Most costly misplay
most costly in term of increase house edge, not per decision.
For example: split 99v7, cost a lot per decision, but hardly happen. Not hit 16v10, cost a little, but happen a lot. In which case 16v10 may increase house edge more.
ignore stupid ones, like hitting 20, but common and often seen in the casino.
ignore card counting.
Quote: newbie49what are the most costly common mistake people make in normal BJ? and by what %
Sitting down and playing. 100%.
Quote: newbie49what are the most costly common mistake people make in normal BJ? and by what %
most costly in term of increase house edge, not per decision.
For example: split 99v7, cost a lot per decision, but hardly happen. Not hit 16v10, cost a little, but happen a lot. In which case 16v10 may increase house edge more.
ignore stupid ones, like hitting 20, but common and often seen in the casino.
ignore card counting.
These are my answers based on an infinite-deck analysis of a S17 game. Shown are increases in house edge. Use 0.0050 as the base for the house edge.
0.0036 = player stands on all soft 17's (and never doubles soft 17)
0.0023 = standing on all hard 16's
0.0013 = standing on 15 and above against the dealer's 10
0.0008 = not doubling 11 vs dealer's 10
0.0009 = soft doubling all 13 through 17 (and never 18) vs dealer's 2 through 6
0.0005 = standing on 16 vs dealer's 7
0.0003 = never doubling soft 18
0.0006 = never hitting or doubling soft 18
0.0009 = never surrendering
Hey, now, wait a sec!...Quote: mkl654321Sitting down and playing. 100%.
.
.
.
.
.
Hmmm. You're probably right...
My guess is that standing on hard 12 vs. dealer 2, viewed on a cost/frequency basis, costs the player the most in the long run. Reducing the question down to a single misplay, and not giving "categorical" misplays, makes this question still open.
-Ms. D.
Quote: matildaHow about taking insurance--especially taking even money for a blackjack?
It's not all that common of a situation--you get a blackjack about once every 21 hands, and the dealer will only be showing an Ace 1/13 of that time. Also, insuring (at any time) only costs you 1/16 of a bet in expected loss, so about once every 273 hands, you lose 1/16 of a bet by always insuring your blackjacks---so that costs you about one bet every 4000 hands.
Quote: ChesterDogThese are my answers based on an infinite-deck analysis of a S17 game. Shown are increases in house edge. Use 0.0050 as the base for the house edge.
0.0036 = player stands on all soft 17's (and never doubles soft 17)
0.0023 = standing on all hard 16's
0.0013 = standing on 15 and above against the dealer's 10
0.0008 = not doubling 11 vs dealer's 10
0.0009 = soft doubling all 13 through 17 (and never 18) vs dealer's 2 through 6
0.0005 = standing on 16 vs dealer's 7
0.0003 = never doubling soft 18
0.0006 = never hitting or doubling soft 18
0.0009 = never surrendering
Would standing on all hard 15's be the same as hard 16's?
Also this is probably going against some assumptions made in the OP, but I have to assume doing something like hitting a hard 14 against a 6 is very bad, but I see it often at the tables. These people aren't playing my really any rules though so just picking out one wrong play doesn't matter when they are probably giving the house an edge of 10%+.
