California Blackjack - Option to Bank
April 22nd, 2018 at 10:53:08 PM
permalink
There is a local casino that I live near (in CA) that allows player banking in Blackjack. Players act as the bank and collect the players' bet if they lose, and pay them out if they win. They charge a fee of $1 for every $100 people are wagering, up to $500. Bankers rotate every two hands, and I am not sure if partial banking is allowed. It is pretty standard CA BJ card room rules, 6:5 BJ, H17, DAS, Split up to 4 hands, Double on any 2, late surrender.
I've played at this casino quite a few times to do Blackjack (yes I know 6:5 is bad, but there is no collection fee and the closest Indian Casino is 3 hours away), but I am interested in doing player banking for a few reasons, the main one being that it looks like it can be profitable. I've read up on some of the older threads on this website, but would appreciate any fresh answers from the community here because I have more questions. The questions are below.
1. Is it actually profitable long-term after including the banking fee? My conclusion is that it is, and my logic works like this: House edge with the Wizard's Calculator is 1.91%. Hand fee is about 1-1.5% depending on what people are betting. That equals 0.41-0.91% house edge, which I as a banker would have. Not only that, but the players here make bad decisions, which is described in the next question.
2. If the players are making bad decisions in the game, does this favor banking even better? I believe it does, but not significantly. I see it quite often here. Some things I would see them do is hit on two-card 10s and 11s, staying on hard 15s and 16s versus dealer 7-A, staying on soft 17s and 18s, not utilizing surrendering, and not doubling on soft totals where the basic strategy would say to.
3. I count cards using the hi-lo method. If the count is negative, would it be even wiser to bank then? I would say it is. Conversely, when it is positive, I can play as a player. I've seen it go to -10 true count before, where I would just sit out some hands.
My apologies if it is awkward that I answering my own questions, I am just concerned with my bankroll before I do something like this.
On a side note, I like to bet on the buster bet when the count is negative because there are more small cards that the dealer can bust with, because busting with more cards pays out higher. Is this a good idea, or does the true count have nothing to do with influencing it? On the Wizard's website, the payout table is version 1 (I cannot link because I am still a new member). I read an article on 888casino about counting this, but it used different methods to count, and the pay tables were different.
I've played at this casino quite a few times to do Blackjack (yes I know 6:5 is bad, but there is no collection fee and the closest Indian Casino is 3 hours away), but I am interested in doing player banking for a few reasons, the main one being that it looks like it can be profitable. I've read up on some of the older threads on this website, but would appreciate any fresh answers from the community here because I have more questions. The questions are below.
1. Is it actually profitable long-term after including the banking fee? My conclusion is that it is, and my logic works like this: House edge with the Wizard's Calculator is 1.91%. Hand fee is about 1-1.5% depending on what people are betting. That equals 0.41-0.91% house edge, which I as a banker would have. Not only that, but the players here make bad decisions, which is described in the next question.
2. If the players are making bad decisions in the game, does this favor banking even better? I believe it does, but not significantly. I see it quite often here. Some things I would see them do is hit on two-card 10s and 11s, staying on hard 15s and 16s versus dealer 7-A, staying on soft 17s and 18s, not utilizing surrendering, and not doubling on soft totals where the basic strategy would say to.
3. I count cards using the hi-lo method. If the count is negative, would it be even wiser to bank then? I would say it is. Conversely, when it is positive, I can play as a player. I've seen it go to -10 true count before, where I would just sit out some hands.
My apologies if it is awkward that I answering my own questions, I am just concerned with my bankroll before I do something like this.
On a side note, I like to bet on the buster bet when the count is negative because there are more small cards that the dealer can bust with, because busting with more cards pays out higher. Is this a good idea, or does the true count have nothing to do with influencing it? On the Wizard's website, the payout table is version 1 (I cannot link because I am still a new member). I read an article on 888casino about counting this, but it used different methods to count, and the pay tables were different.
April 23rd, 2018 at 2:19:57 AM
permalink
Easy answer? Probably, yes, and yes. Anything that makes things more favorable to the player makes things worse for the house (banker), and vice versa.
A few other considerations-- how do people in your area feel about other players banking, as opposed to the company? I don't do the CA card rooms, but I've had people try to squeeze me out of banking at PGP before, by raising their bets from things like 50 to 500. Can your bankroll survive something like that?
...That was the only one, but my phone isn't letting me go back to edit 'a few other'.
A few other considerations-- how do people in your area feel about other players banking, as opposed to the company? I don't do the CA card rooms, but I've had people try to squeeze me out of banking at PGP before, by raising their bets from things like 50 to 500. Can your bankroll survive something like that?
...That was the only one, but my phone isn't letting me go back to edit 'a few other'.
