Paradigm
Paradigm
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2226
Thanks for this post from:
MrCasinoGamesmrsuit31Romes
December 18th, 2019 at 9:59:36 AM permalink
Romes...this is a super valuable post! Along with Gordon's equity explanation, it provides a realistic outlook for the vulnerability. The math can say one thing, but the volatility of the side bet along and the resulting practicalities of bankroll size required to exploit the math vulnerability are not normally discussed. So thank you for sharing a real street perspective.
mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 82
  • Posts: 1325
Thanks for this post from:
Romes
December 18th, 2019 at 10:05:13 AM permalink
Agreed, thank you Romes! Even though I already knew your explanation :).

I am sending Charles report over to Wiz in a moment for further review and comment.
.
MrCasinoGames
MrCasinoGames
Joined: Sep 13, 2010
  • Threads: 198
  • Posts: 6946
December 18th, 2019 at 10:07:38 AM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

The resistance to card counting is due to the fact that these combinations

Player 10 & 11 or 88/AA ...... 3 to 1

represent a significant fraction of the sidebet equity and almost all of that equity originates from cards that are 2-9. Especially given that there is a >7% HA to overcome.

The wager has player equity of 0.927. The cards 2-9 influence approximately 0.3 of that equity and the cards A,T influence 0.627.


Hi Gordonm888 and Romes,

This is exactly what I was thinking, when I invented my 2 Blackjack Side-bets (Ten-20® Bonus-Blackjack™) and (Perfect-11® Bonus-Blackjack™).

BTW.
Math for (Ten-20® Bonus-Blackjack™) was Stephen How in Apr/2014.
Report with Vulnerability Analysis: http://bit.ly/36IfGP8

Math for (Perfect-11® Bonus-Blackjack™) was Charles Mousseau in Jun/2016.
Report with Vulnerability Analysis: http://bit.ly/38T0Wiv

You can also find Both Side-Bets at WizardofOdds Wedsite:


1. Ten-20®. LAST UPDATED: APRIL 16, 2019. Ten20WoO.com



2. Perfect-11® (Side-bet for Open-21®) LAST UPDATED: MARCH 6, 2017. Open21WoO.com

Last edited by: MrCasinoGames on Dec 18, 2019
Stephen Au-Yeung (Legend of New Table Games®) NewTableGames.com
CharlesMousseau
CharlesMousseau
Joined: Nov 1, 2016
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 51
Thanks for this post from:
MrCasinoGamesmrsuit31
December 18th, 2019 at 11:25:42 AM permalink
Hey all,

just with regards to the vulnerability, it's certainly got non-zero vulnerability, but nothing that using a lower paytable and a thicker cut off can't fix.

Paytable #3 (30-12-9-4-3-1) is beatable about 0.426 units per 100 at 5/6 and .253 units per 100 at 6.5/8; on a $25 max this corresponds to what, $10.50 and $6.75 per 100? Basically, it's about as vulnerable as a standard blackjack game (0.33 - 0.66 units per 100) and on par with other sidebets (Pot of Gold on Free Bet and Lucky Lucky come to mind).

I did mention that it is going to be almost impossible to eliminate while it so obviously keys on tens and aces without doing a Lucky Ladies and nuking the house edge, but it's hard to justify with a low top end payout.
Romes
Romes
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 5556
December 18th, 2019 at 11:48:01 AM permalink
Quote: CharlesMousseau

...and a thicker cut off can't fix...

Most casinos will jump to do this, and in reality lose money as 99.9% of the people at the table are not counting blackjack or the side bet. So by protecting the house from the $25 max side bet they shoot themselves in the foot with all the lost EV from the 99.9% of players. Casinos should be cutting the shoes as deep as possible and they would absolutely see the hold go up.
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 217
  • Posts: 13347
December 18th, 2019 at 1:50:52 PM permalink
Quote: Romes

<somehow a double post? plz delete>



You deleted the wrong post
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
CharlesMousseau
CharlesMousseau
Joined: Nov 1, 2016
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 51
December 18th, 2019 at 3:32:34 PM permalink
Quote: Romes

Most casinos will jump to do this, and in reality lose money as 99.9% of the people at the table are not counting blackjack or the side bet. So by protecting the house from the $25 max side bet they shoot themselves in the foot with all the lost EV from the 99.9% of players. Casinos should be cutting the shoes as deep as possible and they would absolutely see the hold go up.



In my professional experience, I disagree. I think if word got out that a house was dealing 5.5/6 on any beatable blackjack game, they would receive significantly more AP action than other places. Whether they'd lose more to APs on a low limit table than by renting a CSM, that's hard to say. But in the era of CSMs and automatic shufflers (swap out tower of cards, get new tower of cards, put that in shoe), no, I don't think your statement is accurate.
CharlesMousseau
CharlesMousseau
Joined: Nov 1, 2016
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 51
December 18th, 2019 at 6:02:54 PM permalink
Quote: Paradigm

Romes...this is a super valuable post! Along with Gordon's equity explanation, it provides a realistic outlook for the vulnerability. The math can say one thing, but the volatility of the side bet along and the resulting practicalities of bankroll size required to exploit the math vulnerability are not normally discussed. So thank you for sharing a real street perspective.



I mean, you know there are some places that lose their s$!# over any vulnerability.. I was part of a team of low-variance cash-cow counters at a local game that was AT BEST like $20 per hour and one day I was picking a teammate up at a casino 5 miles outside of town where they made him wait outside in 40 below weather. PS my American friends, 40 below is the exact same in Canada and the US. So that was $20 CAD an hour though. They banned him for life and wouldn't let him wait inside. His phone was about to die and I remember my last words, "go inside and punch a security guard in the nose, they'll have to keep you inside, it's better than dying."

So yeah, some casinos are paranoid f!#/ing stains about counting -- every $50 and $100 max table in all of Calgary has a CSM on it as of today, lol -- but from my point of view, I use "how vulnerable is regular blackjack, which you have 20 tables of" as a metric of how much of an AP honey pot you're drawing. That standard $25 max on the sidebet does a WHOLE LOT to curb the vulnerability of blackjack side bets.

Baccarat bets, with it's 7.75 / 8 pen and the ability of a team to play every sidebet spot with no waiting bet, that's another issue :P but blackjack sides *again, in my professional opinion* are judged to separate standards.
Last edited by: unnamed administrator on Dec 18, 2019
mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 82
  • Posts: 1325
December 18th, 2019 at 6:16:45 PM permalink
Quote: CharlesMousseau

Hey all,

just with regards to the vulnerability, it's certainly got non-zero vulnerability, but nothing that using a lower paytable and a thicker cut off can't fix.

Paytable #3 (30-12-9-4-3-1) is beatable about 0.426 units per 100 at 5/6 and .253 units per 100 at 6.5/8; on a $25 max this corresponds to what, $10.50 and $6.75 per 100? Basically, it's about as vulnerable as a standard blackjack game (0.33 - 0.66 units per 100) and on par with other sidebets (Pot of Gold on Free Bet and Lucky Lucky come to mind).

I did mention that it is going to be almost impossible to eliminate while it so obviously keys on tens and aces without doing a Lucky Ladies and nuking the house edge, but it's hard to justify with a low top end payout.



Thank you for these responses Charles.
.
MaxPen
MaxPen
Joined: Feb 4, 2015
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 3634
December 18th, 2019 at 6:22:31 PM permalink
Quote: CharlesMousseau

I mean, you know there are some places that lose their s!#/ over any vulnerability.. I was part of a team of low-variance cash-cow counters at a local game that was AT BEST like $20 per hour and one day I was picking a teammate up at a casino 5 miles outside of town where they made him wait outside in 40 below weather. PS my American friends, 40 below is the exact same in Canada and the US. So that was $20 CAD an hour though. They banned him for life and wouldn't let him wait inside. His phone was about to die and I remember my last words, "go inside and punch a security guard in the nose, they'll have to keep you inside, it's better than dying."

So yeah, some casinos are paranoid f#/!ing stains about counting -- every $50 and $100 max table in all of Calgary has a CSM on it as of today, lol -- but from my point of view, I use "how vulnerable is regular blackjack, which you have 20 tables of" as a metric of how much of an AP honey pot you're drawing. That standard $25 max on the sidebet does a WHOLE LOT to curb the vulnerability of blackjack side bets.

Baccarat bets, with it's 7.75 / 8 pen and the ability of a team to play every sidebet spot with no waiting bet, that's another issue :P but blackjack sides *again, in my professional opinion* are judged to separate standards.



See you in a few days after you get off suspension for your f word transgression.

I get a kick out of guys that try and play on both sides of the fence😂
Last edited by: unnamed administrator on Dec 18, 2019

  • Jump to: