What are the mistakes players make?

I am trying to estimate the house edge at 6D, H17, DAS, DOA, NRSA, NLSR -- a 0.62% game if played correctly. I have a simulator that gets that value when I run it.

I want to modify the program to have a "common player" basic strategy, to get a sense of the edge most players play with. I know there are a number of basic mistakes players make -- so I'll include these:

Double on 9: 5, 6 only, not against 3, 4
Double on 10: 2-8, not against 9
Double on 11: 2-8, not against 9, T
Stand on 12 vs. 2 & 3
Stand on 16 vs. T
A-2: hit always
A-3: hit always
A-4: hit always
A-5: hit always
A-6: double against 5, 6 only
A-7: always stand
A-8: always stand
Splits: only split 8's and A's

With these errors, my simulated result for the house edge is still under 1% (0.89% on a simulation of 100M rounds). But, most casinos claim a house edge of about 2% for the average player. What else should I include? Standing on 15 v. 7? What kind of errors do most players make that are big enough to get edges well over 1%?

--Ms. D.

Should you be adding in tipping behavior?
Should you be adding in Taking Insurance?
Why do you include Standing on 12 vs. 2 and 3? I would think most players know to draw to 13 if dealer has 2 or 3, but have no evidence to support this.
A6: Double against 5,6 only?? Nope. Here again I would think the avg player would Not double at all, just stand because A6 is 17. Once again I have no evidence to support this but perhaps we have different views of what the average half-sloshed fanny-pack wearing player thinks like. (I don't want to claim expertise since I rarely wear a fanny pack but I guess I make up for that by being fully sloshed).

Would actual win rates from the gaming commission help you work backwards on this?

Quote: DorothyGale

I am trying to estimate the house edge at 6D, H17, DAS, DOA, NRSA, NLSR -- a 0.62% game if played correctly. I have a simulator that gets that value when I run it.

I want to modify the program to have a "common player" basic strategy, to get a sense of the edge most players play with. I know there are a number of basic mistakes players make -- so I'll include these:

Double on 9: 5, 6 only, not against 3, 4
Double on 10: 2-8, not against 9
Double on 11: 2-8, not against 9, T
Stand on 12 vs. 2 & 3
Stand on 16 vs. T
A-2: hit always
A-3: hit always
A-4: hit always
A-5: hit always
A-6: double against 5, 6 only
A-7: always stand
A-8: always stand
Splits: only split 8's and A's

With these errors, my simulated result for the house edge is still under 1% (0.89% on a simulation of 100M rounds). But, most casinos claim a house edge of about 2% for the average player. What else should I include? Standing on 15 v. 7? What kind of errors do most players make that are big enough to get edges well over 1%?

--Ms. D.

Taking insurance
Stand 15 against 7
Stand 16 against 7-T

I think a lot of players stand on 16 against 7s, 8s, and 9s as well. I know that 16 vs. T offers the least change to house edge, but 16 vs. 7 seems to be the play which is psychologically hardest to overcome. There are fewer ways that a 7 results in a pat hand for the dealer, forcing him/her to draw and possibly bust.

I am very interested to see your results. Even with all the errors you are currently simulating, the edge only changes by 0.27%. On average, this will only swing one hand out of 370, or one hand in about 4-5 hours of play.

If I add that the player stands on ALL 15 v. 7, 8, 9 T and ALL 16 v. 7, 8, 9, T, I get a house edge over 1.4%. But I can't believe this is what most players do. What subset of these are reasonable to include?

Almost NO players take insurance, though many will take even money (which is insurance 1/21 of the time). I'll wait until adding that one -- it would take re-programming.

--Ms. D.

Not doubling 10 versus ace.
Not doubling 11 versus ace.
Taking insurance.
Not splitting because of not enough bankroll
Not doubling because of not enough bankroll

Ok, I think a fair mix is to assume a player stands on 15 v. 7 and T, as well as 16 v. 7 and T. (but hit against 8 & 9). Adding those to my list above gives reasonable mixture of bad plays on the hard hands. If I include standing on all of 7, 8, 9 & T it is just too much to assume for the average player.

And, for the note above, almost all players stand on hard 12 against 2 & 3. It is not common knowledge at all to hit these hands -- and many players get yelled at when they do hit them.

Now we're at a house edged of 1.22%.

--Ms. D.

Quote: SOOPOO

Not doubling 10 versus ace.
Not doubling 11 versus ace.
Taking insurance.
Not splitting because of not enough bankroll
Not doubling because of not enough bankroll

No one doubles 10 v. A, or 11 v. A, and those are correct already.

Saying "not splitting/doubling" because of insufficient bankroll is not programmable, and is incidental to normal play.

Most players do NOT take insurance, which is correct.

But most DO take "even money" -- which is insurance when the player holds blackjack, which is approximately 1 out of 21 times the dealer has an A up. Since insurance gives up 3.9%, then taking even money is worth about 3.9/21 = 0.19%. I'll grant that extra 0.19% in my final analysis.

I am now at 1.40% after including the "even money" basic strategy variation.

--Ms. D.

I've wanted to post this thought for a while, but didn't really feel like starting a new thread to do it.

When I was in Vegas, I found a 2D table, S17, DAS, RSA 60% penetration (HE: .20%) table at a $25 min. Although I prefer to top out at a $15 minimum, I decided that the rules were about as favorable as I was going to find. After a $500 buy-in (20 bets), I was down those 20 bets within an hour. I could do absolutely NOTHING right, and I was playing with near perfect strategy. Eventually, I did stop doubling 11 against a 10 and some of the more risky plays, because frankly, it didn't make a difference; I would have just lost my money faster.

Out of boredom, and wanting to play $10 BJ on the strip (and get a drink), I found a nice dealer at a table by myself at PH, SD, H17, 6:5, DAS, RSA (HE: 1.52%). I bought in for $100 (10 bets), and walked away about an hour later with $180 (up 8 bets). I had maybe three BJS, which I used as tip money.

Now I realize that in the LONG run, I am going to last 7 times longer on the better rules table. But had I played $25 on the SD table, I would have won approximately $200.

What I'm getting at is while I try to play games with a low HA, if the cards are awful, it doesn't matter at that moment if you're playing a game with a player advantage. And winners can still exist on a game where BJ pays even money and the rules are terrible. Yes, in the LONG RUN with an unlimited bankroll (or at least a bankroll that can sustain the ups and downs), the lower HA game is the best option. But for this particular trip, it didn't matter.

My guess is that casinos kind of balance out the good players (who know proper strategy) against ones who throw it to the wind, average it out, and then round up. If the casino is that astute to a good player, they could always go back and fix the numbers appropriately.

Quote: DorothyGale

No one doubles 10 v. A, or 11 v. A, and those are correct already.

Double 11 against A is the correct play in a 6 deck H17 game, but most inexperienced players will deviate from that.

Quote: rdw4potus

Double 11 against A is the correct play in a 6 deck H17 game, but most inexperienced players will deviate from that.

My bad -- thanks.

Quote: DorothyGale

And, for the note above, almost all players stand on hard 12 against 2 & 3. It is not common knowledge at all to hit these hands -- and many players get yelled at when they do hit them.

Either you and I play at totally different casinos or I am missing alot by being soused. Based on what I've observed I would say that the "average" player does indeed know to hit until 13 if the dealer's up card is either 2 or 3. Oh sure some people forget or add too slowly or, like me, get too soused but in general I've observed that most players will indeed go to 13 in such a situation.

I think the main contributor is going to be the tendency for players to shy away from hitting 16, even though they "know" they are supposed to do it. Intellectually knowing they should hit, but actually hitting until 17 are two different matters. I would program in an absolute Stand at 16 and see what the results are.

Quote: Tiltpoul

My guess is that casinos kind of balance out the good players (who know proper strategy) against ones who throw it to the wind, average it out, and then round up. If the casino is that astute to a good player, they could always go back and fix the numbers appropriately.

Many of us here work for casinos -- so this is not guesswork ... most casinos rely on the database software provider who gives them several standard values to use, depending on the strength of the player ... most smaller casinos leave the setting on "medium" (half way between hard and soft players), mainly because they don't know any better and are not good at evaluating player strength ... most on staff don't know basic strategy. If you're lucky and it's a good day, the Director of Table games knows basic strategy.

This is a very important question for those in marketing who base their reinvestment on accurate estimations of a player's theoretical worth. I've seen values from 1% to 3% used as the default settings for player edge ... in real $$$ terms, this leads to huge errors in marketing reinvestment.

--Ms. D.

Quote: FleaStiff

...snipped.

I think the main contributor is going to be the tendency for players to shy away from hitting 16, even though they "know" they are supposed to do it. Intellectually knowing they should hit, but actually hitting until 17 are two different matters. I would program in an absolute Stand at 16 and see what the results are.

I'm interested in this too. What is the value/loss to a player that stands on 16 vs. hitting a 16(like you're supposed to do)?

Quote: DorothyGale

I've seen values from 1% to 3% used as the default settings for player edge ... in real $$$ terms, this leads to huge errors in marketing reinvestment.

That's one of the biggest selling points for e-tables -- accurately tracking play for comp (marketing) purposes. Still, even for a smaller casino, couldn't you get close on an aggregate level simply by looking at total table performance and adjusting overall marketing spend accordingly? There would be outliers in either direction -- some players getting under-comped and some players getting +EV including comps, but overall you'd do reasonably well? The only way you could improve that aggregate approach would be to do more accurate tracking and more player segmentation, both of which require additional effort and cost. That's only worth it if you know the extra ROI is there to be had -- otherwise you're just wasting time and money. Specifically, if you're going to spend an extra 100k/year on labor and systems to recapture 100k/year in inefficient marketing spend, that's pointless. How inefficient is the marketing reinvestment that you're talking about?

Quote: DorothyGale

I've seen values from 1% to 3% used as the default settings for player edge ... in real $$$ terms, this leads to huge errors in marketing reinvestment.

Yes, I would imagine any "default value" indicates a lack of an attempt to refine that value for a particular casino's demographics and actual experiences. Indeed, I would venture that such things as 'hands per hour' are values that were originally selected for ease of memory and ease of multiplying. I think that any software used to determine the value of a player as far as comps etc. is probably not as precisely refined as it should be mainly because no one has the courage to refine it.

I recall one fairly recent experience wherein a slot player was dropped from a certain list due to a major corporate revision memo and then the slot player called the host who tried to obtain a waiver and failed and then a new list came out of the computer and suddenly the slot player was back onto that list of eligible comps that she so coveted. If there are that many situations of 'no', 'no'...'yes'. Then something is definitely wrong with the software settings somewhere.

I've no idea how variable this is though. Consider how dealers sometimes have empty tables and sometimes are inundated with players. Its difficult to schedule games and dealers when there is such an ebb and flow to the crowds. If its that unpredictable as to number of people who will show up and what they will want to play, then its going to be unpredictable as to their styles of play as well.

Quote: DorothyGale

This is a very important question for those in marketing who base their reinvestment on accurate estimations of a player's theoretical worth. I've seen values from 1% to 3% used as the default settings for player edge ... in real $$$ terms, this leads to huge errors in marketing reinvestment.

--Ms. D.

Maybe it's just the Midwestern casinos that I mostly play at, but I find that the difference between 1 and 3% would be minimal on a lower limit player, especially at the rate the casinos return.

For example: assuming 80 hands an hour, at a $10 average min. bet, for four hours of play.
80x4x$10= 3200 wagered
a) 1%= 32 x 40% (which would be WAY generous IMO), = 12.80 returned to the player
b) 3%= 96 x 40% = 38.40 returned to the player

To an advantage player, that would be a HUGE difference, I agree. As most of the readers on this forum are interested in that, then yes there would be a possibility of huge errors in marketing reinvestment.

However, a few things crop up that lead me to believe that it wouldn't make much of a difference in the overall bottom line.
1) The players you most likely are referring to are going to GENERALLY be lower level players. Yes, there are bad $100 players, but in GENERAL, they are fewer in number.
2) Only casinos that return at a rate of 40% would notice that big of a difference. Again, the casinos I play at are lucky to return at 20% to table game players. I remember at one casino I was betting $50 a hand on DD BJ, probably had a good 6-8 hours of play, and I got a buffet and a room (that retailed for $29 a night). Unfortunately, in limited casino markets, you have few options. And with the big corporations (i.e. Caesars, MGM) returning at a lower rate, I just don't see the difference as being a big issue for the majority of their players.
3) The lower level players that would be affected are also the least likely to use the full value of comps. The casino plans on this, I know, but again, if somebody is not being rated, then theoretically that person is giving 100% to the house in terms of long-term value.

Now that's not to say that the casino couldn't be exploited for that difference. And there is some risk if the pit staff is not more attune to higher dollar players. Then I could see it being a bigger problem...

Quote: Tiltpoul

Maybe it's just the Midwestern casinos that I mostly play at, but I find that the difference between 1 and 3% would be minimal on a lower limit player, especially at the rate the casinos return.

For example: assuming 80 hands an hour, at a $10 average min. bet, for four hours of play.
80x4x$10= 3200 wagered
a) 1%= 32 x 40% (which would be WAY generous IMO), = 12.80 returned to the player
b) 3%= 96 x 40% = 38.40 returned to the player

Minimal? What if your database has 4000 such players? And you were rewarding each player 20% of their theoretical win in comps. And each player played 4 hours a day, 80 hands an hour, and about 52 days per year (1x per week)?

--Ms. D.

I too would be interested in the fractional percentage that the stand on 16 option does. In fact, I'd like to see the fraction for all minor deviations.

If I remember correctly, there was a thread where the fraction was stated, along with the comment that it was small enough to not matter.


For what it's worth, you can count me as one of the people that does not follow perfect basic strategy.

I'll even go so far as to announce the first time I stand on 16 that I always do that - unless the dealer shows an ace.
If I remember, I will also surrender the 16 to a ten if the casino allows surrender.
I WILL hit a 12 vs 2 or 3, but will not hit a 13 vs 2.

Otherwise, I generally follow basic strategy, and have a card on me that I'll reference.

However, here's a biggie:

I prefer tables where the dealer hits a soft 17.

This logic is because I stand on a weak hand with a dealer showing a 6, hoping the dealer to bust after taking a card. I EXPECT the dealer to at least take a card!

This feeling was cemented in my mind when I was at Mohegan Sun a few years back. Their cards have tribal leaders depicted for the K, Q, J. (In fact, if you buy a deck, there is an insert that tell you the names of these people.). Thier faces appear with a blue background. The Ad, Ac, and Ah look normal. I.E. A small pip with a white background. However the As is actually a large arrowhead with a blue background. I stood on a weak hand and then momentarily cheered when I saw the dealer turn the card showing the blue background, knowing it was the best possible scenario for her to draw a bust card. Then I realized it was the arrowhead, and she stood on 17!

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I too would be interested in the fractional percentage that the stand on 16 option does. In fact, I'd like to see the fraction for all minor deviations.

That is a bit of research, isn't it? I'm certainly not up to it.

--Ms. D.

I agree. There are differences in just what "minimal impact" means to a casino. Suppose a comp figure is set to low and the casino simply loses that player to an alternative casino somewhere? Or suppose its set to high and the casino is buying rooms and meals and the player's action just doesn't really support it. Or comps are awarded and the hotel gets sold out turning away much higher rollers?

I wonder if anyone has ever actually reviewed an entire shift's worth on the action at an average blackjack table? How many hands per hour for real? How many player and dealer errors? How many tips, how many cocktails, and how many "good" players at the table?

Its true that one minor setting that is left at its default value may indeed be okay when compared to a slice of reality from the day's tapes but how can anyone be sure?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I'll even go so far as to announce the first time I stand on 16 that I always do that - unless the dealer shows an ace.
If I remember, I will also surrender the 16 to a ten if the casino allows surrender.
I WILL hit a 12 vs 2 or 3, but will not hit a 13 vs 2.

Wait a second... You're not supposed to hit a 13 into a dealer 2. I even just checked the cards to make sure.

The casino I have in mind (and there are many that fit this model) has about 4000 players generating about 5M in theo per year assuming a 1% house edge at BJ ... at 20% reinvestment, the casino is offering about 1M in on-site comps to these players. They reinvest and another 1M (20%) in mailers with room offers, free play & match play coupons, shows, buffets, etc. These are costs that satisfy the marketing goals of acquisition, growth, retention and reactivation ... at 3% house edge, they would generate 15M in theo and 6M in comps and other reinvestment costs ... this is a huge problem, worth millions to the average casino per year ...

Many don't realize that casinos base their comps on theo rather than actual ... except for quick-loss policies and advantage players, everyone else fits into the broad marketing scheme outlined above.

--Ms. D.

The basic strategy mistakes that you pick are fine, but there are a couple of major deviations from basic strategy that I think about 25 percent of novice players employ.

(1) Hitting on anything until they get to 17 or more (no matter what card is showing).
(2) Never doubling (no matter what's showing).
(3) Staying on 12 - 16 against a 10 (common), 9 (rarer), 8 (rarer still), or 7 (very rare) (the opposite of hitting on anything).

I think about 1/2 the players out there do the sins as below.
(4) Not splitting 9s at all (very common)
(5) Splitting 4s inappropriately (on 2s, 3s, 4s)
(6) Not splitting 2s or 3s on 2 to 7s.
(7) Staying on all soft 18s

Quote: boymimbo

I think about 1/2 the players out there do the sins as below.
(5) Splitting 4s inappropriately (on 2s, 3s, 4s)

Ahh, I'm going to disagree with you on this one. I would say that most players don't split 4s into a 5 or 6, and most dealers will advise against the split as well. They'll say "Never split anything that begins with an "f", Fours, Fives and Faces" I've had dealers outright berate me for doing so (and those dealers very rarely earn a tip from me, if I even stay at their table).

Quote: DorothyGale

The casino I have in mind (and there are many that fit this model) has about 4000 players generating about 5M in theo per year assuming a 1% house edge at BJ ... at 20% reinvestment, the casino is offering about 1M in on-site comps to these players. They reinvest and another 1M (20%) in mailers with room offers, free play & match play coupons, shows, buffets, etc. These are costs that satisfy the marketing goals of acquisition, growth, retention and reactivation ... at 3% house edge, they would generate 15M in theo and 6M in comps and other reinvestment costs ... this is a huge problem, worth millions to the average casino per year ...

A casino might base comps on theo, but the actual money that goes out the door is very real. It's pretty obvious if you're over or underspending if the numbers don't match up. If you assume your players have a 3% HA and comp accordingly (when they only have a 1% HA), you'll quickly run out of marketing budget. An operator who assumes they're supposed to be making $15M and comps $6M, in spite of only seeing $5M in win, they deserve to go out of business. It's like the old bargain shoe seller joke: "I take a loss on every sale but I make up for it in volume."

Quote: MathExtremist

A casino might base comps on theo, but the actual money that goes out the door is very real. It's pretty obvious if you're over or underspending if the numbers don't match up. If you assume your players have a 3% HA and comp accordingly (when they only have a 1% HA), you'll quickly run out of marketing budget. An operator who assumes they're supposed to be making $15M and comps $6M, in spite of only seeing $5M in win, they deserve to go out of business. It's like the old bargain shoe seller joke: "I take a loss on every sale but I make up for it in volume."

I just think that you're assuming every player will use every comp dollar issued to them. Truth be told, many casinos now operate on a point system that is very clear-cut; you either HAVE the points or you don't. Plain and simple. Under Dorothy's example, yes a casino could stand to lose millions of dollars a year by rating a player too high. However, the players who don't use the comps let them sit. And the ones who provide a very high house edge (maybe even higher than 3% by making side bets, and hitting hard 17s and doubling on hard 12) most likely will not use their comp dollars.

I understand how the math could cause problems. The bargain shoe seller in the joke knows exactly what the fixed costs are and how much of a loss he takes on each pair sold. But a casino doesn't know the exact rates, and even if they did, it's up to the player to request said comps. I also know that bounceback plays a big part in this as well (Caesars properties take advantage of this the most), but again, I have about 75 offers in my account right now across various casinos. I'll be lucky to use 5 of them.

Quote: MathExtremist

An operator who assumes they're supposed to be making $15M and comps $6M, in spite of only seeing $5M in win, they deserve to go out of business.

Most operators I know don't do a side-by-side comparison of theo vs. actual for table games ... table games staff leaves the theo up to marketing ... their job is recording the actual (drop/win/hold/fills, etc) and giving out discretionary and other comps based on what the software says they can give ... marketing is only interested in the theo and doesn't pay attention to actual. Really, it's like this ... mainly because the slot model says that these two values are always approximately equal (theo && actual).

--Ms. D.

Quote: Tiltpoul

I just think that you're assuming every player will use every comp dollar issued to them.

Unused comps are considered to be breakage and are accounted for in the standard casino marketing models.

--Ms. D.

While I'm waiting for my lunch to finish cooking, I was reminded of a couple arguments for this forum topic.

1) Ameristar properties (at least Kansas City and Council Bluffs) now offer up to 4x points on select slot machines. In fact, they classify various slots as NEW, HOT, 2x, 3x, or 4x. The point rate accrues I believe at $4 coin-in = 1 point, so on the 4x machine, basically, $1=1point. The New and Hot slots tend to be the newest ones that are most popular (i.e. IGT Sex and the City). These games have licensing agreements, so it could be inferred that there is also a higher hold on the game. The 4x point machines tend to be older, Aristocrat style machines. While I don't anticipate that the hold is higher, it certainly wouldn't be lower than the Sex and the City machine.

The reason I bring this up is that the casino most likely isn't making more on the person playing the higher comp return slot. In fact, it's probably making less. However, the casino is willing to reward that player for playing an older machine that doesn't have to leave the floor. Theoretically, the casino is losing more on that player, than on the one playing a HOT slot. However, in the long run, it's a good marketing tool and helps keep older machines on the floor.

2) Many Midwest casinos feature a BJ game called 21+3. This is a side bet that you can read about on the WoO website. Needless to say, it does carry a house edge, but among side bets, it's one of the lowest. You can never find a seat on any table, and if you're NOT playing the side bet, you WILL be derided by players and often the dealers when it hits (which can be frequently). Most casinos require a $5 min. on the side bet. There are players that would forgo the BJ hand just to play the side bet, and many allow the side bet wager to be more than the main wager.

I guarantee you in these casinos the hold on the tables outweighs the a 3% generic rating on players. The actual loss is likely to vary by day to day (as I said, the side bet gets paid frequently at 9-1), but I'd venture to guess that the action on the 3-card hands more than justifies the BJ game.

This leads me to another interesting side bar. Why do casinos offer high house edge side bets that don't get played often? I've seen many casinos offer Lucky Ladies, and some people play it occasionally. But 21+3 nearly gets EVERYBODY playing the side bet. I know holds are lower on that particular bet, but if I were an operator, I'd rather have high action on a lower HA game than minimal action on higher HA bet.

Quote: DorothyGale

They reinvest and another 1M (20%) in mailers with room offers, free play & match play coupons, shows, buffets, etc.

How much in printing postage and handling could be saved if casinos would get rid of those darned mailers and go all electronic. Simply send an email telling them what has already been added to their card account and will remain there for thirty days. I think casinos have no idea how annoying those oversized mailers are.

