6:5 ?

[deshi]

I realize that those of you who post frequently are experienced, advanced players, and do not fit the demographic I am about to comment upon.

Avery Cardoza (sorry, don't have the exact page reference) claims that using his method on single deck blackjack produces a player advantage of .5% to 1% over the house, assuming 3:2 blackjack payoffs.

Now, the casinos, in an unrepentant business move to generate more profits, yield to the law of supply and demand - and offer more and more single deck games. However, IF Mr. Cardoza is correct, and IF the majority of patrons use his strategy correctly, the casinos will now be losing money on single deck blackjack. So, they pay blackjacks 6:5, not 3:2, giving them a 1.39% edge...

Which, if subtracted from the Cardoza method player's advantage of .5%, makes the house advantage just under 1%. Which, unless I am mistaken, is essentially the same house advantage on multi-decks for the typical player using basic strategy only.

I have only been playing a few years, and consider myself a novice. Perhaps I am missing something here, something shared by a brotherhood of which I am not yet a part. But I fail to understand the absolute venom against the 6:5 blackjack, when it seems to: a) restore the typical house edge on other blackjack games, and b) appeal to a more common denominator of patrons.

Comments?

 

[Sonny]

So, they pay blackjacks 6:5, not 3:2, giving them a 1.39% edge...

Which, if subtracted from the Cardoza method player's advantage of .5%, makes the house advantage just under 1%.

Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. Just because a strategy gives you a 0.5% advantage in 3:2 BJ games doesn’t mean that it will reduce the house edge by 0.5% in a 6:5 game. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Cardoza’s method actually increased the player’s disadvantage in a 6:5 BJ game.

-Sonny-

 

[deshi]

Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. ..-Sonny-

Hmmm, interesting. If you have the patience, would you elaborate? I would think that if all hands were played exactly the same... I mean, you aren't changing your play on a natural blackjack - assuming you are a BS, flat bettor, what else would be affected, besides the actual payoff?

Thanks for the cordial response, by the way

 

[Sonny]

The problem is that the 6:5 payout changes more than just your starting advantage. Since the house edge is about 3 times higher than a regular BJ game it will take much more to overcome that disadvantage. Not only do you have a higher house edge to overcome, but the shortage on the BJ payout also makes your advantage move much slower. The odds will not move in your favor as quickly as they would in a 3:2 game. That means you will start out with a much deeper hole to climb out of and you will have to wait much longer too see the light of day.

To be more specific, in a regular SD BJ game the player will get the advantage around a true count of +1. With a 6:5 game he will have to wait until a true count of +5 to get an advantage. That very rarely happens. The player will almost never have the advantage because the house is short-changing him so badly. It’s like using a credit card with a 25% interest rate. Not only will it take you longer to pay it off, but you will end up paying much more money by the time you do. Basically, you are getting double-screwed. :cry:

-Sonny-

 

[EasyRhino]

And other things to consider:

1) I have no idea what Cardoza's method is. However, by name reconition only, there is a very good chance that it is nothing more than a "system" which will not change the house edge.

2) Perfect basic strategy on a 3:2 game won't result in a house edge over 0.75% or so, even on an 8D shoe with bad rules.

 

[deshi]

The correct name of Cardoza's book is "Winning Casino Blackjack for the Non Counter". And he does claim his method will give the player a .5 to 1% advantage on single deck game.

On the other hand, you can buy his book used on Amazon.com for as little as $1.49. Perhaps that is also an indication...

 

[moo321]

Cardoza is an ass, and you should never listen to anything he ever says. I'd give you Ed Thorp's book before I'd give you anything from Cardoza.

 

[QFIT]

The house edge on 6:5 BJ is massive. I believe it is, in fact, criminal fraud on the part of casinos. And worse for the system sellers that try to legitimize this fraud. (Sorry, I don't have a sense of humor on this subject.) Click on the symbol below:

​

 

[deshi]

The house edge on 6:5 BJ is massive. I believe it is, in fact, criminal fraud on the part of casinos. And worse for the system sellers that try to legitimize this fraud. (Sorry, I don't have a sense of humor on this subject.) Click on the symbol below:

I hope you understand my questions are academic, not confrontational. I'd be interested in how the house edge in 6:5 single deck is computed, if you can direct me to a source. Or if you wish to take the time to lay it out here, please do. Thanks,

D

 

[shadroch]

The house edge on 6:5 BJ is massive. I believe it is, in fact, criminal fraud on the part of casinos. And worse for the system sellers that try to legitimize this fraud. (Sorry, I don't have a sense of humor on this subject.) Click on the symbol below:

​

Saying somethingis criminal fraud is pretty strong. I'd love to hear your argument for saying this.As a stockholder in several casino companies,I certainly don't want to be involved in fraud. State your case,please.

