Blackjack bullets side bet
May 16th, 2014 at 8:06:37 AM
permalink
Saw this blackjack side bet on a six deck game a couple months ago:
Pay table based on player aces:
3 to 1 - one ace
15 to 1 - Pair aces
75 to 1- suited pair aces
200 to 1 - Three aces (consecutive after a split)
1000 to 1 - Three suited aces (consecutive after split)
2000 to 1 - Four aces (consecutive after split)
13,500 to 1 - Four aces all red or all black (cons after split)
Anybody know the HE on this game?
Pay table based on player aces:
3 to 1 - one ace
15 to 1 - Pair aces
75 to 1- suited pair aces
200 to 1 - Three aces (consecutive after a split)
1000 to 1 - Three suited aces (consecutive after split)
2000 to 1 - Four aces (consecutive after split)
13,500 to 1 - Four aces all red or all black (cons after split)
Anybody know the HE on this game?
May 16th, 2014 at 8:33:37 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
May 16th, 2014 at 9:03:11 AM
permalink
I don't know how bad the math is on this game but I would probably play it.
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed.
I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
May 16th, 2014 at 5:43:17 PM
permalink
Quote: Swanson234Saw this blackjack side bet on a six deck game a couple months ago:
Pay table based on player aces:
3 to 1 - one ace
15 to 1 - Pair aces
75 to 1- suited pair aces
200 to 1 - Three aces (consecutive after a split)
1000 to 1 - Three suited aces (consecutive after split)
2000 to 1 - Four aces (consecutive after split)
13,500 to 1 - Four aces all red or all black (cons after split)
Anybody know the HE on this game?
Someone better than me at this will be along shortly, I'm sure, my methodology could be flawed
Let's give it the old college try:
Okay, 312 Cards, so now we need the probability of four Aces of the same color, there are 12 such Aces for each color.
(12/312 * 11/311 * 10/310 * 9/309 * 2) = 0.00000255629
Okay, now we need Four Aces, but one of them need be off-color, there are 24 Aces
(24/312 * 23/311 * 22/310 * 21/309) - (12/312 * 11/311 * 10/310 * 9/309 * 2) = 0.00002488128
Okay, now we need three suited Aces, without a Fourth Ace, and there are six Aces for each suit:
(6/312 * 5/311 * 4/310 * 288/309 * 4) = 0.00001487299
Okay, now we need Three Unsuited Aces and no Fourth Ace of any kind, there are again 24 Aces.
(24/312 * 23/311 * 22/310 * 288/309) - (6/312 * 5/311 * 4/310 * 288/309 * 4) = 0.00036141389
Okay, now we need a suited Pair of Aces and no other Ace:
(6/312 * 5/311 * 288/310 * 4) = 0.00114893922
Okay, now we need a Pair of Aces, Unsuited, and no other Ace:
(24/312 * 23/311 * 288/310) - (6/312 * 5/311 * 288/310 * 4) = 0.00413618121
Finally, we need an Ace a non-Ace:
(24/312 * 288/311) = 0.071234232
The total EV is as follows:
Probability of Loss: 1-(0.00000255629+0.00002488128+0.00001487299+0.00036141389+0.00114893922+0.00413618121+0.071234232) = 0.92307692312
EV of Loss: -0.92307692312
EV of All Wins: (0.00000255629*13500) + (0.00002488128*2000) + (0.00001487299*1000) + (0.00036141389* 200) + (0.00114893922*75) + (0.00413618121*15) + (0.071234232*3) = 0.53334409865
House Edge: 0.53334409865 - 0.92307692312 = -0.38973282447 or 38.97%
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 16th, 2014 at 6:31:34 PM
permalink
I might have this right, based on my probability of loss + hit rate, I've at least covered all situations in which an Ace is the first card...
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 16th, 2014 at 6:34:04 PM
permalink
well thanks Mission for ruining what looked like a fun side bet.
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed.
I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
May 16th, 2014 at 7:02:28 PM
permalink
A single ace can be either card, doesn't have to be a first card.
I have to concur with GWAE, thanks a lot for ruining the fun with your depressing math!!
Haha all kidding aside, it's interesting that they only allow $1 max on this monster given how bad it is. Maybe it can be beat via counting? Guessing shuffle tracking would work well.
I have to concur with GWAE, thanks a lot for ruining the fun with your depressing math!!
