Removing one card from a split RTP
If player splits you can choose to just follow the 1st split, ignore the 2nd and not increase your stake. A 2 card 21 got by this method is still just 21. This could technically be exploited by a player in cahoots with a friend, player betting low and altering his strategy for the benefit of his friend, who bets much higher behind and has the effective choice of Stand, Hit, Double, Split or **remove one card** when confronted with a pair. If we assume the player's bet is negligible, how much RTP would a "remove one card from pair" option gain?
This link will take you to the "BJ Expected Values" (EV) page. You can click on the relevant^^^ link on that page and it will tell you the EV for each decision***.
^^^: For example say you wanted to know the values for "6 decks, dealer stands on soft 17" and "Player may resplit to four hands, except aces and No drawing to split aces", then you would click here
***: If the play has a positive EV then you play both hands in the split, but on the negative EV plays you just play one hand as the "back bettor"
---
I think the overall EV improvement of this is around 0.15% ###, if the front players' bet is the table minimum and the back players' bet is the table maximum.
###: This figure is from memory, and also I can't remember what the table min and max, was so I could be wrong.
Quote: rumba434At Playtech casinos you can "bet behind" someone. If you bet behind you have no input into hits or stands, the player controls that. You can choose whether or not to increase your stake when the player doubles/splits. You can make this decision on the fly after seeing the initial cards.
If player splits you can choose to just follow the 1st split, ignore the 2nd and not increase your stake. A 2 card 21 got by this method is still just 21. This could technically be exploited by a player in cahoots with a friend, player betting low and altering his strategy for the benefit of his friend, who bets much higher behind and has the effective choice of Stand, Hit, Double, Split or **remove one card** when confronted with a pair. If we assume the player's bet is negligible, how much RTP would a "remove one card from pair" option gain?
link to original post
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying if player A is betting $1 and player B is betting $100, and player A decides to split his 7’s against an 8, you can choose to only play one of the 7’s? I think in the next post you mentioned a player edge of .15% for those rules. Sounds about right. Why do I think if you used this strategy at an on line casino it would be red flags to them?
There are teams that exploit these sorts of games on an international level -- it's called "Splitting for Less." Here is an article I wrote about this.Quote: rumba434At Playtech casinos you can "bet behind" someone. If you bet behind you have no input into hits or stands, the player controls that. You can choose whether or not to increase your stake when the player doubles/splits. You can make this decision on the fly after seeing the initial cards.
If player splits you can choose to just follow the 1st split, ignore the 2nd and not increase your stake. A 2 card 21 got by this method is still just 21. This could technically be exploited by a player in cahoots with a friend, player betting low and altering his strategy for the benefit of his friend, who bets much higher behind and has the effective choice of Stand, Hit, Double, Split or **remove one card** when confronted with a pair. If we assume the player's bet is negligible, how much RTP would a "remove one card from pair" option gain?
link to original post
https://www.888casino.com/blog/blackjack-tips/splitting-for-less-in-blackjack
Quote: teliotThere are teams that exploit these sorts of games on an international level -- it's called "Splitting for Less." Here is an article I wrote about this.Quote: rumba434At Playtech casinos you can "bet behind" someone. If you bet behind you have no input into hits or stands, the player controls that. You can choose whether or not to increase your stake when the player doubles/splits. You can make this decision on the fly after seeing the initial cards.
If player splits you can choose to just follow the 1st split, ignore the 2nd and not increase your stake. A 2 card 21 got by this method is still just 21. This could technically be exploited by a player in cahoots with a friend, player betting low and altering his strategy for the benefit of his friend, who bets much higher behind and has the effective choice of Stand, Hit, Double, Split or **remove one card** when confronted with a pair. If we assume the player's bet is negligible, how much RTP would a "remove one card from pair" option gain?
link to original post
https://www.888casino.com/blog/blackjack-tips/splitting-for-less-in-blackjack
link to original post
Great article, as usual. I want to disagree with your conclusion that it would be difficult to detect this scheme being used. If I’m noting one guy betting $5 and the guy behind him betting $100 the FIRST thing I’d look for is what they do during splits. It would only take a few such hands for me to put the kibosh on the team.