 

[QFIT]

I hope you understand my questions are academic, not confrontational. I'd be interested in how the house edge in 6:5 single deck is computed, if you can direct me to a source. Or if you wish to take the time to lay it out here, please do. Thanks,

D

Not meaning any confrontation either (except against casinos and system sellers.) BJ advantages are simmed or calculated using combinatorial analysis, not calculated algorithmically. But as a rough estimate, you get a BJ 5% of the time. If the end result is 6:5 instead of 7.5:5. then you lose 1.5 units .05 of the time for a loss in advantage of 1.5/5*.05=.015. Or about a 1.5% drop in advantage. That’s big.

 

[QFIT]

Saying somethingis criminal fraud is pretty strong. I'd love to hear your argument for saying this.As a stockholder in several casino companies,I certainly don't want to be involved in fraud. State your case,please.

1. Click on the link. The game of Blackjack has been defined as having a 3:2 bonus since World War I. This is literally what the name means and what separated it from Vingt-un. If it pays less, it is not Blackjack.
2. When HET first advertised this game, they put a huge sign on the Strip saying "Single Deck Blackjack with a whopping 6:5 Blackjack Bonus."
3. To this day, I have seen people that think they understand Blackjack (and control the Wiki Harrah's page) claim that 6:5 BJ is a good deal because everyone knows that single deck is better.

It is the intention of casinos to fool people into thinking that 6:5 is actually superior to the now omnipresent shoe games, based on the long-held belief that SD is better than shoes.

As Aristotle said, “The intention makes the crime.”

 

[vonQuux]

Saying somethingis criminal fraud is pretty strong. I'd love to hear your argument for saying this.As a stockholder in several casino companies,I certainly don't want to be involved in fraud. State your case,please.

I don't wish to speak for QFIT but I'm guessing that he feels a 6:5 payout on a natural makes the game something other than blackjack.

For example, one might object if the rules of baseball were changed to require five balls for a "walk." You can call it whatever you want but one could arguably make the case that it's no longer "baseball."

vQ

 

[21forme]

As a stockholder in several casino companies,I certainly don't want to be involved in fraud. State your case,please.

You must have a lot of internal conflict :grin:

 

[QFIT]

I don't wish to speak for QFIT but I'm guessing that he feels a 6:5 payout on a natural makes the game something other than blackjack.

For example, one might object if the rules of baseball were changed to require five balls for a "walk." You can call it whatever you want but one could arguably make the case that it's no longer "baseball."

vQ

Well put. But in this case it is actually the name of the game. A better analogy might be removing the bases and the ball from Baseball

 

[vonQuux]

Well put. But in this case it is actually the name of the game. A better analogy might be removing the bases and the ball from Baseball

As I understand it, the rules of vingt-et-un were simply that the best hand up to -- but not surpassing -- 21, wins.

Originally, Blackjack retained this premise but allowed for a specific class of card combination to be defined as special; a black jack and an ace.

Thus the name.

So from a purist perspective, one might argue that the game as we all know and enjoy it today is not "Blackjack" at all since any face card (plus tens) are allowed to create a blackjack. While there are only two black jacks, there are another eighteen cards which will complete a so-called "blackjack" under the rules you that you consider perfectly valid.

The definition of fraud is thus:

fraud noun 1 a: deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick

So while I'm 100% with you in lamenting the rise of 6:5 (and the public acceptance of it), and I agree that the game they're offering is no longer truly "Blackjack," I can neither call the casino's actions "fraud" (since they are making plain the rules that they change) nor decry their actions as discordant with the original nature and name of the game (since we do that ourselves during contemporary play by allowing a blackjack to be comprised of something other than a black jack).

vQ

 

[la_dee_daa]

2. When HET first advertised this game, they put a huge sign on the Strip saying "Single Deck Blackjack with a whopping 6:5 Blackjack Bonus."

It is the intention of casinos to fool people into thinking that 6:5 is actually superior to the now omnipresent shoe games, based on the long-held belief that SD is better than shoes.

As Aristotle said, “The intention makes the crime.”

The definition of fraud is thus:

fraud noun 1 a: deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick

i vote fraud.

I also hear they try to hide the signs that say its 6/5 blackjack when presenting a single deck or double deck game, but i don't know for sure since i haven't been to vegas or any other large gambling places. this is very deceiving in my opinion.

 

[QFIT]

As I understand it, the rules of vingt-et-un were simply that the best hand up to -- but not surpassing -- 21, wins.

Originally, Blackjack retained this premise but allowed for a specific class of card combination to be defined as special; a black jack and an ace.

Thus the name.

So from a purist perspective, one might argue that the game as we all know and enjoy it today is not "Blackjack" at all since any face card (plus tens) are allowed to create a blackjack. While there are only two black jacks, there are another eighteen cards which will complete a so-called "blackjack" under the rules you that you consider perfectly valid.

The definition of fraud is thus:

fraud noun 1 a: deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick

So while I'm 100% with you in lamenting the rise of 6:5 (and the public acceptance of it), and I agree that the game they're offering is no longer truly "Blackjack," I can neither call the casino's actions "fraud" (since they are making plain the rules that they change) nor decry their actions as discordant with the original nature and name of the game (since we do that ourselves during contemporary play by allowing a blackjack to be comprised of something other than a black jack).

vQ

Yes in 1912 according to Scarne and originally it paid 10:1. But it was very quickly (by WWI) changed to the current rules and 3:2 on any natural was paid by the time the name "Black Jack" was actually printed on the tables as the name of the game.

The casinos do not make the rules that clear. Most long-time players are surprised when they get short-paid. That's how they discover the rule. The attempt was to convince people that they were getting an extra bonus because 6 (in 6:5) is larger than 3 (in 3:2). Given the original ads for the game, I think it fits the English language definition of fraud perfectly, albeit probably not the legal definition.

 

[vonQuux]

The game of Blackjack has been defined as having a 3:2 bonus since World War I. This is literally what the name means and what separated it from Vingt-un. If it pays less, it is not Blackjack.

"Blackjack" doesn't denote a payout ratio at all so I'm confused where "literally" fits into the scheme. Literally, the name implies that a "black jack" is necessary to complete a "natural 21," nothing more, and we agree that it no longer is required (and yet the game can still reasonably be called "Blackjack").

The casinos do not make the rules that clear. Most long-time players are surprised when they get short-paid. That's how they discover the rule. The attempt was to convince people that they were getting an extra bonus because 6 (in 6:5) is larger than 3 (in 3:2). Given the original ads for the game, I think it fits the English language definition of fraud perfectly, albeit probably not the legal definition.

So your quarrel with the casino is not that they're fundamentally changing the rules of the game -- we seem to both agree that the modern incarnation has rules that have changed since the game's inception -- but that the casinos seek to obfuscate the 3:2 -> 6:5 shift?

If so, my question would be "how does the house achieve this fraud?" I don't frequent casinos so I have no frame of reference.

If they do so by posting it clearly and hoping that the player is ignorant of the fact that 6/5 is smaller than 3/2, I'd have to confess little sympathy for the player.

If, on the other hand, they don't post it clearly, then you and I would agree.

vQ

 

[bj bob]

Another angle

Hmmm, interesting. If you have the patience, would you elaborate? I would think that if all hands were played exactly the same... I mean, you aren't changing your play on a natural blackjack - assuming you are a BS, flat bettor, what else would be affected, besides the actual payoff?

Thanks for the cordial response, by the way

Fraud?=......No
Deceit?=.....Yes
Unethical?...Boarding on yes

Let me try to explain what Sonny, Shad and Norm are telling you on a more concrete level.
Suppose you're playing a SD $10 min. (3:2). You are counting and your bet spread is $10-$40. You're playing heads-up at 100 hands/ hour. If you're a decent counter with good rules and penetration you should expect to win about $20/ hour (i.e. 2U)and in that hour you would expect 5 BJ's. Now say you go over to the 6:5 table with the exact same speed and spread, your same 5 BJ's will have only paid $60 BJ's, whereas, at the first table you would have received $75. There is a $15 difference right there..almost all of your expected gain. In all probability, since we as counters tend to have larger bets out when a BJ hits, one can safely say that our BJ's would have paid off with an average $20 bet, thus in effect, caused us to lose out on $30, more than the expected profit/ hour.
Hopefully this example puts things into perspective for you. Let me end by saying that the 6:5 garbage is the same thing as counting a grand slam in baseball as three runs. IT'S UN-AMERICAN!!!:whip: