Good bet?

[aslan]

A friend of mine who is not a counter practices the following ploy:

He waits for a player to have a sixteen against a ten. The game has no surrender. He offers to buy the hand for half price (similar to surrender). If the ploppy agrees, he figures that although he has a bad bet, it is worth it because he gets two to one on the money. Does he have a good bet?

The way I figure it is that he is taking a bet that is about 3 to 1 against him and he is getting 2 to 1 on the money. Doesn't that make it about 3 to 2 against his winning in the long run? He of course thinks he has the best of it since he is getting 2 to 1 on the money.

 

[blackchipjim]

scavenger play

Hey Aslan I think without counting it's a bad bet but that is again without the math to back it up. I think if he was taking the bet in a high count that dictates standing on the 16 it would be a better bet.

 

[Sucker]

In a single deck blackjack game, if you have sixteen and the dealer has a ten showing (and DOESN'T have blackjack), you will win the hand about 21.5% of the time, you'll lose about 72.2% , and you'll push about 6.3% of the time.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the bet size in question is $100. For every 100 times your friend makes this move, he will have spent a total of $5000. 21.5% of the time he'll win $200,for a total of $4300. He'll push 6.3% of the time, for a return of an additional $630. This means that for an investment of $5000 he'll get back $4930. So, in answer to your question; your friend is NOT making a good investment on this play. 15 against a ten is ALSO a bad bet at this price. In order for this to be a good play, the MINIMUM hand he should be buying is 14 vs dealer's 10.

Also, with all due respect to blackchipjim; the higher the count, the WORSE the play is. On the other hand, if the count is NEGATIVE enough, then and only then does the play actually BECOME profitable.

 

[Canceler]

Assuming a $10 original bet, it seems to me he's paying $5 to buy a bet expected to lose $5.40. It's a good deal for the player that he's helping to "surrender".

But I might be thinking about this wrong; it'll be interesting to see what others have to say.

 

[SleightOfHand]

Assuming a $10 original bet, it seems to me he's paying $5 to buy a bet expected to lose $5.40. It's a good deal for the player that he's helping to "surrender".

But I might be thinking about this wrong; it'll be interesting to see what others have to say.

I agree with canceler. He is paying $5 for a hand worth $4.60.

 

[aslan]

In a single deck blackjack game, if you have sixteen and the dealer has a ten showing (and DOESN'T have blackjack), you will win the hand about 21.5% of the time, you'll lose about 72.2% , and you'll push about 6.3% of the time.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the bet size in question is $100. For every 100 times your friend makes this move, he will have spent a total of $5000. 21.5% of the time he'll win $200,for a total of $4300. He'll push 6.3% of the time, for a return of an additional $630. This means that for an investment of $5000 he'll get back $4930. So, in answer to your question; your friend is NOT making a good investment on this play. 15 against a ten is ALSO a bad bet at this price. In order for this to be a good play, the MINIMUM hand he should be buying is 14 vs dealer's 10.

Also, with all due respect to blackchipjim; the higher the count, the WORSE the play is. On the other hand, if the count is NEGATIVE enough, then and only then does the play actually BECOME profitable.

This fellow never hits 16, so he also loses what would have been pushes had he hit and made a good hand. Right?

 

[Sucker]

If he never hits 16, then he wins 22.8% and loses 77.2% of the hands, for a return of only $4560 on his $5000 investment. Or (as Canceler correctly pointed out), each hand loses $54.40 for a $100 bet.

Your friend makes TWO mistakes; 1)Buying the hand in the first place; 2) Then standing on 16.

 

[daddybo]

If he never hits 16, then he wins 22.8% and loses 77.2% of the hands, for a return of only $4560 on his $5000 investment. Or (as Canceler correctly pointed out), each hand loses $54.40 for a $100 bet.

Your friend makes TWO mistakes; 1)Buying the hand in the first place; 2) Then standing on 16.

By my numbers a 16 vs 10 up card has about a -.54 return using BS. So any buy below 46/100 should be positive EV. So if you buy the $100 hand for say $40, then you should make 6% on the play.. a wee bit more if your counting.

That would equate to $60 per 10 hands. I would do that.

 

[aslan]

If he never hits 16, then he wins 22.8% and loses 77.2% of the hands, for a return of only $4560 on his $5000 investment. Or (as Canceler correctly pointed out), each hand loses $54.40 for a $100 bet.

Your friend makes TWO mistakes; 1)Buying the hand in the first place; 2) Then standing on 16.

Clearly.

 

[aslan]

I had occasion today to talk with my friend whose ploy I had second hand from another friend. He said that he was playing where they offered surrender. He had permission from the house to buy people's surrender hands, which he described as 14, 15, and 16's against dealer upcard of ten. He did hit the 16 based on BS contrary to what I said above.

He figured it this way, that when he won he was being paid three times his bet ($200 back for his $50 investment). I explained to him that it was worse than 3 to 1 against him.

He then related to me how casino staff laughed at him, especially after he lost thousands the first time he tried it. But he claims he had the last laugh when he won even more thousands the second time he tried it, to the point that they stopped him from buying surrenders from that point on.

I told him that the bet was not all that far from even money, especially with the 15's and 14's added, but that in actuality he won on luck, just like the BS player who wins even though he is playing at a disadvantage.

He mumbled something about he also used his "feelings" to determine whether he bought a surrender or whether he hit his hand, suggesting he thought that his razor sharp "feelings" gave him an extra edge.

Gamblers! You gotta love them! :laugh: