Double Exposure seems like it should be more advantageous than regular BJ

It seems to me that Double Exposure should be more advantageous to the player than regular blackjack. Why is it usually listed as less so?

Disadvantage of course is ties lose and that's a big one.

But the Advantages are numerous and seem like they would more than make up for ties losing:

1. Taking advantage of all the high % aggressive splits and doubles.
2. Hitting and winning those times when you would have stood if you were only seeing the Dealer's 2-6 card.
3. Avoiding splits and doubles that you might do if you were only seeing the Dealer's 2-6 card and not his hole card that might add his total up to 7-11.

So maybe the edge comes down to how often you can split and double?

Whether a dealer hits a soft 17 or not doesn't seem like that big a deal. Won't come up that many times to make much of a difference, will it?

Quote: barnstorm

It seems to me that Double Exposure should be more advantageous to the player than regular blackjack. Why is it usually listed as less so?

Disadvantage of course is ties lose and that's a big one.

But the Advantages are numerous and seem like they would more than make up for ties losing:

1. Taking advantage of all the high % aggressive splits and doubles.
2. Hitting and winning those times when you would have stood if you were only seeing the Dealer's 2-6 card.
3. Avoiding splits and doubles that you might do if you were only seeing the Dealer's 2-6 card and not his hole card that might add his total up to 7-11.

So maybe the edge comes down to how often you can split and double?

Whether a dealer hits a soft 17 or not doesn't seem like that big a deal. Won't come up that many times to make much of a difference, will it?

It's not about the numerical amount of pros and cons. It's the house edge. Losing every push to the dealer kills the game, the worst rule there is. The game isn't outright abandoned because many people, like you, don't seem to realize that it's a stats game. In that game, they also will pay even money on blackjack, as pushes losing alone isn't enough to kill the player advantage.

So that's it? None of those things even all added together make up for ties losing? I assumed that the ties losing must be it, but it just doesn't seem like it when I play. I guess I have just gotten lucky, but I have played a lot of Double Exposure and am way ahead. Better quit while I am!

Thanks!

Quote: barnstorm

So that's it? None of those things even all added together make up for ties losing? I assumed that the ties losing must be it, but it just doesn't seem like it when I play. I guess I have just gotten lucky, but I have played a lot of Double Exposure and am way ahead. Better quit while I am!

Thanks!

Pretty much, yeah. With perfect hole-card play, player gets an edge in the low teens, or somewhere round that. I believe in regular BJ, if ties go dealer, that gives the house ~17% edge. (Don't quote me on that one.) And if you know that a tie is going to lose, then you'd play a little differently on those hands (even hands like 99v19, 77v17 [maybe] and definitely hands like 17v17, 18v18, etc.).

"Ties go to dealer" is a pretty gnarly rule which gives an ENOURMOUS edge to the house.

You guys talking about dancing dealers wardrobe malfunctions?

Quote: barnstorm

So that's it? None of those things even all added together make up for ties losing? I assumed that the ties losing must be it, but it just doesn't seem like it when I play. I guess I have just gotten lucky, but I have played a lot of Double Exposure and am way ahead. Better quit while I am!

Thanks!

Pushes losing alone is not enough to destroy the game. But it is the largest killer. The standard game will pay 1:1 on blackjack instead of 3:2.

RS's number's are way off. Double exposure gives the player about a 10% advantage. Losing on pushes decreases the edge by about 8.5%. Paying even money on blackjack gives the house back another 2.5%. You are at a net disadvantage of almost 1%. Obviously, this game can still be beat by counting, but it is not as good as regular blackjack. It's better than 6:5 blackjack, but that's all it's got going for it.

Anytime the dealer takes your money when he didn't win, or doesn't pay you when he lost, due to a rule, it's a scam. The scam is always coupled with some unbelievably favorable rule, that muddles the issue, taking a mathematician or rote memorization of odds tables to figure out the reality of the situation. Obviously, the scam works pretty well.

