House edge?
All things being equal, is it worth it to trade the commission for the opportunity to bet only $1 counts less than +2?
Can a house edge be estimated, with the commission factored in only on low bets?
OUCH! that's horrible, just play video blackjack or something for $1.Quote: racquetFoxwoods has $1 minimum blackjack. 8D, DAS, H17, 3:2. The gotcha is that there's a 25cent commission paid on any bet under $10. There are several of these games that I have seen, as opposed to a single $5 table that they have to meet their advertised "$5 blackjack", but I think it's only Monday through Friday.
All things being equal, is it worth it to trade the commission for the opportunity to bet only $1 counts less than +2?
Can a house edge be estimated, with the commission factored in only on low bets?
Quote: AxelWolfOUCH! that's horrible, just play video blackjack or something for $1.
Well, the Wizard's calculator says the HE of that game is .7489% with optimal play, which assumes BS but not counting (you didn't give every factor the calculator asks for, but I assumed the most common rules.
So, on a $1 bet, the HE becomes 25.7489%, adding in the quarter.
all the way up to...
On a $9 bet, the HE becomes 3.5267%, adding in the quarter.
On a $10 bet, the HE goes back to .7489% .
I can't imagine playing that $.25 cent game and losing that much equity each hand. My minbet would have to be at $10 and ride it out flat-betting.
However, I'm not a counter, so I'll be interested to see what some of them on here say.
I assumed he was talking about betting $1.Quote: beachbumbabsWell, the Wizard's calculator says the HE of that game is .7489% with optimal play, which assumes BS but not counting (you didn't give every factor the calculator asks for, but I assumed the most common rules.
So, on a $1 bet, the HE becomes 25.7489%, adding in the quarter.
all the way up to...
On a $9 bet, the HE becomes 3.5267%, adding in the quarter.
On a $10 bet, the HE goes back to .7489% .
I can't imagine playing that $.25 cent game and losing that much equity each hand. My minbet would have to be at $10 and ride it out flat-betting.
However, I'm not a counter, so I'll be interested to see what some of them on here say.
Quote: racquetFoxwoods has $1 minimum blackjack. 8D, DAS, H17, 3:2. The gotcha is that there's a 25cent commission paid on any bet under $10. There are several of these games that I have seen, as opposed to a single $5 table that they have to meet their advertised "$5 blackjack", but I think it's only Monday through Friday.
All things being equal, is it worth it to trade the commission for the opportunity to bet only $1 counts less than +2?
Can a house edge be estimated, with the commission factored in only on low bets?
Welcome to the forum, racquet. They're certainly making a lot of changes at Foxwoods aren't they?
The ante is often credited as the brainchild of Kevin Brown who launched it on $2 tables when he was Table Games Director at Resorts AC. Antes can be found in Oklahoma and California as well. Resorts discontinued them a few years ago. Mr. Brown now holds that position at Twin River where, thankfully, the ante is not taking up space. This concludes the history lesson that you didn't ask for. :-)
A good card counter will rarely see a 2% advantage unless maybe he plays a single deck game with rules on a par with the El Cortez game and we all know what happens there. You're playing a mediocre game at best and I only say that because of Foxwoods' good penetration. As these tables are crowded with players trying to get in on this "fantastic" game, I'm assuming that you play all. You've told us that you're not spreading so I believe you would be subject to the house edge like any basic strategy player. You need a lot more than a 1-2 spread here. Think 1-16 or 1-20.
Let's do some basic math. The house edge on this game is .57%, a number that I do not have to look up. This is a slow game so let's go with 60 hands per hour. You will be lucky to see a plus 2 count 20% of the time. That's 48 hands at $1 and 12 hands at $2 for a total of $72 an hour wagered. In this example I'm going to give you that elusive 2% edge for a win rate of $1.44 an hour. Subtract that from the "chair rental" of $15 (60 hands times 25 cents) and your hourly loss is $13.56.
Let's try flat betting $10 to get the ante waived. We won't even bother counting. The same 60 hands now total $600 wagered per hour. Multiply by the .57% house edge and you get an hourly loss of $3.42 instead of the $13.56.
To avoid complicating things and to illustrate this as clearly as I can, I left out our friend variance. All that means is that over time your expectations should be close to this. There are many variables at work and your short term results can fluctuate, often more than you'd like. Run, don't walk, away from this horrible game.
Is anyone up yet? Has anyone not been to bed yet? I went to bed at one and got up at seven. Happy New Year, everyone!
Quote: 1BBThe ante is often credited as the brainchild of Kevin Brown
rather ingenious as it takes advantage of the typical ploppy's inability to comprehend EV; a quarter just doesnt sound like much.
PS: I generally get up about the same time every day, no matter when I went to bed [unless crazy late]
Quote: 1BBWe've pretty much got the place to ourselves. Let's make the mods proud.
how about some trivia? I'll start a thread
Quote: odiousgambitrather ingenious as it takes advantage of the typical ploppy's inability to comprehend EV; a quarter just doesnt sound like much.
PS: I generally get up about the same time every day, no matter when I went to bed [unless crazy late]
Those tables are the first ones to fill up and sometimes they have people waiting to play. Imagine waiting for someone to tap out at a $1 table?
That's why I find it dishonest to call it an ante. An ante is a mandatory wager. If you can't win it back, it's a fee.Quote: 1BBEvery hand. The quarters are swept into the tray before the hand is dealt. They're gone forever.