Haha all kidding aside, it's interesting that they only allow $1 max on this monster given how bad it is. Maybe it can be beat via counting? Guessing shuffle tracking would work well.
May 16th, 2014 at 7:05:56 PM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
May 16th, 2014 at 7:08:46 PM
permalink
Quote: IbeatyouracesIf it's the same, and I think it is, it's a $1 progressive bet. It was when it was here.
At the place I was at there was no progressive. Just the pay table put forth.
May 16th, 2014 at 7:12:15 PM
permalink
Quote: Swanson234A single ace can be either card, doesn't have to be a first card.
I have to concur with GWAE, thanks a lot for ruining a good side bet with your depressing math!!
Haha all kidding aside, it's interesting that they only allow $1 max on this monster given how bad it is. Maybe it can be beat via counting? Guessing shuffle tracking would work nicely too.
Hold on, everything else will be the same, except:
Probability of Loss: (288/312 * 287/312) = 0.84911242603
Also, the one Ace thing becomes:
(24/312 * 288/311) = 0.071234232
(288/312 * 24/311) = 0.071234232
Okay, so we reduce the Expected Loss by that much and increase the Expected Win by the same amount:
(0.92307692312 - 0.071234232) = 0.85184269112
(0.53334409865 + (0.071234232*3)) = 0.74704679465
0.85184269112-0.74704679465 = 0.10479589647 or 10.47958965%
Is it a small casino? They might limit it to $1 because of the 'Lottery-style,' payout structure. Might not want the Variance.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 16th, 2014 at 7:16:19 PM
permalink
Given the lower HE, this is probably countable. I don't have any ability whatsoever to run a simulation, but I might throw out a few scenarios a bit later...
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 16th, 2014 at 7:20:13 PM
permalink
They ve got a lot of tables but they seem relatively squeamish as far as action. Their max bet is only $300.
May 16th, 2014 at 8:11:44 PM
permalink
Ick.
I just tried one with being down to two decks, assuming eight Aces, four of which were suited and five of which were the same color and it reduced the HE by (very) roughly 2%.
It seems that there could be some vulnerability with a suits side count or a Straight Ace Count...
Let's say you had a single deck with eight Aces:
((8/52 * 44/51) + (44/52 * 8/51))*3 = 0.79638009049
(44/52 * 43/51) = 0.71342383107
Okay, so a +4 Aces TC is good right off the top.
((7/52 * 45/51)+(45/52*7/51))*3 = 0.71266968325
(45/52 * 44/51)=0.74660633484
(7/52 * 6/51 * 15) = 0.23755656108
Okay, so just based off of 3:1 Any Ace and 15:1 Two Aces, we know a +3 TC of Aces is good right off the top.
((6/52 * 46/51)+(46/52*6/51))*3 = 0.62443438914
(46/52 * 45/51) = 0.78054298642
(6/52 * 5/51) * 15 = 0.16968325791
Okay, so we see a very slight advantage based on an Aces TC of +2 with 3:1 any and 15:1 any two.
Decks Remaining---Aces Needed
Six Decks----N/A
Five Decks---N/A
Four Decks---ALL
Three Decks---Eighteen Aces
Two Decks---Twelve Aces
One Deck---Six Aces
Other Counts
Again, computer simulations would yield an Optimal Strategy and Count, and I imagine such a count would be predicated somewhat upon the likelihood of the Aces being suited.
I just tried one with being down to two decks, assuming eight Aces, four of which were suited and five of which were the same color and it reduced the HE by (very) roughly 2%.
It seems that there could be some vulnerability with a suits side count or a Straight Ace Count...
Let's say you had a single deck with eight Aces:
((8/52 * 44/51) + (44/52 * 8/51))*3 = 0.79638009049
(44/52 * 43/51) = 0.71342383107
Okay, so a +4 Aces TC is good right off the top.
((7/52 * 45/51)+(45/52*7/51))*3 = 0.71266968325
(45/52 * 44/51)=0.74660633484
(7/52 * 6/51 * 15) = 0.23755656108
Okay, so just based off of 3:1 Any Ace and 15:1 Two Aces, we know a +3 TC of Aces is good right off the top.
((6/52 * 46/51)+(46/52*6/51))*3 = 0.62443438914
(46/52 * 45/51) = 0.78054298642
(6/52 * 5/51) * 15 = 0.16968325791
Okay, so we see a very slight advantage based on an Aces TC of +2 with 3:1 any and 15:1 any two.
Decks Remaining---Aces Needed
Six Decks----N/A
Five Decks---N/A
Four Decks---ALL
Three Decks---Eighteen Aces
Two Decks---Twelve Aces
One Deck---Six Aces
Other Counts
Again, computer simulations would yield an Optimal Strategy and Count, and I imagine such a count would be predicated somewhat upon the likelihood of the Aces being suited.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 16th, 2014 at 8:46:40 PM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
May 16th, 2014 at 9:02:54 PM
permalink
Quote: IbeatyouracesOk. I found the one I'm talking about. It's the "Progressive Blackjack" side bet and it's listed in the wizards blackjack appendix 8.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/appendix/8/
Cool, the probabilities in my first post in this thread agree with Wizard's!
It seems there are two major differences (and one less noticeable) with these two bets. The base pay for Four of the same color appeared to be 25K in the Progressive version, secondly, the Progressive Version appears to only pay on a first card Ace. The less noticeable difference is a suited pair paying 50, as opposed to 75, on that Progressive version.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 16th, 2014 at 10:18:58 PM
permalink
I'm curious where this is, I've never seen it.
May 16th, 2014 at 11:13:31 PM
permalink
Quote: jopkeI'm curious where this is, I've never seen it.
Please ask/answer by PM and let's end the conversation here folks?
~R
May 17th, 2014 at 2:07:09 AM
permalink
Quote: RorryPlease ask/answer by PM and let's end the conversation here folks?
LOL for a shitty side bet with a huge edge and a $1 max bet? Damn, don't want that info to get out!
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
May 17th, 2014 at 3:08:08 AM
permalink
Quote: AcesAndEightsLOL for a shitty side bet with a huge edge and a $1 max bet? Damn, don't want that info to get out!
Agree! If the casino gets too many bettors, they'll realize they are us APs swooping in!!
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
May 17th, 2014 at 5:49:35 AM
permalink
Quote: RorryPlease ask/answer by PM and let's end the conversation here folks?
Oh nos the card counters are going to come out in droves now. I hope people can handle counting to 24.
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed.
I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
May 17th, 2014 at 1:24:21 PM
permalink
Yeah, this definitely isn't worth much, but if you want to go for a lottery-style payout at an advantage, and the base game is worth playing anyway, there you go.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 19th, 2014 at 10:21:53 PM
permalink
Anyone know what happens if the dealer has a BJ? Would you still get 1 or 2 more cards if you started with a pair of aces? If you are stuck with just 2 aces, that would raise the house edge. Here is a pay table if you don't get the extra cards if the dealer has a BJ (with my usual disclaimer about brainos and/or typos):
| HAND | PERMUTATIONS | PAYS | PROBABILITY | RETURN |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 red/black aces | 1072729440 | 13500 | 0.000002441158324 | 0.03295563737 |
| 4 aces | 10455388992 | 2000 | 0.0000237928213 | 0.0475856426 |
| 3 suited aces | 6257986560 | 1000 | 0.0000142409963 | 0.0142409963 |
| 3 non-suited aces | 152069073408 | 200 | 0.00034605621 | 0.069211242 |
| 2 Suited aces | 506551864320 | 75 | 0.001152735493 | 0.08645516199 |
| 2 non-suited aces | 1823468267520 | 15 | 0.004149578238 | 0.06224367357 |
| 1 ace 1st card | 31302786493440 | 3 | 0.07123423201 | 0.213702696 |
| 1 ace 2nd card | 31302786493440 | 3 | 0.07123423201 | 0.213702696 |
| No aces | 374329155150720 | -1 | 0.8518426911 | -0.8518426911 |
| Total | 439434603447840 | 1 | -0.1117449452 |
“Man Babes” #AxelFabulous
May 20th, 2014 at 4:09:18 PM
permalink
Quote: mipletAnyone know what happens if the dealer has a BJ? Would you still get 1 or 2 more cards if you started with a pair of aces? If you are stuck with just 2 aces, that would raise the house edge. Here is a pay table if you don't get the extra cards if the dealer has a BJ (with my usual disclaimer about brainos and/or typos):
HAND PERMUTATIONS PAYS PROBABILITY RETURN 4 red/black aces 1072729440 13500 0.000002441158324 0.03295563737 4 aces 10455388992 2000 0.0000237928213 0.0475856426 3 suited aces 6257986560 1000 0.0000142409963 0.0142409963 3 non-suited aces 152069073408 200 0.00034605621 0.069211242 2 Suited aces 506551864320 75 0.001152735493 0.08645516199 2 non-suited aces 1823468267520 15 0.004149578238 0.06224367357 1 ace 1st card 31302786493440 3 0.07123423201 0.213702696 1 ace 2nd card 31302786493440 3 0.07123423201 0.213702696 No aces 374329155150720 -1 0.8518426911 -0.8518426911 Total 439434603447840 1 -0.1117449452
I never had that situation, but I assume you'd only get paid for a pair of aces and not be allowed to split.