Quote: Sonuvabish

Pushes losing alone is not enough to destroy the game. But it is the largest killer. The standard game will pay 1:1 on blackjack instead of 3:2.

RS's number's are way off. Double exposure gives the player about a 10% advantage. Losing on pushes decreases the edge by about 8.5%. Paying even money on blackjack gives the house back another 2.5%. You are at a net disadvantage of almost 1%. Obviously, this game can still be beat by counting, but it is not as good as regular blackjack. It's better than 6:5 blackjack, but that's all it's got going for it.

Anytime the dealer takes your money when he didn't win, or doesn't pay you when he lost, due to a rule, it's a scam. The scam is always coupled with some unbelievably favorable rule, that muddles the issue, taking a mathematician or rote memorization of odds tables to figure out the reality of the situation. Obviously, the scam works pretty well.

Thanks! Good stuff. So a 1% disadvantage. And that is with playing smart and taking advantage of all the aggressive and proper doubles and splitting 10s, etc?

So only card counting can help you get back that 1%?

Thanks!

Quote: barnstorm

Thanks! Good stuff. So a 1% disadvantage. And that is with playing smart and taking advantage of all the aggressive and proper doubles and splitting 10s, etc?

So only card counting can help you get back that 1%?

Thanks!

Yes.

Well there would be other ways to get an advantage, for example, knowing what the next card (your first card) is going to be would be advantageous, assuming you can increase/decrease your bet with that knowledge.

I don't know how great card counting is in a double exposure game. It wouldn't be as good as in regular blackjack, though.

Quote: RS

I don't know how great card counting is in a double exposure game. It wouldn't be as good as in regular blackjack, though.

Without being a card counter myself, it seems to me it'd be pretty rough. A high count isn't as nice if your 20 is going to lose to the dealer's 20.

S17 double exposure only has an edge of 0.2%, which is better than blackjack if you can find an S17 game. H17 is 0.6%.

Then counting using hi-lo gives you 0.7% ish per count, which is better than BJ again. Overall, an S17 game is both better to play and better to count than regular BJ.

[all figures source: Pro BJ, Wong]

I'm surprised in the Double Exposure strategy that we stand with a 15 and 16 vs a dealers total of 10.

Why is that, if we would hit that in regular blackjack?

Quote: barnstorm

I'm surprised in the Double Exposure strategy that we stand with a 15 and 16 vs a dealers total of 10.

Why is that, if we would hit that in regular blackjack?

It's because you lose pushes when you successfully hit to 17-21. This rule makes the equity for hitting 15 and 16 vs. 10 soooooo bad, you're better off standing and praying the dealer busts.

Quote: barnstorm

I'm surprised in the Double Exposure strategy that we stand with a 15 and 16 vs a dealers total of 10.

Why is that, if we would hit that in regular blackjack?

In regular BJ, 16 vs 10, much of the utility in hitting comes with getting a 5 or a 4 -the 5 because it wins very often and the 4 because it ties/pushes very often against a dealer's 20. In Double Exposure, you lose much of the utility of getting a four.

In general, there is far less incentive to hit a stiff hand when pushes are a loss. Think of it this way -even if you do get a 17, it is no better than a 15 when pushes count as a loss. And every other positive outcome (18, 19, 20 or 21) has a reduction in EV by roughly 15%. So standing on your stiff hand becomes more attractive, because the benefits of hitting are much lower and you still run a very substantial chance of busting your hand.

Thanks! Makes sense. Risk is not worth it when even if you don't bust it, there's a good chance you can still get beat by dealer's card and will also lose the pushes.

Thanks!

I think I am cured of Blackjack. But I have done MUCH better in Double Exposure than regular Blackjack. Maybe just a limited experience, but I've played thousands of hands and am well ahead. Splitting 10s and doubling after splitting, if allowed, seem to be the key. You just need enough opportunities to do so to make up for the pushes that lose. And I do enjoy hitting 17-20 when you have no choice and pulling out a win!