I would expect a preponderance of 7s to turn 60% of dealer stiffs (12, 13, 14) into 18-killers. After all, in many modified hi-lo counts, a 7 is counted as +0.5, meaning that two 7s out of the deck is equivalent to two, say, 4s out of the deck. It follows that a deck with a preponderance of 7s is mildly unfavorable to the player. That alone might be enough to negate any side bet advantage, because you have to make a plain ol' blackjack bet in order to make the side bet.
...a deck with a preponderance of 7s is mildly unfavorable to the player. That alone might be enough to negate any side bet advantage, because you have to make a plain ol' blackjack bet in order to make the side bet.
A shortage of aces, as well as a preponderance of 7's, is good for the sidebet. So, the main blackjack bet would tend to be really bad when the sidebet is at positive EV. Counters who "play all" could have a side count of aces vs 7's to play Instant 18 as a side bet, but counters who "wong out" at negative counts might do better overall.
I also doubt very much that the 7s and the As have equal weight, which would lead to gross inaccuracies if that was the case.
You may be on to something, but I doubt that a simple Ace-7 count alone would do the job here.
So, here it is again ... many thanks to you, Mr. Wizard, you're the best ...
Overall, if you played this bet every time the true count was 2 or more, then you would play it on 12.96% of the hands and have an average edge of 0.91% over the house. I would rank this side bet as beatable, but not worth it. There may be a stronger count available, what do I know?
Interesting. Given the re-post, can you shed some light on who requested the deletion of your first two posts?
Glad you found it interesting ... the bet is not especially beatable ... if the max wager is $100 then on 12 hands per 100 you'll make about 91 cents, for a win rate of $10.92 per 100 hands. Not exactly time to retire and play this bet, is it? If the bet had any real issues, the deletions would have stood up.