Genting's Progressive Blackjack - House Edge?

Hello,

I was playing blackjack a few days ago when I noticed that somebody had split aces and found themselves with 4 suited aces but no £188,000 jackpot as they (and every other real blackjack player) had ignored the side bet (although he was playing Perfect Pairs).

My question is:
What are the odds of this happening and what does the jackpot total have to be to make this a profitable or near even bet?

Since this happened the jackpot is now creeping over £200,000 and they have changed the paytable to include any 4 aces (Which I have had before, so it can't be super-uncommon). Based on the following pay table and min bets what chance does somebody have of catching the payoff, and what is the edge in the mean time.

Draw 4 aces and you claim the jackpot.
Alternatively get 3 suited aces and win £1000,
3 aces of any colour wins you £200
2 aces wins you £50.

The jackpot is approx £200,000
The bet size is £1
Blackjack min-bet is £2

Thankyou very much for your help, and good luck hitting AAAA :)

PS. I will be flat min-betting and playing basic strategy
PPS. This table is in England so playing no-hole card rules, stand soft 17 etc etc. It also used a one2six card shuffler so I'm not 100% how many decks they use, this could have a big impact on the edge..

This game sounds like it indeed will have a player advantage. Lets try to find out. Fortunately, The Wizard's appendix 8 has already analyzed this game. However, the payoffs for each level are different.

Based only on the information you supplied and using the already calculated permutations and probability, adjusting where necessary:

First we have 3 suited aces winning $1000 (Yes, I know its pounds, but I'm too lazy to copy in the symbol) which contributes 0.014873 to the return (no need to recalculate anything here, its already in the table).

Next is 3 unsuited aces winning $100, which yields a return of 0.0361413892, rounded to 0.036141

For 2 aces we add both the suited 2 aces column and the unsuited ones and multiply by your payout, which gives us a return of 0.264256022, rounded to 0.264256.

Finally we get to the jackpot. Using the same method above and adding the combinations for the sutied and unsuited aces, I get a return of 5.48751718.

Adding all the probabilities above, I get a return of 5.802787. That's a 580 percent return on your bet. Insane.

You did not specify a payout for having just one ace. If it exists, it will further add to the total payout.

I almost feel like I made a math mistake here but calculating it a bit differently rendered the same result. Perhaps the wizard could double-check me, but if I were you I wouldn't wait and would head on down there any play this thing immediately. Gather your friends, bet as little as possible on the main bet and obviously play the progressive. Not going to guarantee you a win by any means due to the still long-odds but the advantage is too good to not try. The odds of hitting it are about 1 in 33,446 per hand.

Oh, I forgot to mention, this is all based on 6 decks, which is what the blackjack csm almost always uses. If for some crazy reason it only uses one or two decks (which I can't see happening on a S17 game) then the return will be significantly lower.

PA

Did you forget to add a term of (-1)*(probability of losing) ?

Also, the computation depends on the number of decks, which the poster notes hasn't been specified.

--Dorothy

Clarified the decks situation at the end of the post. I have never seen a one2six shuffler using less than 5 decks on blackjack and it is almost always 6 decks. The Wizard's table I believe uses 6 decks although it does not specifically say.

I don't really have a formal math background except mostly distant memories of statistics and calculus so I figured I could just modify everything and re-calculate only where needed. I thought the way it was done on that table simply gives the losing hands as a return of 0, and winning hands at their actual payout, with a break-even game at a return of 1 and a house advantage game at 0.xxxx. I will figure out the losing probability now however in case it is needed.

The probability of winning any amount is (138240 + 3359232 + 10679040 + 38444544 + 231264 + 23760) / 9294695280 = 0.00568884492. The probability of winning nothing is simply the inverse of this or 9241819 200 / 9294695280 = 0.994311155. If this return is to be multiplied by -1 and added to the overall return (although I don't think it does in this case) the game still has a very large advantage, just a little less large at around 4.8.

This all still assumes no payout for one ace.

From what I can see the key to this game is obviously the drastically increased odds for winning the jackpot with the rule change. The jackpot was seeded with the game at quite a disadvantage and when they made the switch, it instantly became an advantage. It won't be for long - someone will very likely win it before the meter goes up much more. They probably will be a regular player of the progressive who probably won't even realize they were all of a sudden playing at an advantage.

Quote: pocketaces

The probability of winning any amount is (138240 + 3359232 + 10679040 + 38444544 + 231264 + 23760) / 9294695280 = 0.00568884492. The probability of winning nothing is simply the inverse of this or 9241819 200 / 9294695280 = 0.994311155. If this return is to be multiplied by -1 and added to the overall return (although I don't think it does in this case) the game still has a very large advantage, just a little less large at around 4.8.

This all still assumes no payout for one ace.

From what I can see the key to this game is obviously the drastically increased odds for winning the jackpot with the rule change. The jackpot was seeded with the game at quite a disadvantage and when they made the switch, it instantly became an advantage. It won't be for long - someone will very likely win it before the meter goes up much more. They probably will be a regular player of the progressive who probably won't even realize they were all of a sudden playing at an advantage.

I agree --

Even if we just focus on the grand prize, and assume EVERY OTHER hand loses, and the game is being played with 4 decks (the worst possible situation) the EV is still 116%.

If this game really does allow any 4 aces to claim the jackpot, stake a seat at each position, bet the table minimum on bj and bet the progressive every hand.

Yummy!

--Dorothy

^^ very true. 4 decks is the lowest possible I would imagine. The same scenario of no other payouts with 6 decks is even higher. The OP can find out by looking for sure by looking at the screen on the side of the shuffler or asking the dealer/pit poss. I would be gathering a group and heading there now if I could. So should every slot player in the place. Assuming 6 decks, I in ~33 000 odds per $1 wager for a $200,000 jackpot is as good as anything will ever be.

I think I also may have figured out why most of the Wizard's tables for blackjack use the losing probabilities as a negative return, but this one does not. I believe it is because it is payed out on a for-one basis, like video poker.

Wow...

This is actually quite a suprise. I figured that I was playing an advantage but I didn't realise quite how large (FYI I played 2 hours last night and didn't win a single bet).

If the odds of winning are 1 in 33,000 (worse with 4 decks), I think I'm going to head down there tonight and chase the Ace :). I will try to get friends too but this isn't such a problem as I have only ever seen one player playing the progressive. Problem is though: There is a network of about 10 casinos using this so it won't take too long for someone to bink it.

Thankyou very much for your help...

Stephen

Oh, btw.. There is NO prize for a single Ace :)

Quote: groomi

Wow...

This is actually quite a suprise. I figured that I was playing an advantage but I didn't realise quite how large (FYI I played 2 hours last night and didn't win a single bet).

If the odds of winning are 1 in 33,000 (worse with 4 decks), I think I'm going to head down there tonight and chase the Ace :). I will try to get friends too but this isn't such a problem as I have only ever seen one player playing the progressive. Problem is though: There is a network of about 10 casinos using this so it won't take too long for someone to bink it.

Thankyou very much for your help...

Stephen

No problem. The best way to chase something like this would be with many players and a formal agreement that if one won the jackpot, everyone would get an equal share. With enough playing time, you could whittle those 1 in 33,000 odds way down to something very small. Your biggest threat would be someone winning it before you do. The team play may be not too easy to arrange in practice though.

But to be honest simply playing it yourself is still an excellent play. Stake out a few spots on a table and guard them agressively. If other players are not playing the progressive at the table, ask the pit boss if you can play their progressive spot. Get 1000+ hands in, which is not that hard, and your odds drop to something like a roulette spin or better. If you don't win, you will most likely be down a few hundred bucks, but its a small price to pay for the chance at the $200,000 payout with a massive +EV. The more you play, the more your expected value rises. Its fun to think about!

This really is a fantastic advantage play. Simple, and it doesn't require a big bankroll unlike many others. Its presence in the UK at a CSM blackjack table has kept it very anonymous as well.

I wish I was in the UK right now..

Quote: groomi

Oh, btw.. There is NO prize for a single Ace :)

Turns out it doesn't matter much :)

Oh and do let us all know if you happen to win the jackpot! 200,000 pounds is close to $400,000.

As a final note, I wonder if the Wizard or somebody else knows the exact player advantage taking in to account my attempt at it, the fact that losses are seeding the jackpot (which will increase it a bit) and the fact you must make a 2 pound blackjack minimum bet (which will decrease it a bit).

Tried last night with.. *Gets calculator* around £160 ($300??)

The money didn't last very long at 3 per-box per-hand playing 4 boxes. The only way you can play more progressives is by playing money behind also so I figured 4 was about my limit with the money I had on me.

I didn't hit ANY progressive prize but annoyingly after an hour or two some kid sits down next to me, plays 1 box and hits a 2 suited ace for £50... Not a good start..

To sum my night up, I played down to my last £2 and put them just on the box, no progressive. Dealt AhAh, FML.

There's always another day though...

Suited aces on the final hand, brutal. Good thing you didn't get four aces.

Assuming you can stomach the losses and the casino is not too far away, I'd keep grinding away at it whenever you get a chance. Its definitely a moderate risk/very high reward type of investment.

Did you confirm the number of decks?

Yeh I run so bad...

The game uses 6 decks. I assume this is a benefit.

Yes, in this case the more decks the better