Blackjack House Edge - No splitting/No Doubling
August 15th, 2012 at 4:42:42 PM
permalink
Couldn't find this on the forum so I figured I'd ask. What's the House Edge in this scenario?
Rules:
6 decks
No Splitting
No Doubling Down
No Surrender
Blackjack pays 3:2
No "other" rules (5-card Charlies, etc)
Dealer stays on soft 17
Basically, player can only hit or stand.
Rules:
6 decks
No Splitting
No Doubling Down
No Surrender
Blackjack pays 3:2
No "other" rules (5-card Charlies, etc)
Dealer stays on soft 17
Basically, player can only hit or stand.
August 15th, 2012 at 4:49:08 PM
permalink
2.347%.Quote: totalossCouldn't find this on the forum so I figured I'd ask. What's the House Edge in this scenario?
Climate Casino: https://climatecasino.net/climate-casino/
August 15th, 2012 at 4:50:28 PM
permalink
Awesome, thanks for the speedy reply!
Care to explain to me the finer points? I'm sort of new to all of this.
Care to explain to me the finer points? I'm sort of new to all of this.
August 15th, 2012 at 4:54:29 PM
permalink
Quote: teliot2.347%.
That's not nearly as high as I'd have thought. Think how much faster that game would be, too. I wonder if a casino would consider that as a "new" game.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 15th, 2012 at 5:03:02 PM
permalink
I don't think I've ever seen teliot post before. Not that I don't believe you, but that does seem extremely low. I want to see some tabulated results from simulations before I fully believe that.
August 15th, 2012 at 5:13:25 PM
permalink
Believe Teliot.
Vote for Nobody 2020!
August 15th, 2012 at 5:23:46 PM
permalink
Quote: bigfoot66Believe Teliot.
yes, sorry. Absolutely believe Teliot. FWIW, my statement was one of shock, not one of disbelief.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 15th, 2012 at 6:21:33 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potus.. I wonder if a casino would consider that as a "new" game.
No, just a rule change.
Firstly, doubling and splitting only occurs on a minority of hands.
Secondly, restricting an existing game rules is not adding a new rule, really.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
August 15th, 2012 at 6:23:53 PM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanNo, just a rule change.
Firstly, doubling and splitting only occurs on a minority of hands.
Secondly, restricting an existing game rules is not adding a new rule, really.
I was thinking more like a half-new game. Like Simplified Blackjack, or EZ BJ (& legal in Clark County, too!).
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 15th, 2012 at 9:34:11 PM
permalink
The result given above was combinatorial. I re-programmed my simulation code to verify the combinatorial result. It did. I also thought the H/A would be more. But there you go.Quote: ewjones080I want to see some tabulated results from simulations before I fully believe that.
By the way, a company creating a blackjack slot machine actually wanted to do this and put a hit/stand-only slot in casinos. I talked them out of it. Per my suggestion, they went with "blackjack pays 2-for-1."
Climate Casino: https://climatecasino.net/climate-casino/
August 20th, 2012 at 2:23:20 PM
permalink
Thanks for all of the replies.
I think the 2.347% was surprisingly low because of the lower percentage of hands splitting/doubling affects.
Which brings me to my next question, what % of hands would actually be affected by removing the splitting/doubling option? This assumes the hands where Splitting/Doubling is available AND it would be optimal strategy to do so (ie. ignoring the split option when you have J/J and the dealer is showing a 9). Somewhere, I think I saw 9% but I'm not sure.
I think the 2.347% was surprisingly low because of the lower percentage of hands splitting/doubling affects.
Which brings me to my next question, what % of hands would actually be affected by removing the splitting/doubling option? This assumes the hands where Splitting/Doubling is available AND it would be optimal strategy to do so (ie. ignoring the split option when you have J/J and the dealer is showing a 9). Somewhere, I think I saw 9% but I'm not sure.
August 20th, 2012 at 3:20:37 PM
permalink
removed
silly
silly
I Heart Vi Hart
August 21st, 2012 at 1:47:04 PM
permalink
I bought QFIT and ran a simulation and got a 4.627% H/E.
It's possible I didn't do something right but just wondering if there was another party to confirm 2.347%
It's possible I didn't do something right but just wondering if there was another party to confirm 2.347%
August 21st, 2012 at 2:03:55 PM
permalink
Quote: totalossI bought QFIT and ran a simulation and got a 4.627% H/E.
It's possible I didn't do something right but just wondering if there was another party to confirm 2.347%
In Fred Renzey's Blackjack Bluebook II, he says proper doubling down is worth about 1.5% and splitting 0.5%.
“Man Babes” #AxelFabulous
August 21st, 2012 at 2:07:14 PM
permalink
Quote: totalossI bought QFIT and ran a simulation and got a 4.627% H/E.
It's possible I didn't do something right but just wondering if there was another party to confirm 2.347%
The infinite-deck house advantage for S17 blackjack with no splitting, doubling-down, or surrender is 2.421%, which is much closer to 2.347% than to 4.627%.
August 21st, 2012 at 2:27:24 PM
permalink
removed
silly
Sally
silly
Sally
I Heart Vi Hart
August 21st, 2012 at 2:38:37 PM
permalink
I think this is the game that many neophytes play and that many semi-experienced but now slightly intoxicated tourists play. Too drunk to remember when to split? Dealer going to fast for you alcohol sodden eyeballs to even follow? No problem...most players who are slightly sloshed just do the Hit or Stand calculation and nothing else.
