Ante every hand question

[Kasi]

Kasi you're really not getting this.

Well, you, and others, are probably right, as is so often the case when no one agrees with me lol.

I guess I was applying the extra ante as if it were part of the bet.

Anyway, I dug this up and wondered what you, or others, think of it.

http://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/22

While the fixed dollar bonuses in that example are different, he does talk about how the comparative benefit of the bonuses decreases with larger bet sizes.

At least in that example, he seems to be saying betting 50 cents on $5 (10% of bet amount) is better than betting 50 cents on $24 (2% of original bet).

Had the original poster listed different fixed dollar pay-outs for different hands, would anything change or, at what point, would you have the same or different opinion?

Still trying to grasp exactly what this depends on or if the question is even answerable without knowing the totality of all rules involved.

 

[Unshake]

Well, you, and others, are probably right, as is so often the case when no one agrees with me lol.

I guess I was applying the extra ante as if it were part of the bet.

Anyway, I dug this up and wondered what you, or others, think of it.

http://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/22

While the fixed dollar bonuses in that example are different, he does talk about how the comparative benefit of the bonuses decreases with larger bet sizes.

At least in that example, he seems to be saying betting 50 cents on $5 (10% of bet amount) is better than betting 50 cents on $24 (2% of original bet).

Had the original poster listed different fixed dollar pay-outs for different hands, would anything change or, at what point, would you have the same or different opinion?

Still trying to grasp exactly what this depends on or if the question is even answerable without knowing the totality of all rules involved.

Sorry I guess I can clarify. The conditions are identical to those printed on 'wizard of odds' with the exclusion of one thing. 4 blackjacks in a row pays $1000 (obviously anything higher than 4 continues to keep paying the $1000).

I also found out that the ante is the exact same 50 cents for $5-$25 and $1 for $25-$100.

 

[RJT]

Kasi, the difference is solely the ante. If we were just discussing fixed dollar bonuses then yes the value would go down dramatically with higher bets, but the more significant of the rules is the ante. Any benifit you gain from the bonuses is more than wiped out by the ante and the way to minimize the ante is to bet high. Now the raised ante on higher bets might make it better to bet somewhere in between (aka just under the amount for the higher ante), but you'd have to do the research before you played this. Any game with an ante is a bad game in general.

RJT.

 

[Kasi]

Sorry I guess I can clarify. The conditions are identical to those printed on 'wizard of odds' with the exclusion of one thing. 4 blackjacks in a row pays $1000 (obviously anything higher than 4 continues to keep paying the $1000).

I also found out that the ante is the exact same 50 cents for $5-$25 and $1 for $25-$100.

I'm shocked. Shocked. Utterly shocked

Who said that anyway - Sherlock Holmes?

But I'm still not smart enough to figure out the HA, if any, at various bet sizes under these circumstances.

I still think the HA is variable depending on bet size and, maybe, might be the least, by betting the minimum.

But, maybe, that's only true if the extra rules overcome the 50 cent ante. Still thinking about it.

We are assuming now, which I don't think I was before, that the 50 cent ante is collected by the house in full every hand regardless of the outcome of the, say, $5 bet?

Perhaps someone could begin by verifying the results as stated by the Wiz and taking it from there.

 

[Kasi]

...but you'd have to do the research before you played this.

I think that's the conclusion I'm coming to too. Did we do the research? I know I didn't lol. I don't know the number of decks, the rules in place without the fixed dollar bonuses, whether these fixed dollar bonuses are payable if dealer has blackjack too, etc,.

Without doing it, can either of us, or anyone, definitively say anything?

If the value of fixed dollar bonuses go down with a higher bet without an ante, as we seem to agree on now, would they not also go down if one included an ante bet?

Is what needs to be determined is whether the value of the fixed dollar bonuses exceed the ante on a cents/hand basis?

Just asking lol.

 

[Unshake]

I think that's the conclusion I'm coming to too. Did we do the research? I know I didn't lol. I don't know the number of decks, the rules in place without the fixed dollar bonuses, whether these fixed dollar bonuses are payable if dealer has blackjack too, etc,.

Without doing it, can either of us, or anyone, definitively say anything?

If the value of fixed dollar bonuses go down with a higher bet without an ante, as we seem to agree on now, would they not also go down if one included an ante bet?

Is what needs to be determined is whether the value of the fixed dollar bonuses exceed the ante on a cents/hand basis?

Just asking lol.

Rules are same as stated on the wizard of odds site. Bonuses are not payable on dealer blackjack. 6 decks, da2, das, split up to 4, bj pays 3/2, H17.

 

[Guynoire]

Here’s my take on the issue. The probability of getting a 777 in a six-deck game is about .0004, assuming you always hit your 77. The probability of getting 3 blackjacks on 3 hands is about .000022, and the probability of getting 4 blackjacks on four hands is about .000001. This math was done on a calculator using conditional probabilities for a six deck game, I invite you to please check my math.

Summary 3 7’s .0004
3 blackjacks in 3 hands .000022
4 blackjacks in 4 hands .000001

If you were to play 1 million hands you would expect to get 400 3 7’s, 22 3 blackjacks, 1 4 blackjacks and pay $500,000 in antes.

(400x 50+ 22x750 +1x1000 -500,000)/ 1,000,000= -.4625

So you expect to lose about 46 cents per hand playing 6 deck, more for single or double deck because the probability of getting sequential blackjacks is much less. An important thing to consider is that this loss is independent of how much you bet. If you play $10 basic strategy your expected loss per hand is around 5 cents for regular play so with this ante bet your expected loss per hand is about 10 times greater than without it. Your friend is correct that if you were to play $100 dollars a hand your expected loss playing BS is about 50 cents. So with this ante bet your expected loss per hand is around 1 dollar, or about twice what you would lose playing BS without the ante; however a basic strategy player betting $10 a hand will lose about half as much as a person betting $100.

This is an old gambling question, would you rather play nickel slots with a 10% edge or quarter slots with a 5% edge. Personally I’d rather play nickel slots. I don’t care about my expected house edge if it’s a negative gain, only my expected loss.

 

[RJT]

I think that's the conclusion I'm coming to too. Did we do the research? I know I didn't lol. I don't know the number of decks, the rules in place without the fixed dollar bonuses, whether these fixed dollar bonuses are payable if dealer has blackjack too, etc,.

Without doing it, can either of us, or anyone, definitively say anything?

If the value of fixed dollar bonuses go down with a higher bet without an ante, as we seem to agree on now, would they not also go down if one included an ante bet?

Is what needs to be determined is whether the value of the fixed dollar bonuses exceed the ante on a cents/hand basis?

Just asking lol.

It doesn't really take much research to establish some basic rules here - the facts of the matter are that the events that the bonuse require are so infrequent that even though the bonus might seem higher if you are betting lower, the bonus is never even going to approach offsetting the ante. This being the case the bonuses can be considered negligible.
This being the case it is better to minimize the damage that the ante is doing rather than maximise the benifit of the bonus.
Guynoire - I'm looking at this from a counting point of view, there's no point to playing any game with a negative expectation, so as much as my examples were based on a flat bet at disadvantage they were being used for simplicities sake to show that the ante would have far less impact on the high level bettor.

RJT.

 

[Kasi]

Here’s my take on the issue.
(400x 50+ 22x750 +1x1000 -500,000)/ 1,000,000= -.4625

I appreciate your attempt here. And, it seems to make sense.

I guess it just makes me wonder all the more how the Wiz came up with a HA in that question.

Even with the bonuses listed there
$100 bonus on getting 7 cards without busting
$100 bonus on getting 3 7's in a row
$500 bonus for getting 3 Blackjacks in a row
$10,000 bonus for getting 4 Blackjacks in a row

it just doesn't seem like they would add up to enough.

I mean if you did what u did for 8 decks, assuming the above payoffs but not against a dealer BJ, like the Wiz did, would you come even close to a player HA with a $5 bet? I'm guessing 1 in 11000 hands to get 7 cards without busting if that helps.

I think even RJT might admit, had he received the same question the Wiz did, that it would be dismissed as impossible. On the face of it, I guess it does seem like the dollar bonuses wouldn't cover 50 cents a hand.

Maybe that's why it pays to have a sim lol.

Guess I'm more confused now than when I started lol.

Seriously, can anyone explain the Wiz's answer?

 

[RJT]

I've only just taken a look at the wizard question you were talking about and it's easy enough to explain. The wizard is looking solely at house advantage. He is not taking into account any possibility of the player using any form of winning system.
Therefore the smallest bets are the best bets. The hand tax may have more of an impact, but you lose less in the long run - much along the same lines as and non-counting player. It is alway best to bet smaller if you don't know how to play. It just so happens that as the bet increases so does the house edge.
Now a player trying to beat the house with a counting system is going to have a totally different state of affairs. For counting to be worthwhile you need to minimize the damage that the tax has on you. Even at the $100/hand stage you are talking about losing $1 every hand or a 1% HA, which is too high to overcome with a counting technique. If you could get up to $500/hand you are still talking losing $1/hand, but now this has dropped to 0.2% HA. Still not great, but beatable.
For a basic strategy player it's best to stay in the lower tax bracket and maximize the impact of the bonuses. You are never going to overcome the house edge anyway and raising your bets increases the tax disproportionally.
The other factor that i would be interested in is that the wizard seems to analyse this only at the $25 stage and no higher where the HA would have dropped again.

RJT.

 

[Kasi]

For a basic strategy player ... You are never going to overcome the house edge anyway and raising your bets increases the tax disproportionally.
The other factor that i would be interested in is that the wizard seems to analyse this only at the $25 stage and no higher where the HA would have dropped again.RJT.

Hey - thanks for replying RJT.

Anyway, the way I read the question he seems to be saying the BS player enjoys a PLAYER advantage of 1.4% with a $5 bet. Given all the assumptions and all that.

On the face of it, do you find that surprising?

I guess the more I think about it I guess I do lol.

 

[RJT]

It is surprising, but the rules are very favorable. I mean - early surrender - that's something else. However, as you are never going to be able to bet high into your advantage, you're never really going to make any serious money.
That particular game would be excellent for any low stake player with an insuficient bankroll as the variance is going to be lower than a regular game (due to the lack of bet spread) [edit - actually i could be wrong about this, as you are depending on very infrequent big payoffs to balance out the negative aspects of the ante], but i'd be very very surprised if you found any game - even with that terrible ante - that had rules as favorable as this.

RJT.

 

[Kasi]

It is surprising, but the rules are very favorable. I mean - early surrender - that's something else.

Well, I find the result surprising it too even if early surrender might throw the game, without the ante, into player advantage.

All i can think of is maybe stuff like if you get 5 BJ's in a row you get paid $10,000 twice and $500 3 times might be enough to overcome the 10% tax lol.

Like you say, not something I'd want to count on.