That's because you are brilliant and intuitive.Quote: SOOPOOI want to disagree with your conclusion that it would be difficult to detect this scheme being used. If I’m noting one guy betting $5 and the guy behind him betting $100 the FIRST thing I’d look for is what they do during splits.
In my experience (and yes, I busted a team doing this in person, and have assisted several casinos in identifying this play), you can watch the team play for several hours before one of the obscure back-betting splits happens, all the time wondering if they are counting, see hole-cards, marking the cards, edge sorting, have a camera in the shoe, have busted the automatic shuffler, tracking Aces, etc. Then it happens once (like splitting 3-3 against 9) and you wonder if they are eating cards because an Ace is due, or maybe the cards are marked, etc.
You think it's easy? Well, if it happened 10 times in an hour, maybe. But that's not what happens with this play. The exceptional splits are rare. This thing is very hard to detect in real life.
Now, consider your average casino floor manager, table games director or surveillance manager at Bob's casino, and ask him the question "you are allowed to double for less, why aren't you allowed to split for less?" He may not even know it's a rule.
Quote: rumba434At Playtech casinos you can "bet behind" someone. If you bet behind you have no input into hits or stands, the player controls that. You can choose whether or not to increase your stake when the player doubles/splits. You can make this decision on the fly after seeing the initial cards.
If player splits you can choose to just follow the 1st split, ignore the 2nd and not increase your stake. A 2 card 21 got by this method is still just 21. This could technically be exploited by a player in cahoots with a friend, player betting low and altering his strategy for the benefit of his friend, who bets much higher behind and has the effective choice of Stand, Hit, Double, Split or **remove one card** when confronted with a pair. If we assume the player's bet is negligible, how much RTP would a "remove one card from pair" option gain?
link to original post
rumba434,
I analyzed this option and posted the results over at bj21.com back in March of 2013. If you are a paying member at bj21.com, you can access the post and see the appropriate strategy at this address:
https://bj21.com/boards/green-chip-forums/sub_boards/posts-of-the-month-archive/topics/mar-2013-splitting-hairs-on-hairy-splits?page=1
At any rate, the value of this "unequal split" option varies with the ratio of the back bettor's wager to the front bettor's wager, the number of decks (8, 6, 4, or 2) used in the game, whether the dealer hits or stands on soft 17, and whether the game is NoDAS or DAS, with in each case the first-named option giving the better results. Under the best conditions: 100:1 ratio, 8D, H17, and NoDAS, optimal team strategy will give the team an additional +0.1739%, so the team strategy alone will not overcome the house edge.
However, if you can find a back betting game with 2D, S17, DAS, and RSA (resplit aces) where the player's IBA is roughly -0.14%, and your team can use a 100:1 bet ratio, then the +0.1572% gained by using optimal unequal splitting strategy WILL just barely make the game +EV... for the 10 or so minutes your team will be allowed to play ;-)
Hope this helps!
Dog Hand
Players have the option of making a second wager, equal to or less than their original wager, on the second split hand... Read-More: https://bit.ly/3Lqqreh
Also, see Wizard of Odds (Unlimited Blackjack Page): UnlimitedBlackjackWoO.com
If you are just making a random statement as if you're an authority on advantage play against csms, I'll just make a non-random statement that you are 100% wrong here.Quote: acesideCSM is even worse. No practical way to overcome the house edge.
link to original post
Quote: HunterhillStanford Wong covered this years ago and it’s in his book blackjack secrets.
link to original post
I just looked up this book but could not find any mention of this. On what page?
