Is playing as the dealer at 5% fee beneficial?

Hi All,

There is a casino in california which offers you the "buy-in" option at 5% bet fee. Is it beneficial to play it ?What are its long term odds and short term odds of winning?

What Buy-in means?

In regular blackjack you play against the dealer to beat the dealer( by making him burst or you getting a blackjack or higher count) , With the buy-in option you do not have much say apart from how much you are betting . First you bet your amount say $100 and pay a fee of $5 . You will be dealt with two open cards and the dealer with one open and one close card. The casino guy(other than dealer) plays your hand according to the basic strategy chart the regular black jack. except this time if the dealer wins you win. if dealer loses you lose.

rules:
dealer hits on soft 17.
payout ratio is 6:5
it is a six to 8 deck shoe.

Kindly let me know what are the odds of winning and is it better to buy in at 5 % fee or to play regular blackjack?

Regards
Wycrum

Quote: wycrum

Hi All,

There is a casino in california which offers you the "buy-in" option at 5% bet fee. Is it beneficial to play it ?What are its long term odds and short term odds of winning?

What Buy-in means?

In regular blackjack you play against the dealer to beat the dealer( by making him burst or you getting a blackjack or higher count) , With the buy-in option you do not have much say apart from how much you are betting . First you bet your amount say $100 and pay a fee of $5 . You will be dealt with two open cards and the dealer with one open and one close card. The casino guy(other than dealer) plays your hand according to the basic strategy chart the regular black jack. except this time if the dealer wins you win. if dealer loses you lose.

rules:
dealer hits on soft 17.
payout ratio is 6:5
it is a six to 8 deck shoe.

Kindly let me know what are the odds of winning and is it better to buy in at 5 % fee or to play regular blackjack?

Regards
Wycrum

It's a bad deal. 8D 6:5 has a house edge of about 2%. So you if you are betting $100, you expect to gain $2. But you are paying 5% commission, so subtract $5. So you would expect to lose $3. The house edge of being the dealer is 3% vs. being the player, which is 2%.

In conclusion, avoid this game at all costs. If you are betting $100, you definitely deserve to have 6D S17 DAS Sur RSA or 2D S17 DAS for house edge of .3% and .2%. Many respectable casinos will offer you this game for black action.

Quote: Avincow

It's a bad deal. 8D 6:5 has a house edge of about 2%. So you if you are betting $100, you expect to gain $2. But you are paying 5% commission, so subtract $5. So you would expect to lose $3. The house edge of being the dealer is 3% vs. being the player, which is 2%.

In conclusion, avoid this game at all costs. If you are betting $100, you definitely deserve to have 6D S17 DAS Sur RSA or 2D S17 DAS for house edge of .3% and .2%. Many respectable casinos will offer you this game for black action.

Avincow, in California (last time I was there was a few years ago unless its changed but from description it doesn't sound like it) the law is that players cannot play against the house.

Each player is playing against another player. That's the purpose of the "casino player" who in the above description plays your hand while you assume dealer hand.

The casino makes its money only from a collected commission on all hands. The "house player" is usually someone employed by a company to "bank" against the combination of all the other players. In other words, he's there to keep the table in action since most people can't afford it. His company has a deal to bank at the casino and they make their money by having the normal house edge.

The reason why this is important is because the casino commission for all the other players is usually $1 per hundred (which is why the smartest move is to bet $100). If you bet ten bucks, you have a 10% commission fee, if you bet $100 then you have a 1% commission fee.

Anyway, I thought you should know for your math analysis.

Quote: darkoz

Avincow, in California (last time I was there was a few years ago unless its changed but from description it doesn't sound like it) the law is that players cannot play against the house.

Each player is playing against another player. That's the purpose of the "casino player" who in the above description plays your hand while you assume dealer hand.

The casino makes its money only from a collected commission on all hands. The "house player" is usually someone employed by a company to "bank" against the combination of all the other players. In other words, he's there to keep the table in action since most people can't afford it. His company has a deal to bank at the casino and they make their money by having the normal house edge.

The reason why this is important is because the casino commission for all the other players is usually $1 per hundred (which is why the smartest move is to bet $100). If you bet ten bucks, you have a 10% commission fee, if you bet $100 then you have a 1% commission fee.

Anyway, I thought you should know for your math analysis.

I didn't know there was commission in California. Is this only in the poker rooms? If I go to a real casino, is it going to be normal blackjack?

Also, I was aware that you can bank your own game in California. But from what the op said, it sounded different. It sounded like you can play heads up with the dealer. You can either play blackjack as normal. Or you can be the 'Dealer'. In that case, then the dealer would play your hand for you according to basic strategy. According to the description, it did not sound like another player would choose what to do on the hand. So in other words, you cannot hope for player error when you play as the dealer.

From the original poster

"The casino guy(other than dealer) plays your hand according to the basic strategy chart the regular black jack"

That sounds like the "house player" has switched sides and is playing your hand against the dealer. If dealer wins, then house player loses. Normally its the other way around, if dealer wins, house player wins.

As for how it is played on casinos this is a California law and applies to all blackjack and casinos. The Indian casinos (as usual) may have more latitude but I've never played there. It's possible they also must follow this rule as I know they must follow the weird roulette rules.

In California strict roulette is illegal so instead of a wheel and a ball, they spin a wheel with players sized cards and a stopper (similar to the Big Wheel) and whichever card is stopped, they pull it out to display the winning number (the card is marked "2" then black and 2 is the winner.)

The "House Player" is usually trained in basic strategy and from my experiences rarely makes mistakes. They are on salary by a company.

It should be noted that they are also playing against the dealer -- they receive a hand and play it out and they pay the same commission. This is important because it makes them a legit player and not just another employee of the casino (which would make it illegal.).

The "House Player" plays his hand to the best of his ability and also banks against the other players. Again, the profit comes more from the house edge when the other players lose against the dealer but he's trying to keep his hands a winner as well.

You can see why the company wouldn't want just any joker playing for them.

BTW - it's not their money but company money. When they come on their shift, the casino brings them their chips which are in a separate glass case (they always sit at first base) and when they finish their shift the chips are escorted by the casino back to cage. Obviously to protect the contracted companies interest.

Quote: darkoz

The reason why this is important is because the casino commission for all the other players is usually $1 per hundred (which is why the smartest move is to bet $100). If you bet ten bucks, you have a 10% commission fee, if you bet $100 then you have a 1% commission fee.

Anyway, I thought you should know for your math analysis.

So if you bet $10, you pay $1 in comission fee, and say 2% in house edge ? That will make it $1.2 total. If you bet $100, it will be $3 in total.
How is betting $100 smarter than betting $10 ?

Quote: MangoJ

So if you bet $10, you pay $1 in comission fee, and say 2% in house edge ? That will make it $1.2 total. If you bet $100, it will be $3 in total.
How is betting $100 smarter than betting $10 ?

Here is a good example of twisted math.

You are combining where you shouldn't. A 10% commission vs. a 1% commission and you ask how is making the lower one better, then combine it with the normal house edge on all bets to get your answer.

Here is how to actually do the math (and I am not a mathematician but am smart enough to figure this out).

Making one bet of $100 vs. ten separate bets of $10 at normal 2% house edge (no commission) and the expected loss is $2.

Now same thing but add the commission. The bet of $100 has an expected loss of $3.

However, the ten bets of $10 (same amount of money risked) has an expected loss of $2 plus $1 per hand for a total loss of $12!

Are you still thinking you should bet the smaller amount because it has a better expected loss?

Of course one $100 bet is better than ten $10 bets, no question.

How about a single $100 bet against a single $10 bet ?

In the end it comes down to what you want to maximize.
- expected loss per hour ? Make small bets.
- expected loss per total wager ? Make few large bets.

I'm sure you are also smart enough to figure these out.

Quote: MangoJ

Of course one $100 bet is better than ten $10 bets, no question.

How about a single $100 bet against a single $10 bet ?

In the end it comes down to what you want to maximize.
- expected loss per hour ? Make small bets.
- expected loss per total wager ? Make few large bets.

I'm sure you are also smart enough to figure these out.

Obviously in my original comment I was addressing the loss relating to commissions!

Bet $10 and lose $1 (then add normal house edge).

Bet $100 and lose $1 (then add normal house edge).

Are you actually arguing the first choice is mathematically better? If so, I have no respect for mathematicians whatsoever anymore. You flushed it down the toilet.

You need to define "mathematically better" before you make that assertion. MangoJ's comments are exactly correct:
"In the end it comes down to what you want to maximize.
- expected loss per hour ? Make small bets.
- expected loss per total wager ? Make few large bets."

It's like berating someone for making $1 hardways while the black chip player is loading up on the passline odds. The black chip player has a far lower percentage edge but far higher dollar loss per bet.

What do you put in your wallet, percentages or dollars?

Quote: wycrum

First you bet your amount say $100 and pay a fee of $5 . You will be dealt with two open cards and the dealer with one open and one close card. The casino guy(other than dealer) plays your hand according to the basic strategy chart the regular black jack. except this time if the dealer wins you win. if dealer loses you lose.

rules:
dealer hits on soft 17.
payout ratio is 6:5
it is a six to 8 deck shoe.


Regards
Wycrum

Your description is a bit contradictory.
You seem to imply that will only lose your initial bet of $100, ie No Doubles, No Splits and no Excess payout for BJ.
But then you say that payout ratio is 6:5, I assume that you mean for BJ and you will lose additional from the $100 bet another $20.

So what are the rules? No Double, No Split and no excess loss from BJ?