How much does not splitting or doubling down effect House Edge?

If somebody played a single hand of blackjack with their whole bankroll hence not having the chips to double, split, or buy insurance. How much would this increase the HE on one hand? Would it double the HE or not quite that much of an increase? I am not sure how that would be calculated since no HE calculator I have seen that has those options?

Here's a list of rule variations from WoO.

Looks like no splits adds 0.57% and not doubling adds 1.48%

Quote: rdw4potus

Here's a list of rule variations from WoO.

Looks like no splits adds 0.57% and not doubling adds 1.48%

Awesome thank you! I must have missed that page!

So I guess making BJ is then probably the worst game to make a single bankroll sized bet. So just to make sure I am reading right it adds .57 plus1.48 so plus over 2 altogether?

Quote: Gandler

Quote: rdw4potus

Here's a list of rule variations from WoO.

Looks like no splits adds 0.57% and not doubling adds 1.48%

Awesome thank you! I must have missed that page!

So I guess making BJ is then probably the worst game to make a single bankroll sized bet. So just to make sure I am reading right it adds .57 plus1.48 so plus over 2 altogether?

It's not the worst game to do it with, but you lose a lot of value by doing it.

Quote: Gandler

So I guess making BJ is then probably the worst game to make a single bankroll sized bet. So just to make sure I am reading right it adds .57 plus1.48 so plus over 2 altogether?

I think that longer list of rules was moved (and slightly buried) when the site was redesigned. There's a link from the shorter list of rule variations to the full list, and only the full list includes these two items. Took me a bit to find, and I'd have given up if I didn't know I'd seen these on the list before.

Yes, it adds .57 plus 1.48. So you're probably somewhere between 2.5% and 3% total on the game. So, better than American roulette and about the same as single-0 roulette. But worse than craps or baccarat.

Quote: Gandler

If somebody played a single hand of blackjack with their whole bankroll hence not having the chips to double, split, or buy insurance. How much would this increase the HE on one hand? Would it double the HE or not quite that much of an increase? I am not sure how that would be calculated since no HE calculator I have seen that has those options?

Check out this thread:

No Anything

This info is usefull also for practical reasons, meaning that in BJ you should never bet the last money on you because you are playing with a huge disavantage.
You should have enough money to at least for 1 double or 1 split.
Of course (assuming Split to 4 hands), in theory you might need upto another 7 times your initial bet (split 4 times and double).
Having money to cover 2 bets covers almost all probabily and the reduction on EV for not covering beyonf that is minimal.
So as a practical guide (for non-counters) , say you bet a standard amount of $25, leave at least $50 which you will never bet as initial bet.

Quote: Gandler

Quote: rdw4potus

Here's a list of rule variations from WoO.

Looks like no splits adds 0.57% and not doubling adds 1.48%

Awesome thank you! I must have missed that page!

So I guess making BJ is then probably the worst game to make a single bankroll sized bet. So just to make sure I am reading right it adds .57 plus1.48 so plus over 2 altogether?

This information is incorrect, based on your scenario. It is unlikely you are going to split or double any particular hand. That is the aggregate disadvantage of never splitting or doubling.

In your fact pattern, you have bet all your money, and are only playing one hand to bust or double your money. Chances are, the situation to double or split does not apply. But suppose you get a hand you would normally double. It was advantageous for you to have bet all your money rather than only half. Now you are not restricted to only taking one card. To say you are in a disadvantageous situation because you did not hold back half of your money is faulty logic. In a split situation, you would increase the house edge by not being able to split.

I don't know how to analyze this scenario to arrive at a solid conclusion. Perhaps you thought this was a good example, when it is not, and you really just wanted to know the aggregate effect as a matter of strategy, which has been stated.

Quote: Sonuvabish

Quote: Gandler

Quote: rdw4potus

Here's a list of rule variations from WoO.

Looks like no splits adds 0.57% and not doubling adds 1.48%

Awesome thank you! I must have missed that page!

So I guess making BJ is then probably the worst game to make a single bankroll sized bet. So just to make sure I am reading right it adds .57 plus1.48 so plus over 2 altogether?

This information is incorrect, based on your scenario. It is unlikely you are going to split or double any particular hand. That is the aggregate disadvantage of never splitting or doubling.

In your fact pattern, you have bet all your money, and are only playing one hand to bust or double your money. Chances are, the situation to double or split does not apply. But suppose you get a hand you would normally double. It was advantageous for you to have bet all your money rather than only half. Now you are not restricted to only taking one card. To say you are in a disadvantageous situation because you did not hold back half of your money is faulty logic. In a split situation, you would increase the house edge by not being able to split.

I don't know how to analyze this scenario to arrive at a solid conclusion. Perhaps you thought this was a good example, when it is not, and you really just wanted to know the aggregate effect as a matter of strategy, which has been stated.

No, that is actually the very scenario I was interested in. I have been trying to determine the best game to play one single hand with your entire bankroll for the night with the goal of doubling or nothing. And I was curious what kind of HE effect not doubling or splitting or insurance would have on a single play?

The best game for an all-in bet is probably a banker bet in Baccarat, with a HE of just over 1%. In craps, you would have to place or lay odds in order to get the advertised edge, and Roulette (even single-wheel!) is horrendous.

Quote: Gandler

Quote: Sonuvabish

Quote: Gandler

Quote: rdw4potus

Here's a list of rule variations from WoO.

Looks like no splits adds 0.57% and not doubling adds 1.48%

Awesome thank you! I must have missed that page!

So I guess making BJ is then probably the worst game to make a single bankroll sized bet. So just to make sure I am reading right it adds .57 plus1.48 so plus over 2 altogether?

This information is incorrect, based on your scenario. It is unlikely you are going to split or double any particular hand. That is the aggregate disadvantage of never splitting or doubling.

In your fact pattern, you have bet all your money, and are only playing one hand to bust or double your money. Chances are, the situation to double or split does not apply. But suppose you get a hand you would normally double. It was advantageous for you to have bet all your money rather than only half. Now you are not restricted to only taking one card. To say you are in a disadvantageous situation because you did not hold back half of your money is faulty logic. In a split situation, you would increase the house edge by not being able to split.

I don't know how to analyze this scenario to arrive at a solid conclusion. Perhaps you thought this was a good example, when it is not, and you really just wanted to know the aggregate effect as a matter of strategy, which has been stated.

No, that is actually the very scenario I was interested in. I have been trying to determine the best game to play one single hand with your entire bankroll for the night with the goal of doubling or nothing. And I was curious what kind of HE effect not doubling or splitting or insurance would have on a single play?

I cannot say for sure. If betting everything on one hand, my best guess is that you increase the house edge by approximately the amount it costs to be unable to split--.57%. You lose nothing for being unable to double. You lose some for being unable to double after a split, but counter-intuitively, I believe you would gain a similar amount back from being able to take multiple cards on hands you would normally double. This only applies when you bet all your available funds, and had the option not to do so. Unless you are playing a relatively poor game or are not an excellent player, there is no reason to place this wager at the baccarat table.

Quote: Sonuvabish

Quote: Gandler

Quote: Sonuvabish

Quote: Gandler

Quote: rdw4potus

Here's a list of rule variations from WoO.

Looks like no splits adds 0.57% and not doubling adds 1.48%

Awesome thank you! I must have missed that page!

So I guess making BJ is then probably the worst game to make a single bankroll sized bet. So just to make sure I am reading right it adds .57 plus1.48 so plus over 2 altogether?

This information is incorrect, based on your scenario. It is unlikely you are going to split or double any particular hand. That is the aggregate disadvantage of never splitting or doubling.

In your fact pattern, you have bet all your money, and are only playing one hand to bust or double your money. Chances are, the situation to double or split does not apply. But suppose you get a hand you would normally double. It was advantageous for you to have bet all your money rather than only half. Now you are not restricted to only taking one card. To say you are in a disadvantageous situation because you did not hold back half of your money is faulty logic. In a split situation, you would increase the house edge by not being able to split.

I don't know how to analyze this scenario to arrive at a solid conclusion. Perhaps you thought this was a good example, when it is not, and you really just wanted to know the aggregate effect as a matter of strategy, which has been stated.

No, that is actually the very scenario I was interested in. I have been trying to determine the best game to play one single hand with your entire bankroll for the night with the goal of doubling or nothing. And I was curious what kind of HE effect not doubling or splitting or insurance would have on a single play?

I cannot say for sure. If betting everything on one hand, my best guess is that you increase the house edge by approximately the amount it costs to be unable to split--.57%. You lose nothing for being unable to double. You lose some for being unable to double after a split, but counter-intuitively, I believe you would gain a similar amount back from being able to take multiple cards on hands you would normally double. This only applies when you bet all your available funds, and had the option not to do so. Unless you are playing a relatively poor game or are not an excellent player, there is no reason to place this wager at the baccarat table.

I'm sorry, but I'm confused.
Just to clarify, are you saying BJ is still a better bet than baccarat, even without splitting, assuming you play perfect strategdy?

Quote: Gandler

Quote: Sonuvabish

Quote: Gandler

Quote: Sonuvabish

Quote: Gandler

Quote: rdw4potus

Here's a list of rule variations from WoO.

Looks like no splits adds 0.57% and not doubling adds 1.48%

Awesome thank you! I must have missed that page!

So I guess making BJ is then probably the worst game to make a single bankroll sized bet. So just to make sure I am reading right it adds .57 plus1.48 so plus over 2 altogether?

This information is incorrect, based on your scenario. It is unlikely you are going to split or double any particular hand. That is the aggregate disadvantage of never splitting or doubling.

In your fact pattern, you have bet all your money, and are only playing one hand to bust or double your money. Chances are, the situation to double or split does not apply. But suppose you get a hand you would normally double. It was advantageous for you to have bet all your money rather than only half. Now you are not restricted to only taking one card. To say you are in a disadvantageous situation because you did not hold back half of your money is faulty logic. In a split situation, you would increase the house edge by not being able to split.

I don't know how to analyze this scenario to arrive at a solid conclusion. Perhaps you thought this was a good example, when it is not, and you really just wanted to know the aggregate effect as a matter of strategy, which has been stated.

No, that is actually the very scenario I was interested in. I have been trying to determine the best game to play one single hand with your entire bankroll for the night with the goal of doubling or nothing. And I was curious what kind of HE effect not doubling or splitting or insurance would have on a single play?

I cannot say for sure. If betting everything on one hand, my best guess is that you increase the house edge by approximately the amount it costs to be unable to split--.57%. You lose nothing for being unable to double. You lose some for being unable to double after a split, but counter-intuitively, I believe you would gain a similar amount back from being able to take multiple cards on hands you would normally double. This only applies when you bet all your available funds, and had the option not to do so. Unless you are playing a relatively poor game or are not an excellent player, there is no reason to place this wager at the baccarat table.

I'm sorry, but I'm confused.
Just to clarify, are you saying BJ is still a better bet than baccarat, even without splitting, assuming you play perfect strategdy?

It depends on the rules of the blackjack game. Generally, an S17 game would be slightly better and H17 slightly worse compared to baccarat banker odds, but that is not a rule. The scenario you are suggesting is potentially ruinous, and because we are primarily discussing it as a non-optimal strategy; that is why I state there is no reason to switch to baccarat--the odds at baccarat are going to have an insignificant difference, positive or negative. I mention some vague possible exceptions if it is a concern, but I don't see any reason with merit as to why it should be a concern. Does your question have an application, or is it a hypothetical?

I should add there's no reason not to switch to baccarat either, except you can't pick an opportune time to bet like you can at blackjack.

Quote: Sonuvabish

Quote: Gandler

Quote: Sonuvabish

Quote: Gandler

Quote: Sonuvabish

Quote: Gandler

Quote: rdw4potus

Here's a list of rule variations from WoO.

Looks like no splits adds 0.57% and not doubling adds 1.48%

Awesome thank you! I must have missed that page!

So I guess making BJ is then probably the worst game to make a single bankroll sized bet. So just to make sure I am reading right it adds .57 plus1.48 so plus over 2 altogether?

This information is incorrect, based on your scenario. It is unlikely you are going to split or double any particular hand. That is the aggregate disadvantage of never splitting or doubling.

In your fact pattern, you have bet all your money, and are only playing one hand to bust or double your money. Chances are, the situation to double or split does not apply. But suppose you get a hand you would normally double. It was advantageous for you to have bet all your money rather than only half. Now you are not restricted to only taking one card. To say you are in a disadvantageous situation because you did not hold back half of your money is faulty logic. In a split situation, you would increase the house edge by not being able to split.

I don't know how to analyze this scenario to arrive at a solid conclusion. Perhaps you thought this was a good example, when it is not, and you really just wanted to know the aggregate effect as a matter of strategy, which has been stated.

No, that is actually the very scenario I was interested in. I have been trying to determine the best game to play one single hand with your entire bankroll for the night with the goal of doubling or nothing. And I was curious what kind of HE effect not doubling or splitting or insurance would have on a single play?

I cannot say for sure. If betting everything on one hand, my best guess is that you increase the house edge by approximately the amount it costs to be unable to split--.57%. You lose nothing for being unable to double. You lose some for being unable to double after a split, but counter-intuitively, I believe you would gain a similar amount back from being able to take multiple cards on hands you would normally double. This only applies when you bet all your available funds, and had the option not to do so. Unless you are playing a relatively poor game or are not an excellent player, there is no reason to place this wager at the baccarat table.

I'm sorry, but I'm confused.
Just to clarify, are you saying BJ is still a better bet than baccarat, even without splitting, assuming you play perfect strategdy?

It depends on the rules of the blackjack game. Generally, an S17 game would be slightly better and H17 slightly worse compared to baccarat banker odds, but that is not a rule. The scenario you are suggesting is potentially ruinous, and because we are primarily discussing it as a non-optimal strategy; that is why I state there is no reason to switch to baccarat--the odds at baccarat are going to have an insignificant difference, positive or negative. I mention some vague possible exceptions if it is a concern, but I don't see any reason with merit as to why it should be a concern. Does your question have an application, or is it a hypothetical?

Just a hypothetical.

Thanks for the response!