The tables are not being used as intended. Limits are $1 to $500. What's happening is that as the other table minimums increase to $15 and $25, players are sitting at these $1 tables and betting $10 so the ante gets waived. What they have created is a $10 minimum that will never increase. Talk about getting grandfathered. I think I remember Resorts dealing with this by having the table max at $10 or maybe $20.
Surrender was mentioned and it is allowed even on a $1 bet. Remember, this game has quarters. Bets can be made in any combination, not just $5 increments. Players no longer benefit on, say, a $7.50 blackjack or surrender. For example, a $7.50 blackjack pays $11.25 instead of the $11.50 that it would on the games without quarters.
I'm sure some here remember when Mohegan Sun did not carry pink chips. Same thing.
Quote: 1BBWelcome to the forum, racquet. They're certainly making a lot of changes at Foxwoods aren't they?
The ante is often credited as the brainchild of Kevin Brown who launched it on $2 tables when he was Table Games Director at Resorts AC. Antes can be found in Oklahoma and California as well. Resorts discontinued them a few years ago. Mr. Brown now holds that position at Twin River where, thankfully, the ante is not taking up space. This concludes the history lesson that you didn't ask for. :-)
A good card counter will rarely see a 2% advantage unless maybe he plays a single deck game with rules on a par with the El Cortez game and we all know what happens there. You're playing a mediocre game at best and I only say that because of Foxwoods' good penetration. As these tables are crowded with players trying to get in on this "fantastic" game, I'm assuming that you play all. You've told us that you're not spreading so I believe you would be subject to the house edge like any basic strategy player. You need a lot more than a 1-2 spread here. Think 1-16 or 1-20.
Let's do some basic math. The house edge on this game is .57%, a number that I do not have to look up. This is a slow game so let's go with 60 hands per hour. You will be lucky to see a plus 2 count 20% of the time. That's 48 hands at $1 and 12 hands at $2 for a total of $72 an hour wagered. In this example I'm going to give you that elusive 2% edge for a win rate of $1.44 an hour. Subtract that from the "chair rental" of $15 (60 hands times 25 cents) and your hourly loss is $13.56.
Let's try flat betting $10 to get the ante waived. We won't even bother counting. The same 60 hands now total $600 wagered per hour. Multiply by the .57% house edge and you get an hourly loss of $3.42 instead of the $13.56.
To avoid complicating things and to illustrate this as clearly as I can, I left out our friend variance. All that means is that over time your expectations should be close to this. There are many variables at work and your short term results can fluctuate, often more than you'd like. Run, don't walk, away from this horrible game.
Is anyone up yet? Has anyone not been to bed yet? I went to bed at one and got up at seven. Happy New Year, everyone!
+1 post. I had a couple questions pop up in my head like "is this assuming flat betting only?" and "I wonder if this changes if you apply wonging out at TC -1?" and "does counting change this by figuring in TC frequencies and only betting $1 'some' of the time" ...etc, but then realized after re-reading it that 1BB does essentially cover all of those bases =). Just wanted to say thanks for the post!
Quote: Romes+1 post. I had a couple questions pop up in my head like "is this assuming flat betting only?" and "I wonder if this changes if you apply wonging out at TC -1?" and "does counting change this by figuring in TC frequencies and only betting $1 'some' of the time" ...etc, but then realized after re-reading it that 1BB does essentially cover all of those bases =). Just wanted to say thanks for the post!
Thanks for reading it. These $1 tables are just another example of when something sounds too good to be true. I sense that the question was asked with an eye toward stretching the gambling dollar. Since we're talking about Foxwoods, I should have mentioned a low roller alternative fifteen minutes away.
Mohegan Sun has five $5 tables that are always open and the minimum never increases. They are 6 deck H17 and are the only H17 tables in the entire casino. Because they are 6, deck the house edge comes in at .55%. Unlimited pair splitting would lower that but the effect is insignificant, so much so that I don't think anyone has bothered to figure it out.
Quote: 1BBI sense that the question was asked with an eye toward stretching the gambling dollar. Since we're talking about Foxwoods, I should have mentioned a low roller alternative fifteen minutes away.
It was the mathematics that I was curious about. I was interested in seeing if there was a way to determine the house edge, since between $1 and $9.99 the $.25 commission would cause it to vary, and if there was some benefit in being able to bet only $1 on a count less than, say, +2, even with the $.25.
The consensus seems to be that it's a waste of time, which is what I thought off the top of my head.
Quote: racquetThe consensus seems to be that it's a waste of time, which is what I thought off the top of my head.
I believe the consensus is not only that it's a waste of time, but a very costly waste of time (RE: -$13/hour vs -$3/hour).
Quote: JimRockfordThat's why I find it dishonest to call it an ante. An ante is a mandatory wager. If you can't win it back, it's a fee.
True but the casino will use such verbiage as it deems to be in its favor. That is why 'resort fee' is used and 'useless surcharge' is not.
And "shall we up the ante" is an expression that is used in social situations not involving wagering such as when a girl takes her blouse off or reaches into her cleavage and produces a joint to be passed around. Its not a wager, but it is a wagering term.
And its one reason why I advise those in Oklahoma to save up their money and drive to Las Vegas... that "ante" or "fee" eats up too much of a bankroll no matter what you call it.
