Is this version of Double Exposure profitable?
-Dealer stands on Soft 17
-Double down on any two cards
Those are helpful, especially the double on any two. But then here are the programming bugs that blow my mind:
1. When you split aces or faces and pull a 21 on either hand, you get paid 3/2 on that hand instead of even money, and you get paid instantly so you can't push on a 21.
2. When the dealer gets a BJ, if the first card is a face and the second one an ace, it reads the dealer's hand as 11 instead of BJ. So you continue to play the hand, and the dealer will take a card when it is their turn.
The first bug happens only once in a while, and I don't know if it adds anything significant to the overall payout. But the second bug seems to turn an automatic loss into a win about 1/3 of the time that it happens, so that's adding at least 1% to the overall payout, if not more.
With all those things in mind, it feels like the game should be +EV. However, I'm down 150 units playing perfect basic strategy (shout out to Wizard of Odds for their Double Exposure strategy chart). The site supposedly uses "Provably Fair" to randomize their cards, but I'm ready to admit defeat and to assume that the game is not being dealt fairly.
Still, I'd like to have an idea of what the overall payback on a game with those rules should be. If it's 100.1% then maybe I'm just running bad. If it's 101% or more, then I'm more likely to suspect something shady.
First time poster here, I appreciate any and all feedback. Thanks!
Regarding this feature
"2. When the dealer gets a BJ, if the first card is a face and the second one an ace, it reads the dealer's hand as 11 instead of BJ. So you continue to play the hand, and the dealer will take a card when it is their turn."
if the dealers first card is a 10 (not a Jack, Queen or King) and the second one an ace, does dealer hit? or stand with a blackjack?
Quote: NumbersGuyWhile perusing the table games within the casino of a quasi-legal online sportsbook, I came across a very bizarre version of Double Exposure. Some of the rules are favorable, while others are outright bugs within the programming. It uses standard Double Exposure rules (BJ pays even money, ties lose) with two favorable variations:
-Dealer stands on Soft 17
-Double down on any two cards
Those are helpful, especially the double on any two. But then here are the programming bugs that blow my mind:
1. When you split aces or faces and pull a 21 on either hand, you get paid 3/2 on that hand instead of even money, and you get paid instantly so you can't push on a 21.
2. When the dealer gets a BJ, if the first card is a face and the second one an ace, it reads the dealer's hand as 11 instead of BJ. So you continue to play the hand, and the dealer will take a card when it is their turn.
The first bug happens only once in a while, and I don't know if it adds anything significant to the overall payout. But the second bug seems to turn an automatic loss into a win about 1/3 of the time that it happens, so that's adding at least 1% to the overall payout, if not more.
With all those things in mind, it feels like the game should be +EV. However, I'm down 150 units playing perfect basic strategy (shout out to Wizard of Odds for their Double Exposure strategy chart). The site supposedly uses "Provably Fair" to randomize their cards, but I'm ready to admit defeat and to assume that the game is not being dealt fairly.
Still, I'd like to have an idea of what the overall payback on a game with those rules should be. If it's 100.1% then maybe I'm just running bad. If it's 101% or more, then I'm more likely to suspect something shady.
First time poster here, I appreciate any and all feedback. Thanks!
link to original post
Welcome to the forum. Down 150 units gives us a numerator. What’s the denominator? (How many units bet?). If you’ve played 500 hands at a unit a hand and are down 150 then it’s likely gaffed. If you’ve played 100,000 hands at a unit a hand no conclusions can be drawn.
Hopefully a better ‘math guy’ sees your question and can figure out the house edge for you.
Quote: gordonm888Regarding this feature
"2. When the dealer gets a BJ, if the first card is a face and the second one an ace, it reads the dealer's hand as 11 instead of BJ. So you continue to play the hand, and the dealer will take a card when it is their turn."
if the dealers first card is a 10 (not a Jack, Queen or King) and the second one an ace, does dealer hit? or stand with a blackjack?
link to original post
He wrote’ the dealer will take a card’.
If the first dealer's card is an ace and the second is a TJQK, it treats it as a BJ and the hand is over.
If the first dealer's card is a TJQK and the second one is an ace, it treats it as an 11.
I realize I said face, I meant to say any card valued at 10.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: gordonm888Regarding this feature
"2. When the dealer gets a BJ, if the first card is a face and the second one an ace, it reads the dealer's hand as 11 instead of BJ. So you continue to play the hand, and the dealer will take a card when it is their turn."
if the dealers first card is a 10 (not a Jack, Queen or King) and the second one an ace, does dealer hit? or stand with a blackjack?
link to original post
He wrote’ the dealer will take a card’.
link to original post
He referred to when the first card was a "face" which is why I asked about the 10.
I've played $20 per hand and I'm down about $3,000. That was spread out over a handful of short sessions, so probably somewhere around 1,500 hands total. Enough to get a good sample AND to also suspect foul play.
My gut instinct is that the game is "gaffed" ... there are too many "perfect" situations (11 vs a dealer 16) where both myself AND the dealer pull an A/2/3/4/5, it got to the point where I didn't even want to double down because I was so sure the game would stiff me. Once that happened, I realized I had to stop playing. But obviously with the bugs, it is so tempting to play a game that should clearly be +EV if dealt fairly.
If someone came back to me and said that the game is close to 102% (which I don't think is out of the realm of possibility) then I would feel even more justified in my instinct that I'm getting played.
