Poll

26 votes (92.85%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
1 vote (3.57%)
1 vote (3.57%)
No votes (0%)

28 members have voted

Jufo81
Jufo81
Joined: May 23, 2010
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 344
November 3rd, 2011 at 1:54:48 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

Quote: Jufo81

It is safe to say that at every online casino the shoe/deck is shuffled after every hand, apart from some rare exceptions.



Well, this one is an exception with its "randomness control" thingy, so could as well be an exception in the other thing too ...



Yes, fair enough. I have seen that card counting opportunities are very rarely offered online probably due to the instant access to computing power which would enable player to optimize his play perfectly by using some calculator, so he wouldn't even need to master any counting system. It's a kind of a different ballgame at B&M casinos where you have to all the work inside your head. So it's not a big surprise that if there is a Live Dealer Blackjack shoe online, the game has very stingy rules such as 8 decks, 50% penetration and burning several cards after every deal.

As for comparing the "house edge scheme" and "commission scheme with 0% house edge" I made a brief example using Roulette as an example. I wanted to make the example simple enough so that it doesn't need a computer simulation to get the results and is workable with pen and paper. That's why I chose roulette and 1:1 payouts, which enables using analytical risk of ruin formula.

I set the following parameters:

Player deposits $100 and wagers $25 per spin on Red/Black until he a) busts or b) reaches $300 and cashes out $200 profit.

Game #1
Betvoyager No Zero Roulette (0% house edge), and 10% commission on winnings.

Chance to reach target: P = 1/3 (independent of bet pattern used). Net gain if successful: $200 - 10% * $200 = $180

Expected value of play = 2/3*(-$100) + 1/3*($180) = -$6.667

So, the player pays a $6.7 cost for the betting action to triple his bankroll.

Game #2
Single Zero roulette (2.7% house edge), no commission on winnings.

Parameters for risk of ruin formula:
p = 18/37
q = 19/37
K = 4 (initial bankroll is 4 units at $25 per spin)
T = 12 (target bankroll is 12 units at $25 per spin)

Chance to reach target: P = [1-(p/q)^K]/[1-(p/q)^T] = 0.264.
Bust probability = 1 - 0.264 = 0.736.

Expected value of play = 0.7356*(-$100) + 0.264*(+$200) = -$20.69

So, we see that playing regular roulette with house edge is considerably worse for the player for this betting pattern and win goal.

Of course, the situation for game #2 changes if, instead of a sequence of smaller wagers on red/black, the player puts the whole $100 to one dozen for one round.
Now the EV is: 25/37*(-$100) + 12/37*(+$200) = -$2.7

So in the latter case, it would be more favourable to play the house edge version than 0% house edge version with commission. This is because in the latter case, the player plays only one round to reach the target with minimum number of bets.

So as a general guideline, I would say that the "0% house edge plus 10% commission" becomes cheaper for the player if the habit is to play long playing sessions with smaller bets per round (ie. typical recreational gamblers), whereas for a person who tries to win target goal with minimum number of bets (a gambler who is not looking for longetivity of play), the house edge version would be better.

Quote: weaselman


Wizard's calculator says 0.2847. Reducing that by cut card effect (0.014) brings it down to 0.2707. Further decreasing by 0.15% leaves 0.12%. Still greater than 0.1.
Did I forget some rule?



I went through some of my old posts and I found that I had already calculated numbers for this game in a thread about Betvoyager. See:
http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/1183-betvoyager-com-zero-house-edge-blackjack-is-this-right/3/#post51055

I got a 0.263% house edge by using a different house edge calculator (very close to your value) and the AK spades payout increases the return by 0.1855%, thus pushing it slightly over the 99.9% threshold.

Of course, this game sucks, because the return is indeed less than 100% and you would be subject to commission in addition to being at disadvantage. For this reason I used to play Doublet Blackjack variation (european BJ with double down on any number of cards and double down rescue) that has ~99.85% return for the standard version and is not subject to any commission. I think that a 99.85% game without commission is far better than a 99.92% game with 10% commission on all winnings.

So to summarize: sometimes it is better to choose the standard house edge version if the house edge is low enough and also depending on how long you plan to play the game. When I used to play at Betvoyager, I used to mix between the 0% house edge and non-zero house edge games depending on which I thought would give me a cheaper gamble. Overall while playing there I felt I got a decent bang for my buck.
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
November 3rd, 2011 at 2:21:00 PM permalink
Quote: Jufo81

AK rule increases return by 0.1855% pushing it slightly over the 99.9% threshold.



How does it increase it by 0.1855? What part of my math do you disagree with?
(4-3/2)*8/312*8/311*(1 - 256/310*32/309) = 0.00060317*5/2=0.001508 = 0.1508%
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Jufo81
Jufo81
Joined: May 23, 2010
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 344
November 3rd, 2011 at 2:34:10 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

How does it increase it by 0.1855? What part of my math do you disagree with?
(4-3/2)*8/312*8/311*(1 - 256/310*32/309)= 0.00060317*5/2=0.001508 = 0.1508%



Could you explain the values in your formula? My formula was:

2.5 * 12/312 * 6 / 311

(2.5 = extra payout, 12 out of 312 cards for player's first card (A or K spades), 6 out of 311 for player's second card).

I also assumed that player gets paid independent on whether dealer has blackjack or not (the rules don't specify this), but even if player doesn't get paid with dealer blackjack, it only reduces the 0.186% gain to around 0.177%.
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
November 3rd, 2011 at 2:49:06 PM permalink
Never mind ... I mixed up 6 and 8 decks (thus the 8's in the nominator, but 312 in the denominator), and also forgot to double the player's probability to account for the order).
I'll go now, wipe the egg off my face ...
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Jufo81
Jufo81
Joined: May 23, 2010
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 344
November 3rd, 2011 at 2:56:36 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

Never mind ... I mixed up 6 and 8 decks (thus the 8's in the nominator, but 312 in the denominator), and also forgot to double the player's probability to account for the order).
I'll go now, wipe the egg off my face ...



Lol don't worry ;) These should be discussions, not competitions in who is right.
mightymaron
mightymaron
Joined: Nov 2, 2011
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 9
November 10th, 2011 at 9:11:53 AM permalink
I am happy that the wizard got his funds back. I inquired about my funds after an August session in that BLR cashback casino at 5dimes. I had bet only no pass and got crushed. The company emailed saying the software was pulled so no refund for me.

  • Jump to: