BetVoyager.com Zero House Edge Blackjack... Is this right?

Here are the rules:

Six decks shuffled after every hand,
Dealer peeks for BJ,
Dealer stands on S17,
Double down on any 2 cards,
Double after split allowed,
Split 3 times for a total of 4 hands (including Aces),
Split Aces receive only 1 card each (and no double down),
Late surrender allowed,
Blackjack pays 3:2
AS-KS Blackjack pays 4:1

On the Wizard's calculator this comes up as .26197% HA (without the last rule). Can that one rule make all the rest of the difference?

These guys seem to offer an "Equal Odds" version of almost every game they have. Are they just expecting to make money from improper play and people overbetting their bankrolls, or is there some catch that I'm missing here?

Thanks, and again, wonderful site, keep up the great work!

Quote: DJGenius

Here are the rules:

Six decks shuffled after every hand,
Dealer peeks for BJ,
Dealer stands on S17,
Double down on any 2 cards,
Double after split allowed,
Split 3 times for a total of 4 hands (including Aces),
Split Aces receive only 1 card each (and no double down),
Late surrender allowed,
Blackjack pays 3:2
AS-KS Blackjack pays 4:1

On the Wizard's calculator this comes up as .26197% HA (without the last rule). Can that one rule make all the rest of the difference?

These guys seem to offer an "Equal Odds" version of almost every game they have. Are they just expecting to make money from improper play and people overbetting their bankrolls, or is there some catch that I'm missing here?

Thanks, and again, wonderful site, keep up the great work!

The 4:1 bonus is worth .1768%

Quote: miplet

The 4:1 bonus is worth .1768%

Thank you miplet...

Well, if that figure is correct than either:

A) They are lying about the game being "Equal Odds", or
B) I have made a mistake with the house edge for the standard game.

Something's not adding up right.

Here are the rules. Anyone else want to give it a crack?

Per the casino's write-up on equal odds games, they define equal odds as 100 percent payback games, with a margin of error of +/- 0.1 percent. So, the blackjack game you cited does qualify as it has a HA of less than 0.1 percent. There are numerous other games that carry the 'no house-edge' moniker, and some of them like roulette are obviously exactly 0 percent games. Others may have a very slight house advantage, or possibly a player advantage.

Betfair.com, a major competitor that also offers exchange-style sports betting, has been offering a similar 'zero-lounge' for years. However, they have less game choices available, and like betvoyager some do carry a very small edge. In their case, I always thought they offered it because sports betting was their bread and butter, and they used the zero-lounge in a promotional aspect to draw people to open accounts and hopefully make comissioned sports bets. Betvoyager, which allows exchange-style sports betting on the same account, seems to be matching their competitors offerings. Or maybe its the other way around and betvoyager was first, I don't know.

Both companies also know they can use the zero/low HA games to differentiate themselves in the online casino world, while still knowing that not every player will stick to a strategy of only playing these games, and perfectly. Some will make mistakes, some will play other games, some will place sports bets, and some will play poker. All of these are money-makers.

Assuming all is legit, kudos to both of them for offering excellent games. They stand to make (basically) no money on perfect play. They can't make a cent on roulette no matter how people play. Of course, they don't stand to lose anything either.

Thanks pocketaces for the info, I somehow missed that page.

I guess .085% is about as good as it gets without card counting. With a table minimum of 10c this also seems like a good place for people who are practicing basic strategy.

One way they can make money on no-zero roulette is from all those who will undoubtedly run there thinking they've found the perfect place to play martingale and end up ruined.

Quote: DJGenius

Thanks pocketaces for the info, I somehow missed that page.

I guess .085% is about as good as it gets without card counting. With a table minimum of 10c this also seems like a good place for people who are practicing basic strategy.

One way they can make money on no-zero roulette is from all those who will undoubtedly run there thinking they've found the perfect place to play martingale and end up ruined.

No problem, and i agree that 0.085 is quite good. As you can see there are numerous other blackjack 'equal-odds' variants, and I am quite sure that at least one of them is even better, perhaps hitting a true zero edge.

One caveat to your roulette comment. It technically would be the best place to martingale, if you were determined to. While it would not help you win, it would not hurt either. In a situation with no edge on either side, since we know there is no betting system that could add either a player or a house edge to the game, there is also no betting system that could be said to generate winnings or losses for either side.

As many bets are made, the winnings come closer to exactly zero. In this situation, the martingale is just as good as any other betting pattern: Over time, players could expect the wins (lots of small ones) to equal the losses (a few big ones). From the casinos perspective, you could expect your losses (lots of small ones) to equal the sum of the occasional big wins. While the player is martingaling, the casino is anti-martingaling.

The simple fact that each player has a bankroll in no way gives the casino an advantage in a zero-edge game. In fact, if just a few people martingaled, the casino would be very likely to lose money as those players are likely to walk away winners. Of course if one of them lost the winning side would likely swing in the casinos favor. The probabilites of each event happening multiplied by the win or loss in each event would equal exactly zero.

I completely agree with you, at least in theory. In actual practice however, (for myself at least) I would be very careful with the Martingale as it's so easy to get yourself into a situation where you can't afford the next bet in the sequence.

Again, I agree with everything you've said. It's not that I think having a bankroll puts us at a disadvantage exactly... it's just that I know many players have a tendency to overbet their bankrolls. I read one example about this phenomenon using the concept of two people betting $1 on a coin toss. If one player has $10 in his pocket and the other has $100, it's possible that they could go on betting forever, neither having the advantage. However it's also possible that the player with $10 will run out of money, at which point the other player will get to keep his $10. Of course, no one with a $10 total bankroll should be betting $1 on 50/50 odds should they?

I could be wrong though, and I'm sure you know more about this than I. Perhaps there's something I'm not understanding.

For the record, I must say that I'm new to all this, and as a new member of this forum I have already had many helpful responses from you and your fellow posters. I extend my sincere thanks to the Wizard for his excellent website, and also to all those like yourself who are willing to share freely the knowledge you have, so that we can all make more informed decisions at the tables. It is very appreciated.

From the site:

"The flip side of the coin is a 10% commission that is taken from a player’s net winnings during a withdrawal of funds from the portal."

Here's the link:

http://www.betvoyager.com/guide/house-edge/

Bummer.

Yes it is a bummer, but it's not as bad as it seems at first. After all they only charge the commission on your net winnings, meaning any amount you withdraw above your initial deposit. I guess that means being very careful not to withdraw anything unless you're sure you wont lose it back (and how sure can you be?).

Betvoyager doesn't take the 10% on net winnings if you play games which are not zero house edge. They have one blackjack variation with ~0.1% house edge (and so it essentially zero house edge) but it is not counted as a zero house edge game and is not subject to withdrawal fee.

I'm a little slow on the uptake, I know, but which blackjack variation are you talking about? If ~0.1% house edge is defined as no house edge, then they should take a commission, right? Or do they have a blackjack exception? Which game? I'm playing that one!

Quote: diggity

I'm a little slow on the uptake, I know, but which blackjack variation are you talking about? If ~0.1% house edge is defined as no house edge, then they should take a commission, right? Or do they have a blackjack exception? Which game? I'm playing that one!

Sorry for the late reply!

At Betvoyager "Doublet Blackjack" seems to be the lowest house edge game at ~0.1%. Notice the favourable rules of doubling down on any number of cards and surrendering after unsuccesful double down. They also have a zero HE version of this game where A-K Spades pays 5:2 instead of 3:2, but I recommend playing the regural version to avoid house fees on net winnings.

As a experienced player I can't praise Betvoyager enough. My results are completely fair throughout several years of playing and playing feels completely different than with other major casino softwares where I always seem to run worse than I statistically should (to mention, last week I had once again -4.2 SD overall result in Ladbrokes Pontoon [Microgaming]).

Quote: DJGenius

Something's not adding up right. Anyone else want to give it a crack?

Its like "Fat Free" in FDA marketing regulations. A smidgen of fat means you can still say "fat free".
Same thing with "Zero Edge Gaming"... if it gets down to only a smidgen, they just call it "zero". Making it exactly zero might mean you would have to memorize some really weird rule and sometimes simplicity is simply better than absolute mathematical precision.