Quote: acesideI made this random statement for a purpose. I want to learn from you because I myself have never thought of beating a CSM.
link to original post
Every CSM has a buffer of cards that the mucked cards are not shuffled into. So for example, the next to be dealt 20 cards will never contain the mucked cards that the dealer just inserted into the machine.
Quote: acesideQuote: HunterhillStanford Wong covered this years ago and it’s in his book blackjack secrets.
link to original post
I just looked up this book but could not find any mention of this. On what page?
link to original post
I don’t remember what page. My books are packed away at the moment. It also might be in his book winning without counting.
Quote: unJonQuote: acesideI made this random statement for a purpose. I want to learn from you because I myself have never thought of beating a CSM.
link to original post
Every CSM has a buffer of cards that the mucked cards are not shuffled into. So for example, the next to be dealt 20 cards will never contain the mucked cards that the dealer just inserted into the machine.
link to original post
Theoretically interesting, but the edge you will get from these 20 cards is almost zero. Suppose all these 20 cards are aces, then I will skip the next hand immediately. Is this what you mean?
I will reference a measure that Eliot introduced which is you watch 100 hands and can either bet $100 on each hand that has a player advantage, else $0. The measure is how much, on average, you make by doing this; and gives an indication of how countable a (new) game/sidebet is and whether it's worth the bother doing it. Of course you also need to develop an accurate counting method.
With regular shoe based BJ, this value is (very roughly, say) $10 to $60; so in theory there is some scope to make money. When I tried to simulate a CSM, keeping details of the last 16 cards, I think it was under $1.
These are only meant to show the kind of difference rather than exact figures - but the conclusion is :
yes there is technically an opportunity to make money, but for practical purposes it isn't worth the effort.
As an aside on CSMs, I highly recommend,
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/magazine/how-advantage-players-game-the-casinos.html
Quote: charliepatrickThis is drifting off topic, so please forgive me.
I will reference a measure that Eliot introduced which is you watch 100 hands and can either bet $100 on each hand that has a player advantage, else $0. The measure is how much, on average, you make by doing this; and gives an indication of how countable a (new) game/sidebet is and whether it's worth the bother doing it. Of course you also need to develop an accurate counting method.
With regular shoe based BJ, this value is (very roughly, say) $10 to $60; so in theory there is some scope to make money. When I tried to simulate a CSM, keeping details of the last 16 cards, I think it was under $1.
These are only meant to show the kind of difference rather than exact figures - but the conclusion is :
yes there is technically an opportunity to make money, but for practical purposes it isn't worth the effort.
link to original post
I am not sure if that is taken into account, but the figure you have for a shoe game likely involves a normal game as found in the US.
I've seen games in Asia where the house edge for basic strategy is just 0.10% csm 3/2 S17 DAS DA RSA LS and Hit split ace! With an initial edge so small a lot more hands go into positive territory.
Quote: tyler498Quote: charliepatrickThis is drifting off topic, so please forgive me.
I will reference a measure that Eliot introduced which is you watch 100 hands and can either bet $100 on each hand that has a player advantage, else $0. The measure is how much, on average, you make by doing this; and gives an indication of how countable a (new) game/sidebet is and whether it's worth the bother doing it. Of course you also need to develop an accurate counting method.
With regular shoe based BJ, this value is (very roughly, say) $10 to $60; so in theory there is some scope to make money. When I tried to simulate a CSM, keeping details of the last 16 cards, I think it was under $1.
These are only meant to show the kind of difference rather than exact figures - but the conclusion is :
yes there is technically an opportunity to make money, but for practical purposes it isn't worth the effort.
link to original post
I am not sure if that is taken into account, but the figure you have for a shoe game likely involves a normal game as found in the US.
I've seen games in Asia where the house edge for basic strategy is just 0.10% csm 3/2 S17 DAS DA RSA LS and Hit split ace! With an initial edge so small a lot more hands go into positive territory.
link to original post
Has anybody here played blackjack in any casinos in Macau? What rules do they use today?
