Poll

6 votes (60%)
1 vote (10%)
1 vote (10%)
1 vote (10%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
3 votes (30%)

10 members have voted

Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1344
  • Posts: 22244
November 21st, 2020 at 2:45:14 PM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

Thanks for pointing that out - I had never found it. I'm not crazy about it being infinite deck, and the colors and graphical format are very dated.



It's not infinite deck. I have tables for 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 decks, both H17 and S17.

Quote:

In my previous post I was speaking from the heart because I believe the appearance and content of WOO could be improved to make it more attractive and interesting (its not my site but I do care about it and I think it has great bones). That table should be brought up to modern graphical standards and made more "central" or at least easier to find.



I agree that some things, like those tables, are hard to find. I started the site in straight HTML in 1997 and elements of that lack of organization remain to this day. For example, those EV tables are titled as "appendices" in the URL. What other site has appendices? The whole thing was held together by Duck Tape when I sold it.

I'm clearly not very good with appearances. I would suggest you bounce any aesthetic (hard word to spell) suggestions off of Zuga.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
gordonm888
gordonm888
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2677
November 21st, 2020 at 3:54:29 PM permalink
Here is a color-coded chart for the difference in returns between 1 deck and 8 deck BJ using numbers from Wizard's table. Only unpaired hard hands are shown in this chart. Blue means that 1 deck gives a higher return, and the darker blues correspond to a larger difference between 1 deck return and 8 deck return.

Similarly, Red means that 8 decks gives a higher return and the darker reds correspond to a larger difference between 8 deck return and 1 deck return.

Green means that Wizard's table showed a zero for the difference between 1 deck and 8 deck return.





I think the most important feature to look for is the basic change between red and blue, because they represent a sign difference.

Wizard, I hope this helps!
So many better men, a few of them friends, were dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things lived on, and so did I.
odiousgambit
odiousgambit 
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 304
  • Posts: 8372
November 22nd, 2020 at 10:28:39 AM permalink
One thing I've been wondering about lately is if it is true or not that not only the HE gets better for the player when there are fewer decks, but the variance also increases, and increase is desirable in BJ, I have always felt. I get the sense increased variance with fewer decks is true, but as we know gut feelings can mislead. Anybody know?
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 203
  • Posts: 3813
November 22nd, 2020 at 10:48:48 AM permalink
Quote: odiousgambit

One thing I've been wondering about lately is if it is true or not that not only the HE gets better for the player when there are fewer decks, but the variance also increases, and increase is desirable in BJ, I have always felt. I get the sense increased variance with fewer decks is true, but as we know gut feelings can mislead. Anybody know?



What makes you think that an increase in variance is desirable in blackjack? One of the reasons casinos continue to offer games of blackjack that can be beat is because they know that because the majority of players, will be under funded, and that very variance will eventually get them.

That is sort of my 2020 in a nutshell. I play at a level that my normal max bet is just below the critical $500 threshold, because that is a level pretty well tolerated by the casinos I play. So when casinos reopened after the shutdown, I wanted to more quickly build EV, to "recoup" for lost time, so I doubled my playing stakes, now max betting just under the next critical threshold of $1000.

I figured I could get away with this, at least short-term, because casino personnel would be busy with other new responsibilities related to covid. Making sure new maximum number of players, wiping down each spot after a player leaves, enforcing mask wearing. Those kind of added new responsibilities of pit folks. Surveillance also had to be on the look out for covid related things. People playing too close together, and mask enforcement.

So that part worked well. I was able to play higher stakes without drawing much extra attention for 3 or 4 months until people settled into their new roles. The problem for me was over that rather short time of 3-4 months, playing the best games I could, double deck, at my new higher stakes, variance just wasn't kind to me over that short run. I went into the red and stayed there for most of that time, just climbing slightly into the black at the end, but still significantly below expectation or EV. Has I been able to play my normal amount for a year, I have no doubt my results would have been closer to expectation as they always have for 17 years now. But this year that smaller sample size at higher stakes, variance just happened to bite me in the ass. So this was a case where variance was not my friend.
odiousgambit
odiousgambit 
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 304
  • Posts: 8372
November 22nd, 2020 at 11:04:33 AM permalink
Quote: kewlj

What makes you think that an increase in variance is desirable in blackjack?

before reading further, let me point out I should have said "desirable for someone who flatbets". If you have a player's edge from card counting and varying your bet, you don't want more variance, agreed.
Quote:

One of the reasons casinos continue to offer games of blackjack that can be beat is because they know that because the majority of players, will be under funded, and that very variance will eventually get them.

I disagree here, it's the HE that gets them, not variance. If there was no variance at all, the player could *literally* never win. As it is, seems like with 8 decks the house just keeps winning every session, with not enough variance to win once in a while.

Quote:

That is sort of my 2020 in a nutshell.... [snip]

Again, I'm well aware that APs have no reason to want more variance.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1344
  • Posts: 22244
November 22nd, 2020 at 5:21:41 PM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

Here is a color-coded chart for the difference in returns between 1 deck and 8 deck BJ using numbers from Wizard's table.



Thank you! This is good stuff. I hope you will appreciate the following similar table. I know you like to break down the starting hand by composition, which I may do next. However, I think the reader may see what is going on more clearly if the table is total dependent.



Red cells are good for the player in a single-deck game and blue cells are bad.

The main thing that jumped out at me is the significance of fives. This table makes fives look awful for the player. Removing just one of them in the single-deck game, as evidenced by a dealer 5, is extremely helpful to the player. Of course, it doesn't make much difference in an eight-deck game.
Last edited by: Wizard on Nov 23, 2020
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1344
  • Posts: 22244
November 22nd, 2020 at 5:27:20 PM permalink
Quote: kewlj

What makes you think that an increase in variance is desirable in blackjack? One of the reasons casinos continue to offer games of blackjack that can be beat is because they know that because the majority of players, will be under funded, and that very variance will eventually get them.



I disagree.

The way this issue is often expressed is in the following question:

If a casino offered a game with exactly 0% house edge, who would come out ahead in the long run?

A. The casino
B. The players
C. Neither. The net casino profit (on a percentage basis) will always hover close to zero.

The answer is C.

Since this is getting a bit off topic, I'll split this off there seems to be further discussion about it.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11996
November 22nd, 2020 at 5:35:59 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I disagree.

The way this issue is often expressed is in the following question:

If a casino offered a game with exactly 0% house edge, who would come out ahead in the long run?

A. The casino
B. The players
C. Neither. The net casino profit (on a percentage basis) will always hover close to zero.

The answer is C.

Since this is getting a bit off topic, I'll split this off there seems to be further discussion about it.



C is of course the mathematical answer. If enough people reply to warrant a split I do have one thought.

It seems to me that most of the time on slots unless a person makes a big win they burn off any winnings. In "Super Casino" they talked about how a property (Circus Circus! maybe but I forget and it does not matter) bumped their payouts just a touch. Coin in went up as players noticed the better payouts. But hold went up because they said IIRC about 90% of the increased wins just got spun off, it never hit the door.

How close to 0% could a slot get and still make an acceptable profit? Could you even make it 0% but goose the variance such that even if a player gets a few wins they do not win enough that they want to cash but rather just spin the win off?

FWIW I do remember some Vegas show on some cable channel showed a bank of slots with at least one machine returning >100%. Yeah, I know that is more marketing than anything else, but just to say it has been tried.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
odiousgambit
odiousgambit 
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 304
  • Posts: 8372
November 23rd, 2020 at 2:32:27 AM permalink
as far as it goes, it seems card counting APs think of BJ as having too much variance, but this is due to increasing the variance by the way they do their betting.

Anyone still doubting it, take it up with the Wizard, whose page here shows BJ to have a standard deviation of just 1.15*

https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/house-edge/

* with these rules, "Dealer stands on soft 17, player may double on any two cards, player may double after splitting, resplit aces, late surrender". Does not mention the number of decks, which I am really wondering about now, as to the effect on variance
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1344
  • Posts: 22244
November 23rd, 2020 at 7:37:55 AM permalink
Here is a new table shows the increase in expected value playing single-deck vs. eight-deck. This one differs from the previous one is I break down the hard hands by composition.

It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.

  • Jump to: