Online BJ with side bets...
October 24th, 2016 at 12:55:34 PM
permalink
Hi.
I've just been on a site that offers a side bet in addition to their normal blackjack game (BJ pays 3:2, Splits on first bet, dealer stands on 17 and draws on 16, Double down).
The side bet is interesting - until the dealer gets BJ, if you hit between 6 and 10 'pairs' (AA, KK, QQ, JJ, 1010, Hearts, Spades, Clubs, Diamonds and BJ count) you get a return of 4:1 for 6 pairs, 9:1 for 7 pairs, 50:1 for 8 pairs, 100:1 for 9 pairs and 500:1 for 10 pairs.
I've just hit 9 pairs on my second attempt (the dealer didn't hit BJ for an extraordinarily long time) and for a £1 side bet, took £100. They caluculate the RTP at 99.64% but given what I've seen here (first time on the forum but not new to the Wizard of Odds BJ strategy), this seems as if it should tip in the players favour. I'm not one to disagree with their maths, but does anyone have any thoughts of their own?
Thanks
Jase
I've just been on a site that offers a side bet in addition to their normal blackjack game (BJ pays 3:2, Splits on first bet, dealer stands on 17 and draws on 16, Double down).
The side bet is interesting - until the dealer gets BJ, if you hit between 6 and 10 'pairs' (AA, KK, QQ, JJ, 1010, Hearts, Spades, Clubs, Diamonds and BJ count) you get a return of 4:1 for 6 pairs, 9:1 for 7 pairs, 50:1 for 8 pairs, 100:1 for 9 pairs and 500:1 for 10 pairs.
I've just hit 9 pairs on my second attempt (the dealer didn't hit BJ for an extraordinarily long time) and for a £1 side bet, took £100. They caluculate the RTP at 99.64% but given what I've seen here (first time on the forum but not new to the Wizard of Odds BJ strategy), this seems as if it should tip in the players favour. I'm not one to disagree with their maths, but does anyone have any thoughts of their own?
Thanks
Jase
October 24th, 2016 at 1:39:17 PM
permalink
Hey markemoon, and welcome to the forums!
On average, you, or the dealer, will get a blackjack in about 1 in every ~21 hands (single deck analysis). So for you to say "the dealer didn't get blackjack for a very long time" is a statement that would lead me to believe you saw the positive side of variance (luck) to that.
Could you explain how the side bet works a bit further? You place a $1 (euro) wager.. and it just sits there until the dealer hits a blackjack basically? Do they have some kind of side counter for the number of pairs you're dealt in the meantime?
The player will hit a pair 7.4% of the hands they play. So for every 100 hands you play, you'd expect to get 7.4 pairs... Per 20 hands you'd expect to hit ~1.5 pairs. Thus, for every ~1.5 pairs you get, the dealer should get a blackjack. Given the lowest return on the table is 4 pairs, you have to clearly get lucky to avoid the average dealer blackjack long enough to hit your pairs.
Not trying to be the barer of bad news, but this happens a lot when people see a new bet and just get lucky enough to win on it the first time they play it. The feeling of "well I've never lost on this bet" sometimes leads the logic away from "Maybe I just got lucky tonight?".
edit: Also, if you're trying to find edges, online blackjack "usually" isn't the place. Even when the game has good rules (rare) the penetration is HORRIBLE (like 50%). Then if you somehow win on a site, you have another big battle just trying to get paid...
On average, you, or the dealer, will get a blackjack in about 1 in every ~21 hands (single deck analysis). So for you to say "the dealer didn't get blackjack for a very long time" is a statement that would lead me to believe you saw the positive side of variance (luck) to that.
Could you explain how the side bet works a bit further? You place a $1 (euro) wager.. and it just sits there until the dealer hits a blackjack basically? Do they have some kind of side counter for the number of pairs you're dealt in the meantime?
The player will hit a pair 7.4% of the hands they play. So for every 100 hands you play, you'd expect to get 7.4 pairs... Per 20 hands you'd expect to hit ~1.5 pairs. Thus, for every ~1.5 pairs you get, the dealer should get a blackjack. Given the lowest return on the table is 4 pairs, you have to clearly get lucky to avoid the average dealer blackjack long enough to hit your pairs.
Not trying to be the barer of bad news, but this happens a lot when people see a new bet and just get lucky enough to win on it the first time they play it. The feeling of "well I've never lost on this bet" sometimes leads the logic away from "Maybe I just got lucky tonight?".
edit: Also, if you're trying to find edges, online blackjack "usually" isn't the place. Even when the game has good rules (rare) the penetration is HORRIBLE (like 50%). Then if you somehow win on a site, you have another big battle just trying to get paid...
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
October 24th, 2016 at 3:28:48 PM
permalink
Much appreciated - I'm sure the spin is to make it look better than it actually is and in this case, it's worked. I didn't think my luck was typical but was interested in how the side bet (your assertion is correct - the wager sits there and there's a counter of sorts where each pair you've hit is 'lit up') stopped short of tipping the balance in the player's favour, although 99.64% is as close as you might ever see.
Lovely bit of maths by the way! I I probably could have done that myself but thought there might be more experience here on this site :) Many thanks.
Lovely bit of maths by the way! I I probably could have done that myself but thought there might be more experience here on this site :) Many thanks.
