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 :)
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.
In American Blackjack advantage of the player 0.085, if I understand correctly. With 10% commission advantage of the player - 0,075. No?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?
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.
They do actually mention that zero house edge includes a +/- 0.1% error margin
so any game with 99.9% - 100.1% return would be classified as zero house edge.