How does "coin in" affect expected value?
I had for awhile been satisfied with the understanding that the house edge in blackjack started at ~7% on your first hand assuming no doubles or splits and gradually falls as low as 1% after a few hands using perfect basic strategy. I did't question this till I got a players card and checked the balance after the first night. I brought $100 to the casino and usually play just $5 a hand. I theory I should have left with $95 or so. I lost it all. How could a game with only a 1% edge leave me so dry? When I checked my players card balance is when I noticed something.
While I had only brought $100 to the casino, because of the up and down nature of blackjack the casino had rated that my coin in or the amount I affectively bet was in the 1000s. It got me thinking.
If the edge is compounded every bet I make wouldn't it be better is I made fewer large bets that many smaller ones? If this is the case how does that play into the theory that the house edge gradually declines in BJ. The edge is minimized with longer play but is compounded with each bet.
What are your thoughts?
Quote: KingofHartsI brought $100 to the casino and usually play just $5 a hand. I theory I should have left with $95 or so. I lost it all. How could a game with only a 1% edge leave me so dry?
What are your thoughts?
I have no idea what happened to you. That's very strange that you didn't lose the exact mathematical house adv
Every time Ive ever played blackjack, I bought in for $1000 and walked away with $998.75. Except for this one time when I doubled a soft 18 against a 2,
That day I obviously went home with only $997.80.
There will probably be others here that make fun of you like the post above, ignore it and keep learning, we were all there once.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with the edge starting at 7% and going down. That's not true - since every hand of blackjack is independent, the edge is always the same.
Be glad that you can lose more than the house edge - if that weren't the case, you couldn't win.
Quote: KingofHartsI brought $100 to the casino and usually play just $5 a hand. I theory I should have left with $95 or so.
NO. The casino does not care how much money you have up in your room or in your pocket ... the casino cares how much money you "put in action", how much you bet. IF you bet that 100.00 all at one time, you have a theoretical house edge operating against it but in reality a practical set of only three results: You get Blackjack and get 3:2 payoff, You win and get 1:1 payoff or you lose and get 0:1 payoff. Best option for you is to put entire bankroll on first hand and then leave the casino, but this is rather boring and fortunately for the casino few people actually do it. Since blackjack has variable figures often based on skill, lets just use roulette figures which never change: 5.26 percent house edge. If a player puts five dollars on Red or Black, the casino will either pay him five dollars or take his five dollars, depending upon the results of the spin; the casino will NEVER pay him twenty-six cents or take from him twenty-six cents. Yet that shiny quarter and shiny penny is all the casino's accountant sees on the layout. The accountant knows that time after time every five dollars wagered means 26 cents to the house. The casino is "wetting its beak" a lousy 26 cents and that is how the casino makes its money. By focusing on the all night long, night after night wetting of its beak and not on the short term one-spin results.
The Casino Manager, the Host and the Cocktail Waitress are all there to KEEP YOU PLAYING...keep the money flowing from pocket to table. If you win big, the Casino Manager will give you a free room for the night. He wants "his" money back.
Quote: 24BingoThe house edge is of
I'm not sure what you're talking about with the edge starting at 7% and going down. That's not true - since every hand of blackjack is independent, the edge is always the same.
Be glad that you can lose more than the house edge - if that weren't the case, you couldn't win.
I'm not sure about this, unless u are playin a game with a continuous shuffler, which is becoming more common.... While by no mean do I claim to be a pro, someone who makes their living off the game, I can tell u this....every hand of blackjack is NOT independent...depending on how many decks you start with and what cards are dealt, your odds change, at least that is my understanding of why counting is so effective.... Blackjack is the only game where the previous outcome WILL in fact affect the future outcome..if ...as I said the game is not dealt from a csm....therefore, in short ,you can reduce if not eliminate the house edge... But ultimately, from what I know it will all depend on the house rules for the particular game you are playing...
Quote: Miles1I think you are confusing house edge and variance. The house edge is the house edge, it doesn't increase or decrease over time. Every bet you make is exposed to the house edge, so it would be best to bet your entire bank roll on the first hand.
With all due respect, I consider Blackjack a HUGE exception to the Bold Play suggestion, because it can no longer be optimally played in a situation that would call for a split(s) or double(s).
Quote: Miles1I think you are confusing house edge and variance.
And for an even more brutal example of edge vs variance, go somewhere that offers effectively infinite odds on craps. Odds have no edge, but that doesn't mean you're not going to lose...
Quote: Mission146With all due respect, I consider Blackjack a HUGE exception to the Bold Play suggestion, because it can no longer be optimally played in a situation that would call for a split(s) or double(s).
Very good point, you are right. I guess that's why your name is in green :)
Quote: Miles1The house edge is the house edge, it doesn't increase or decrease over time. Every bet you make is exposed to the house edge, so it would be best to bet your entire bank roll on the first hand. You would be exposing only $100 to the house edge instead of the $1000s you end up betting. Simply put, multiply your "coin in" by the house edge and that's your expected loss. That being said, I don't know about you but I gamble because I enjoy it and would never go to a casino to play just one hand, I'm not saying that is what you should do, but it is the way to decrease your exposure to the house edge. Don't forget that expected loss is just that, it is theoretical, what actually happens in one session can vary greatly. You should read about standard deviation, variance, regression theory etc.
There will probably be others here that make fun of you like the post above, ignore it and keep learning, we were all there once.
Well wouldn't the house edge be lower if I am dealt 20 and the dealer has a 6 up? Like wise if I am dealt 16 and the dealer is showing a 10 the edge would be higher? And a hand of blackjack can't be independent from the rest of the shoe unless they shuffle after every hand. Isn't this the basis of card counting?
So what happened that lead to this thread was, I was sitting next to this guy who was on a huge run. He colored up his chips to get one $500 chip. Instead of being smart and leaving he decided to put it all on one more hand. He was dealt two eights and the dealer was showing a 7. Of course he didn't have enough money to split the eights so he hit and busted with a ten. I had 9 and hit to get another 10 right after. The dealer ended up having 17 so he lost but would have had two 18s had he been able to split. So I understand that betting big reduces exposure to the house edge but it totally fucked him over. Is there a rule of thumb or theory for what the perfect bet to bankroll ratio for blackjack to avoid what happened to him while minimizing exposure?
Quote: KingofHartsWell wouldn't the house edge be lower if I am dealt 20 and the dealer has a 6 up? Like wise if I am dealt 16 and the dealer is showing a 10 the edge would be higher? And a hand of blackjack can't be independent from the rest of the shoe unless they shuffle after every hand. Isn't this the basis of card counting?
So what happened that lead to this thread was, I was sitting next to this guy who was on a huge run. He colored up his chips to get one $500 chip. Instead of being smart and leaving he decided to put it all on one more hand. He was dealt two eights and the dealer was showing a 7. Of course he didn't have enough money to split the eights so he hit and busted with a ten. I had 9 and hit to get another 10 right after. The dealer ended up having 17 so he lost but would have had two 18s had he been able to split. So I understand that betting big reduces exposure to the house edge but it totally fucked him over. Is there a rule of thumb or theory for what the perfect bet to bankroll ratio for blackjack to avoid what happened to him while minimizing exposure?
If you only play premium hands in BJ you would have a big advantage (such as any ace) but house edge takes into consideration all the possible scenarios of hands you would get vs what the dealer would get, and the appropriate payout based on that. I'm not precisely sure but having an ace in BJ is like a 40% advantage.
On the flip side playing hard 16 vs dealer 10 is pretty much a loss.
Quote: KingofHartsWell wouldn't the house edge be lower if I am dealt 20 and the dealer has a 6 up? Like wise if I am dealt 16 and the dealer is showing a 10 the edge would be higher?
It's much more common to think about the house edge before you place your bet. Sure, some cards are better than others. But you don't know what cards you have until after you've risked your money.
