Thread Rating:

WilliamofOrange
WilliamofOrange
Joined: May 31, 2017
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 10
June 1st, 2017 at 5:35:32 PM permalink
That said, I just realized the irony of this side bet. To break even you need to increase the chance of natural blackjack to at least 50% more than normal. By hi-low system that means at least +8 TC.

The problem is, if it's +8 TC you really shouldn't be worried about a $5 side bet when you should be betting REAL big on your main bet.

I'm looking at Hi-Opt II with ace side count as the only hope for this side bet to be realistic.

But even so, the only realistic use for this bet is a harmless cover to make the pitboss not think you're a card counter when it's profitable to make the bet.
BleedingChipsSlowly
BleedingChipsSlowly
Joined: Jul 9, 2010
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 635
June 14th, 2017 at 10:11:54 PM permalink
Before invensting time in a search for a counting system I thought it would be a good idea to see whether or not the Super 4 side bet offers something worth measuring. In particular, how does the side bet fare independent of the meter value. I used the deck composition analysis tool I've already developed to see what the expected value (EV) is for the basic pay table relative to shoe penetration. The parameters reflect what is in use at Mohegan Sun: six decks, 75% penetration, and a 750/400/300/200/100/50/25/10 fixed pay table. 59 levels of deck penetration were simulated at 4-card intervals. 1,000,000 simulations were done at each level. Here's what I found:

(ModEdit: author corrected graph based on revised info. Please disregard this one and continue below.)



I think an 18% probability of a better-than-even side bet for the end of a shoe is worth looking at. Of course, when the meter is at $1,260,000+ as it is tonight at Mohegan Sun, you don't really need a method.
Last edited by: unnamed administrator on Jun 15, 2017
BleedingChipsSlowly
BleedingChipsSlowly
Joined: Jul 9, 2010
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 635
June 15th, 2017 at 5:05:24 AM permalink
Mea culpa! There is an error in my analysis related to generating a random shoe representation. I was removing cards from randomly selected card types rather than randomly selected cards. The initial results with that corrected suggest +EV shoes start showing up at 50% penetration and reaches about a 9% occurrence rate at 75% penetration. I'll post a corrected graph tonight. Sorry!
BleedingChipsSlowly
BleedingChipsSlowly
Joined: Jul 9, 2010
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 635
June 15th, 2017 at 9:32:19 AM permalink

If an administrator could delete or redact the previous graph, that would be great!
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 8883
Thanks for this post from:
BleedingChipsSlowly
June 15th, 2017 at 11:47:15 AM permalink
Correction noted above, within text, but info retained for continuity. IMO process is instructive.
"If the house lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game."

  • Jump to: