September 2nd, 2011 at 5:16:58 PM
permalink
An online casino is offering 3 handed single deck blackjack with those rules:
Dealer must draw to 16
Dealer stands on soft 17
Blackjack pays 3:2
Insurance pays 2:1
Even Money pays 1:1
Double Down on 9, 10 or 11
Double Down on Splits
No re-splits
Giving a house edge of 0.03%
By how much could the HE be lowered by using "composition dependent exceptions" for this 3 handed single deck game?
Dealer must draw to 16
Dealer stands on soft 17
Blackjack pays 3:2
Insurance pays 2:1
Even Money pays 1:1
Double Down on 9, 10 or 11
Double Down on Splits
No re-splits
Giving a house edge of 0.03%
By how much could the HE be lowered by using "composition dependent exceptions" for this 3 handed single deck game?
September 2nd, 2011 at 5:25:48 PM
permalink
Quote: zazouAn online casino is offering 3 handed single deck blackjack with those rules:
Dealer must draw to 16
Dealer stands on soft 17
Blackjack pays 3:2
Insurance pays 2:1
Even Money pays 1:1
Double Down on 9, 10 or 11
Double Down on Splits
No re-splits
Giving a house edge of 0.03%
By how much could the HE be lowered by using "composition dependent exceptions" for this 3 handed single deck game?
Using the Wizards Calculator I get a house edge of 0.14% (allowing for just one split as it's online). The optimal 'composite dependent' play came out to a player edge of 0.01%.
Have you checked whether the game is 'No Hole Card' (European) as this would increase the house edge if so?
September 2nd, 2011 at 5:25:50 PM
permalink
I do not know where you get the HE of 0.03 percent. Do you know whether the game has a hole card?
If it has, the game has a tiny player edge of 0.00879%, if not it has a HE of 0.09. When using perfect composition dependent strategy.
I don't think you can make money of this game...
If it has, the game has a tiny player edge of 0.00879%, if not it has a HE of 0.09. When using perfect composition dependent strategy.
I don't think you can make money of this game...
My favorite bet: Double Down!
September 2nd, 2011 at 5:27:25 PM
permalink
Great minds think alike eh Flynn? :-) :-)
September 2nd, 2011 at 7:56:29 PM
permalink
But Switch. I thought you did not think Single deck was very popular. Did not want to labor the point at the time, but prior to about
1961 all BJ games in Vegas were SD. Little known fact is that John Scarne was first to suggest a shoe be used in Vegas. But not as
a deterrent to counting, but rather cheating dealers.
Side Bar : Any luck in Blackhawk ??
1961 all BJ games in Vegas were SD. Little known fact is that John Scarne was first to suggest a shoe be used in Vegas. But not as
a deterrent to counting, but rather cheating dealers.
Side Bar : Any luck in Blackhawk ??
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:00:19 PM
permalink
Quote: buzzpaffBut Switch. I thought you did not think Single deck was very popular. Did not want to labor the point at the time, but prior to about
1961 all BJ games in Vegas were SD. Little known fact is that John Scarne was first to suggest a shoe be used in Vegas. But not as
a deterrent to counting, but rather cheating dealers.
Side Bar : Any luck in Blackhawk ??
It used to be very popular but single deck games make up a small % of the gaming floor in todays casinos.
i think that at least 2 more casinos are taking 'Switch' in Colorado over the next month.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:15:28 AM
permalink
Congrats on Colorado. The reason single decks have such a small percentage is paranoia about counters. Unfortunately, SD games
are very vulnerable to counting and cheating. Hope Shufflemaster upgrades the rack card a little. Colorado is not the biggest market, but it's steady. Again, Congrats.
are very vulnerable to counting and cheating. Hope Shufflemaster upgrades the rack card a little. Colorado is not the biggest market, but it's steady. Again, Congrats.