Let's Play -- Blackjack Side Bet
| Event | Pays | Combinations | Probability | Return |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AKQJ suited (player and dealer) | 250 | 384 | 0.000014 | 0.003480 |
| Ace-king suited (player only) | 20 | 82,352 | 0.002985 | 0.059700 |
| Queen-jack suited (player only) | 15 | 82,352 | 0.002985 | 0.044775 |
| Straight flush (player only) | 4 | 906,320 | 0.032851 | 0.131404 |
| Flush (player only) | 2 | 5,624,892 | 0.203883 | 0.407767 |
| Loser | -1 | 20,892,456 | 0.757282 | -0.757282 |
| Total | 27,588,756 | 1.000000 | -0.110156 |
The lower right cell shows a house edge of 11.02%. If anyone else feels moved to do their own math, let me know if you agree.
Somehow I think I've seen this side bet somewhere. Was it at Raving?
Quote: sodawaterwell this looks extremely countable
Yup.
Quote: WizardYesterday I noticed a new blackjack side bet at the Eureka casino in Mesquite.
What was the max bet?
Quote: WizardYesterday I noticed a new blackjack side bet at the Eureka casino in Mesquite. It pays based on the player's first two cards, except the top pay also includes the dealer's first two cards. The table it was on used two decks. The following table shows the pays, probability, and return.
Somehow I think I've seen this side bet somewhere. Was it at Raving?
Yes, I think it was the guys who raided Matthew Lesko's closet.
Quote: CrystalMathYes, I think it was the guys who raided Matthew Lesko's closet.
Ah yes! Here is the post you're referring to. One of the funniest posts of 2013.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWhat was the max bet?
Bah. Never mind.
It's "countable" in the sense that there are profitable situations, but they are few and far between (unless my analysis is messed up).
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWhat was the max bet?
The game was closed at the time, so I don't know. Knowing the Eureka, not very high.
Isn't that one of the few Korean owned casinos "in" town? (Or rather up north where they have water)?Quote: WizardYesterday I noticed a new blackjack side bet at the Eureka casino in Mesquite.
I can tell before figuring out the math table: Its working class betting limits and it offers no great potential for bleeding the casino's treasury.
Quote: WizardThe game was closed at the time, so I don't know. Knowing the Eureka, not very high.
Thanks. It probably doesn't matter.
If my analysis is correct (and it's possible that it's not -- I threw some code together very quickly) it almost never becomes profitable (about 0.2% of hands give a chance to make a profitable bet, assuming pretty good penetration: 72 cards dealt from the 2-deck shoe).
I guess the house edge is too high, and the EORs aren't high enough . Unless I made a mistake, of course...
Quote: WizardYesterday I noticed a new blackjack side bet at the Eureka casino in Mesquite. It pays based on the player's first two cards, except the top pay also includes the dealer's first two cards. The table it was on used two decks. The following table shows the pays, probability, and return.
The lower right cell shows a house edge of 11.02%. If anyone else feels moved to do their own math, let me know if you agree.
Somehow I think I've seen this side bet somewhere. Was it at Raving?
Sure when I get home from work. Or maybe I'll do it on my break.
4 suits
There are 10 straight flushes that can't be a higher payout: JT , T9 , 98, 87, 76 , 65, 54 ,43 , 32 ,2A
2*2= 4 ways to pick the two cards
There are combin(102,2) = 5151 possible dealer hands
The KQ straight flush might result in a higher payout.
If the dealer cards are also AJ in the same suit. there are 2*2 possible dealer hands for this
Here is the final formula:
=4*4*10*COMBIN(102,2)+4*4*(COMBIN(102,2)-4)
=906512
2 #dx
1st 2nd 3rd 4th Combos Odds
AKQJ suited 2 2 2 2 96 1536 384 384 250 96000
AK suited then QJ suited 2 2 2 2 16 256 64
AK suited 2 2 102 101 8 329664 82352 82352 20 1647040
QJ suited then AK suited 64
QJ suited (only) 82352 82352 15 1235280
KQ suited then AJ 64
KQ suited (only) 82352
(JT T9 98 87 76 65 54 43 32 2A) 3296640 824160
Any not AK QJ sf 906512 906512 4 3626048
Any flushes 104 25 102 101 1 26785200 6696300 5624700 2 11249400
All 104 103 102 101 1 110355024 27588756
Losers 20892456 20892456 -1 -20892456
-11.014 226% -3038688
Quote: charliepatrickYes I agree with the 192s - btw I had all my figures four times more (i.e. total perms was 104*103*102*101 - was there a reason to have four times less - presumably for a given suit).
Thanks for the confirmation. I did player combinations * dealer combinations = combin(104,2)*combin(102,2) = 27,588,756.
Thanks - I didn't think of it that way.Quote: WizardThanks for the confirmation. I did player combinations * dealer combinations = combin(104,2)*combin(102,2) = 27,588,756.
Quote: UCivanThere are 5 tables (or more) of Let's Play at The Orleans.
Thanks. Almost three years later I finally made it over to there to confirm that. I have also since seen the side bet at Arizona Charlie's. All three casinos have different pay tables.
I just split off a separate page for Let's Play from my blackjack appendix 8. As always, I welcome all comments.