May 20th, 2014 at 7:25:18 PM
permalink
Great angle, Miplet, I didn't even think of that!
(Nor would I have had the ability to compute for it...)
(Nor would I have had the ability to compute for it...)
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
May 20th, 2014 at 7:32:59 PM
permalink
miplet,
I can't answer your question about that particular bet. But there are sidebets (stating a generality) that are required to deal out a dead hand in order to resolve a sidebet, and this could easily be one of them. It has something to do with meeting the requirements of playing for a particular stated pay, or regulated HE; depends on the jurisdiction. Sorry I don't know more about it than that.
I can't answer your question about that particular bet. But there are sidebets (stating a generality) that are required to deal out a dead hand in order to resolve a sidebet, and this could easily be one of them. It has something to do with meeting the requirements of playing for a particular stated pay, or regulated HE; depends on the jurisdiction. Sorry I don't know more about it than that.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
May 20th, 2014 at 8:09:39 PM
permalink
Yeah, one of the dealer bust side bets is like that. The dealer will complete his hand even if all the players bust.
May 20th, 2014 at 8:18:04 PM
permalink
I put a copy of my spreadsheet in google docs. Use the pay table on the left if you get additional cards when the dealer has a BJ. Use the one on the right if you don't. You can change deck composition and pays as needed.
“Man Babes” #AxelFabulous
May 22nd, 2014 at 8:33:43 AM
permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYeah, one of the dealer bust side bets is like that. The dealer will complete his hand even if all the players bust.
Sounds like the Push 22 side bet. Our casino has it for BJ Switch, and the max payout is 50-1 if the dealer draws to 22 with all suited cards. You can guess how often that happens.
May 22nd, 2014 at 8:35:01 AM
permalink
Quote: hwccdealerSounds like the Push 22 side bet. Our casino has it for BJ Switch, and the max payout is 50-1 if the dealer draws to 22 with all suited cards. You can guess how often that happens.
Based on my experience with Freebet last time... about 3 times an hour. ><
May 22nd, 2014 at 8:39:38 AM
permalink
Quote: beachbumbabsmiplet,
I can't answer your question about that particular bet. But there are sidebets (stating a generality) that are required to deal out a dead hand in order to resolve a sidebet, and this could easily be one of them. It has something to do with meeting the requirements of playing for a particular stated pay, or regulated HE; depends on the jurisdiction. Sorry I don't know more about it than that.
In Colorado with multi-action Blackjack, even if everybody busted already, the dealer had to deal the first card of the second and third hand to himself. And when Digital 21 arrived in 2000, until the rules could be changed at the next monthly meeting, a discard rack had to be scotch taped to the top of the digital table.
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
May 22nd, 2014 at 8:42:56 AM
permalink
Quote: BuzzardAnd when Digital 21 arrived in 2000, until the rules could be changed at the next monthly meeting, a discard rack had to be scotch taped to the top of the digital table.
Wait, what? They combined an electronic game with a manual deal to resolve the side bet?
May 22nd, 2014 at 8:51:27 AM
permalink
What ? Multi-action BJ was not a side bet. A player got one hand but could play it up to 3 times against the dealers up card. After first hand was resolved, dealer used same up card 2 more times.
Digital 21 was first version from Digideal of electronic BJ. Dealers killed that game in a heartbeat LOL
Digital 21 was first version from Digideal of electronic BJ. Dealers killed that game in a heartbeat LOL
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
May 22nd, 2014 at 9:01:03 AM
permalink
Was gonna link to Multi Action Blackjack on Wizard of Odds under Blackjack Variants. It's not there ?
While visiting the NEW version of WOO, I had flashbacks of 1985 and NEW coke by the Coca-Cola company !
Anybody else had a similar feeling ?
While visiting the NEW version of WOO, I had flashbacks of 1985 and NEW coke by the Coca-Cola company !
Anybody else had a similar feeling ?
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
