol. Tried to insert some gif file but don't know if it will work. If it does, u can guess who u are and who I am lol.

Apologies to all for bringing this thread up again. Man u miss a week here and it took a while to just find it!

 

[MGP]

You're right. I'm wrong.

I don't mind telling u that nearly as much as my wife lol!

Actually it came to me right after your post #43 while driving to get Turbo Tax.

Thanks for sticking with me - that's how I learn - a little bit at a time. This time my math was good, which is usually the problem and my brain was bad lol. Tried to insert some gif file but don't know if it will work. If it does, u can guess who u are and who I am lol.

Apologies to all for bringing this thread up again. Man u miss a week here and it took a while to just find it!

LOL. I'm just glad you got it - I wasn't sure how else to explain it.

Sincerely,
MGP