"Zero Edge" is a slogan, not a pure mathematical certainty.

Loss leaders and come-ons have pitfalls, however. Once you trust the "zero game" you may not be as vigilant when they finally lure you into the deep end of the pool.

Changing the strategy because of the extra rules? or this stategy:

Wizard BJ calculator:
Decks: "4 or more"
Soft 17: "Dealer Stands"
Double After "Split: Allowed"
Surrender: "Allowed with any dealer upcard"
Dealer Peek: "Dealer peeks for BJ"

Quote: turbostat

Changing the strategy because of the extra rules? or this stategy:

Wizard BJ calculator:
Decks: "4 or more"
Soft 17: "Dealer Stands"
Double After "Split: Allowed"
Surrender: "Allowed with any dealer upcard"
Dealer Peek: "Dealer peeks for BJ"

Are you referring to the optimal strategy of doublet Blackjack (0.1% HE)? Note, that there is no hole card (=no-peek) and that surrendering is possible only after double down, not for initial two cards.

I think the optimal Doublet BJ strategy is simply the standard 6-deck strategy with DAS, no-peek and double down on any total. Because of the surrender option I would also double down 11 vs. Ten or Ace, even though the dealer doesn't peek.

Based on Spanish BJ strategy, the additional rules when to surrender after doubling down are (I think):

16 or less vs. 8,9,T -> Surrender, 17 or more vs. 8,9,T -> Stand
17 or less vs. A -> Surrender, 18 or more vs. A -> Stand
16 or less vs. 2-7 -> Stand.

You can test the game in free mode here without having to register an account:
http://www.betvoyager.com/games/demo/blackjack-doublet/

From the top menu you can cut the shoe at any point you wish (0-311 cards) and after the hand you can view the whole ordering of the shuffled shoe and verify the checksum of the shuffle to confirm fairness.

Quote: Jufo81

Are you referring to the optimal strategy of doublet Blackjack (0.1% HE)?

No, Doublet Blackjack: "blackjack with an Ace-King of spades pays 5:2"
Here on American Blackjack "blackjack with an Ace-King of spades pays 4:1"

Quote: FleaStiff

Loss leaders and come-ons have pitfalls, however. Once you trust the "zero game" you may not be as vigilant when they finally lure you into the deep end of the pool.

What do you mean by this fleastiff?

Quote: turbostat

No, Doublet Blackjack: "blackjack with an Ace-King of spades pays 5:2"
Here on American Blackjack "blackjack with an Ace-King of spades pays 4:1"

Those are the 0% House edge versions and you will have to pay 10% commission on all net winnings on them (when you cashout), therefore I recommend playing the standard versions with the smallest house edges.

American Blackjack has higher house edge than Doublet Blackjack, therefore A-K spades pays more on it to make the game 0% house edge.

Quote: pocketaces

One caveat to your roulette comment. It technically would be the best place to martingale, if you were determined to. While it would not help you win, it would not hurt either. In a situation with no edge on either side, since we know there is no betting system that could add either a player or a house edge to the game, there is also no betting system that could be said to generate winnings or losses for either side.
As many bets are made, the winnings come closer to exactly zero. In this situation, the martingale is just as good as any other betting pattern:

This is actually *not true* and a dangerous misconception.

Most betting systems are mathematically neutral. Martingale is one of the few exceptions: it's mathematically harmful to the player. While it can not change the per-hand edge, it harms the player overall. If you used EU adjustment or player edge to enable calculation of SCORE, martingale would show itself devastating. As it would with every other performance metric - expected play time, risk of ruin, time to double the bankroll, chance to double the bankroll, just any mid-term or long-term metric. The effect is devastating enough that you are better off giving your money to a charity, at least you'll feel better in the end.

Quote: P90

Most betting systems are mathematically neutral. Martingale is one of the few exceptions: it's mathematically harmful to the player. While it can not change the per-hand edge, it harms the player overall. If you used EU adjustment or player edge to enable calculation of SCORE, martingale would show itself devastating. As it would with every other performance metric - expected play time, risk of ruin, time to double the bankroll, chance to double the bankroll, just any mid-term or long-term metric. The effect is devastating enough that you are better off giving your money to a charity, at least you'll feel better in the end.

Martingale can be useful in certain situations. If your bankroll is A and your target bankroll is B then the probability to reach B is P=A/B on a 0% house edge game (assuming you can't overshoot). If the maximum bet size is limited (so that you cannot reach B with one large bet) then by martingaling you would reach bankroll B in minimum time.

The situations in question are absolutely artificial. It only applies if your target bankroll B is very little different from A, you only have a small number of hands to reach it, and you don't care if you end up with A or broken. Like you have $1,000 and need $1,010 by tomorrow to pay your gambling debts lest you be shot. But even then panhandling and petty theft seem like better options.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it sounds like you are only getting 9/10's of your winnings, so if the 'game' is fair is not totally relevant. If you plop down, say, $1000 on one spin of red or black, with no 0 or 00, you either win $900 or lose $1000. So if you are on the good side of variance you win .9x, if you are on the bad side you lose x.

Quote: P90

The situations in question are absolutely artificial. It only applies if your target bankroll B is very little different from A, you only have a small number of hands to reach it, and you don't care if you end up with A or broken. Like you have $1,000 and need $1,010 by tomorrow to pay your gambling debts lest you be shot. But even then panhandling and petty theft seem like better options.

I have been in that situation many times, for example when playing with a casino bonus. Suppose I deposit $100 for $100 bonus, starting with a bankroll of $200 and my target is $1000, after which I would grind out the wagering requirement with small bets. Suppose I first run my balance to $900 on video poker, which is still $100 below my target balance. At this point I might bet $100 on Black on roulette, and if I lose, then bet $200, and then $400. This way I would reach the target as efficiently as possible and would end up paying the minimum house edge as possible (by avoiding zero). If I bust, half of the money I risked was bonus funds anyway :)

Quote: SOOPOO

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it sounds like you are only getting 9/10's of your winnings, so if the 'game' is fair is not totally relevant. If you plop down, say, $1000 on one spin of red or black, with no 0 or 00, you either win $900 or lose $1000. So if you are on the good side of variance you win .9x, if you are on the bad side you lose x.

The commission is only taken when you withdraw so you can play 0%-house edge games infinitely long with no expected loss if you wish. Therefore you should only withdraw rarely.

Also, you can think the 10% commission as an entrance fee to a casino where every single game has 0% house edge and where you can play as long as you like with even odds after having paid the entrance fee. For most gamblers this would be much cheaper than to pay house edge from every bet, which can sneakily accummulate to huge amounts.

In fact it would be an interesting concept to have a B&M casino where every game runs precisely at 100% return but you would need to pay, say $50, for entry.

Quote: Jufo81

Those are the 0% House edge versions and you will have to pay 10% commission on all net winnings on them (when you cashout), therefore I recommend playing the standard versions with the smallest house edges.

American Blackjack has higher house edge than Doublet Blackjack, therefore A-K spades pays more on it to make the game 0% house edge.

In American Blackjack advantage of the player 0.085, if I understand correctly. With 10% commission advantage of the player - 0,075. No?

Quote: turbostat

In American Blackjack advantage of the player 0.085, if I understand correctly. With 10% commission advantage of the player - 0,075. No?

I didn't get the same numbers as you:

I plugged the American Blackjack rules into the Blackjack house edge calculator: http://www.beatingbonuses.com/houseedge.htm
I got a house edge of 0.263% for that game.

The probability for A-K Spades is: 12/312*6/311 = 1/1348. The payout of 4:1 increases the return by

2.5 * 1/1348 = 0.1855%

So the overall payout of the Zero house edge game is: 99.923%. This is close enough to zero house edge to be advertised as such but it is actually very slightly below it.

Not so slightly, truth being told. This is in line with some of Macau brick and mortar casino rates. And before the later decades, it used to be the norm altogether.

Quote: P90

Not so slightly, truth being told. This is in line with some of Macau brick and mortar casino rates. And before the later decades, it used to be the norm altogether.

They do actually mention that zero house edge includes a +/- 0.1% error margin
http://www.betvoyager.com/games/equal-odds/

so any game with 99.9% - 100.1% return would be classified as zero house edge.