Encinocharlie
• Posts: 5
Joined: Aug 22, 2013
August 24th, 2013 at 3:20:53 PM permalink
I found a blackjack game in CA where they offer a "bet the bust" side bet. Before each hand, you make a regular bet, and in addition, you can make a side bet on whether the dealer will bust. The odds for this "bet the bust" is as follows:

3-4 cards = 2 to 1 payoff
5 cards = 4 to 1
6 cards = 15 to 1
7 cards = 50 to 1
8 cards or more = 200 to 1

It is a six deck game with only one deck cut-off. Blackjack pays 6 to 5. You can surrender at anytime - even if you already have four or five cards. But there is one exception -- you cannot surrender if the dealer is checking for a blackjack. It has DOA and DAS. Also, for all bets up to and including \$50, the casino charges a 50 cent fee to play. (If you bet \$51 to \$100, it is a \$1 fee).

My questions -- If I "wong" in on a high negative count and do the "bet the bust" would I have an advantage? Please note that the amount of the "bet the bust" wager has to be equal or less than the regular wager of the hand. The max bet for the "bet the bust" is \$25. And, if I would have an advantage, at what negative count would I be okay with "wonging" in on to have an advantage? And please note that I would be okay with "wonging" in and then leaving the table after just a few hands.

Can anybody help me with these questions? Any help would be appreciated!
ThatDonGuy
• Posts: 6407
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
August 24th, 2013 at 4:45:12 PM permalink
Either I have some serious problems with my calculations, or a count in either direction from zero is going to increase the house edge on the bonus.

I did a Monte Carlo simulation on six decks with 100,000,000 hands dealt from a full shoe (assuming S17 - you did not specify if it was H17), with each -1 in the count meaning six 10-value cards were removed, and each +1 in the count meaning one of each card from 2 to 7 was removed. In both directions, the farther the count got from zero, the higher the house edge for the bonus got.
tringlomane
• Posts: 6281
Joined: Aug 25, 2012
August 24th, 2013 at 5:52:48 PM permalink
I could believe the edge on the bet is minimized near a neutral count.
Encinocharlie
• Posts: 5
Joined: Aug 22, 2013
August 24th, 2013 at 6:57:17 PM permalink
To "ThatDonGuy" -- That is rather eye-opening. What I have been doing is "wonging" in on a -10 or more running count -- and was usually around a -2 to -4 true count to do the "bet the bust." Without doing any simulations, I tried to just use my own common sense and figured the more ten value cards and aces were gone, the better the chance that I could get a 5 or 6 card bust out of the dealer. Did the simulation that you did take into account the higher payoffs for the 5,6,7, and 8 card busts? The method that I am doing seems to be working, but maybe I have been just really lucky -- I don't know. At any rate, thanks for the response!
Ibeatyouraces
• Posts: 11933
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
August 24th, 2013 at 7:03:47 PM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
Encinocharlie
• Posts: 5
Joined: Aug 22, 2013
August 24th, 2013 at 7:10:48 PM permalink
Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Its a whole lot less likely that the dealer will bust when the shoe is loaded with small cards.

I get that, but I am wondering if the higher odds for a 5,6,7, or 8 card dealer bust make it a worthwhile risk.
Ibeatyouraces