3+1 Pays 9 to 1 BJ SIDEBET +EV

[Lowrider]

All,

I am look for detailed information on how to beat the 21+3 side bet on some BJ games whose locations will remain unnamed.

21+3 is a side bet where you play with your first two up cards plus the dealers upcard and the casino pays you 9-1 on these hands as I can remember...
Straight
Flush
3 of a kind
Straight Flush

Does anyone have any information, links, etc. On any systems to beat this game?

I AM NOT LOOKING FOR LINKS THAT TALK ABOUT THE SIDE BET IN GENERAL...I HAVE FOUND TONS OF THOSE USELESS LINKS...

In sum, can anyone provide information on THE KO COUNT AND HIGH LOW COUNT AT WHICH THIS SIDE BET IS + EV AND THE SUGGESTED BET SIZES?

Or does this side bet necessitate a separate second count?

THANKS A MILLON FOR ANY INFO!

I use KO and HIGH LO counting systems and was wondering at what count this bet is profitable and how much to bet?

Thanks

 

[Southpaw]

I have never seen any literature detailing how to beat this side-bet. Do you happen to know what the HE on this side-bet is off the top?

My guess is that traditional counting systems are extremely weak indicators of when this bet becomes +EV.

Straight--A large positive or largely negative count would only weakly indicate a greater possibility of a 3 card straight. Think about it for a moment. The correlation is there, albeit probably weak.

3 of a Kind--A large positive or largely negative count would only weakly indicate a greater possibility of a 3 of a kind. Again, think about it for a moment. The correlation is there, albeit probably weak.

Flush--No traditional counting system would help you indicate whether a flush is more or less probable.

However, I think that attacking this side-bet through the flush would be the most feasible. It won't necessarily be easy, though, because there are 4 different suits. Therefore, the count might have to be rather complex.

Keep in mind that from literature written about TCP we know the probability of a 3 card flush in a single-deck game is about 4.9%, which is higher than that of of 3 of a kind or a 3-card straight. This is further reason to attack via the flush.

Basically, you'd have to design a count that indicates when the remaining decks are rich in one suit compared to the rest. If the HE on the side-bet is too high to begin with, which I suspect it is, then you'll completely be wasting your time trying to do this.

Spaw

 

[tthree]

I dont see where any of the combinations that are paid correlate to counting. My guess is no index can be formulated.

 

[Sonny]

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=45206

-Sonny-

 

[MangoJ]

Flush--No traditional counting system would help you indicate whether a flush is more or less probable.

However, I think that attacking this side-bet through the flush would be the most feasible. It won't necessarily be easy, though, because there are 4 different suits. Therefore, the count might have to be rather complex.

I like that idea. Let's try a complex count.
Clubs are +1, Spades are -1,
Diamonds are +i, Hearts are -i.
One could then bet according to |TC|.

A quick simulation could tell index threshold and player edges.

 

[Southpaw]

I dont see where any of the combinations that are paid correlate to counting. My guess is no index can be formulated.

Think about it. If the count is higher in magnitude (either positive or negative), then that means that there are either many high cards and few low cards or few high cards and many low cards. This will increase the probability of a straight because then there are more cards that are near each other in rank and fewer that will be far away from these cards in rank.

A similar argument can be made for the three of a kind. If the count is higher in magnitude (either positive or negative), then that means that there are either many high cards and few low cards or few high cards and many low cards. It also means that a higher percentage of the remaining decks are composed of higher concentrations of a fewer number of ranks.

Again, as I said in my first post, the correlation here for both of these is probably very weak, although it should be there.

Spaw

 

[Sonny]

It looks like the link to the source code has expired, but here is a link to some advice for anyone interested in writing a simulator:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=14843

-Sonny-

 

[Dyepaintball12]

I like that idea. Let's try a complex count.
Clubs are +1, Spades are -1,
Diamonds are +i, Hearts are -i.
One could then bet according to |TC|.

A quick simulation could tell index threshold and player edges.

I read this strategy on this forum a couple months back, and the poster said it gets positive around +20, TC.

 

[Vytas]

21+3

I usually play at a $5 table and my normal bet is $10. But when the count is higher than -2 (-2 being wong out) but lower than 0, I'll split my bet up with $5 on 21+3 and $5 on the hand. There is nothing scientific about this, but it appears to reduce my variance a bit. Many times I've gotten a stiff to lose the hand but get the 9 to 1 pay off on the side bet. I know this probably sounds like voodoo to many, but that's how I roll if the 21+3 is available. I'll also sit through some awful negative counts if I'm STing a super slug, then bet the LL side bet through the slug. My two cents FWIW.

 

[Cardcounter]

That bet is impossible to beat long term. There is no way to beat it except short term luck.
The only blackjack side bet that would be beatable would be first two cards equal 20. That game has such a high house edge the bet on that one would only be profitable 5% of the time in really high counts.

 

[ningtong88]

I've read all the old post on this board about 21+3, counting # of red vs. # of black makes sense to me, but the inventor said it would be a plausible bet if the TC of the color is +20 or more, does anyone know how often this happens? If it does happen, do you think it would be a good idea to martingale it in some way since it pays 9 to 1, so starting the bet at $5, then go up to $10, $15, $25, $30 and so on, the max bet at one of my local casinos is $500. The less the players there are on the same table the better, right?

Thanks!

 

[rrwoods]

do you think it would be a good idea to martingale it in some way

I've removed the context of this question from the quote because it doesn't matter.

It is never a "good idea" to "martingale" anything. Ever. No exceptions.

 

[Southpaw]

I usually play at a $5 table and my normal bet is $10. But when the count is higher than -2 (-2 being wong out) but lower than 0, I'll split my bet up with $5 on 21+3 and $5 on the hand. There is nothing scientific about this, but it appears to reduce my variance a bit. Many times I've gotten a stiff to lose the hand but get the 9 to 1 pay off on the side bet. I know this probably sounds like voodoo to many, but that's how I roll if the 21+3 is available. I'll also sit through some awful negative counts if I'm STing a super slug, then bet the LL side bet through the slug. My two cents FWIW.

I've read all the old post on this board about 21+3, counting # of red vs. # of black makes sense to me, but the inventor said it would be a plausible bet if the TC of the color is +20 or more, does anyone know how often this happens? If it does happen, do you think it would be a good idea to martingale it in some way since it pays 9 to 1, so starting the bet at $5, then go up to $10, $15, $25, $30 and so on, the max bet at one of my local casinos is $500. The less the players there are on the same table the better, right?

Thanks!

You two have a lot to learn my friends.

Spaw