>(1) Hitting on anything until they get to 17 or more (no matter what card is showing).
Egads, yes! How could I have forgotten "playing dealer" as if they should mimic the dealer's instructions. I did that on my first trip to Vegas and thought I was so clever.
>(2) Never doubling (no matter what's showing).
Yeah, that too. Or atleast never doubling past their first Double Martini.
>(7) Staying on all soft 18s
Yeah, that too. Certainly staying on all Soft 19s.

Players are indeed a "mix" and when you add alcohol to the recipe you get even more of a variable mix.

Casinos know how much they really make from a blackjack table and it sure is not any 0.13 percent, even at the Hacienda at Hoover Dam.

Quote: DorothyGale

That is a bit of research, isn't it? I'm certainly not up to it.

--Ms. D.

Many of these types of questions can be answered by looking here:
https://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix9-6dh17r4.html

For example, you can see that hitting or standing on a 16 vs dealer 10 is very close call, and hence a very minor error.
I sometimes do it just because I feel like it, and knowing it costs almost nothing.

Quote: DrEntropy

Many of these types of questions can be answered by looking here:
https://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix9-6dh17r4.html

For example, you can see that hitting or standing on a 16 vs dealer 10 is very close call, and hence a very minor error.
I sometimes do it just because I feel like it, and knowing it costs almost nothing.

Me too, especially after busting and busting and busting; the hell with it I'm staying this time.

Quote: DorothyGale

Most operators I know don't do a side-by-side comparison of theo vs. actual for table games ... table games staff leaves the theo up to marketing ... their job is recording the actual (drop/win/hold/fills, etc) and giving out discretionary and other comps based on what the software says they can give ... marketing is only interested in the theo and doesn't pay attention to actual. Really, it's like this ... mainly because the slot model says that these two values are always approximately equal (theo && actual).

--Ms. D.

The two values *are* approximately equal in the slot world, but that's because you can accurately track coin-in (handle) and, for the few games that permit it like VP or video blackjack, any strategic impacts to RTP. There's no good way to do either of those things for table play, so you're stuck with drop, avg. bet, and guessing whether a player should be rated "soft" or "hard". The problem isn't that actual and theo are different, the problem is that you can't accurately calculate theo for a table player. Several technologies have been developed to try to track that for felt tables (since e-tables can do it automatically) and you'll undoubtedly see several at G2E this year. They typically fall into one of two categories: RFID chip tracking and optical chip/card tracking. Here's an example of the optical approach. I would think that if the ROI were really there, however, you'd see a lot more of these systems and a lot fewer "old-school" ratings programs a la Kilby/Fox/Lucas. Or maybe the operators are still too technophobic.

By the way, I should note that I've contributed to hijacking this thread; perhaps the Wizard or another admin would see fit to move it to its own topic.

Quote: MathExtremist

By the way, I should note that I've contributed to hijacking this thread; perhaps the Wizard or another admin would see fit to move it to its own topic.

I'm satisfied with arriving at a value of 1.40% -- it is relatively close to the 1.43% that Bill Zender quoted somewhere (but I can't recall where). You have my permission to hijack ...

--Ms. D.

Quote: DorothyGale

I'm satisfied with arriving at a value of 1.40% -- it is relatively close to the 1.43% that Bill Zender quoted somewhere (but I can't recall where). You have my permission to hijack ...

--Ms. D.

Coincidentally the pass line bet in craps w/o odds..how cool!

Quote: FleaStiff

How much in printing postage and handling could be saved if casinos would get rid of those darned mailers and go all electronic. Simply send an email telling them what has already been added to their card account and will remain there for thirty days. I think casinos have no idea how annoying those oversized mailers are.

I love the oversized mailers. Just booked my trip to Vegas (Rio) for Oct 19 -22. Hope to see you locals there!

Quote: DorothyGale

I'm satisfied with arriving at a value of 1.40% -- it is relatively close to the 1.43% that Bill Zender quoted somewhere (but I can't recall where). You have my permission to hijack ...

--Ms. D.

Well, to bring it back on-topic, there are at least two sources for numbers that should allow you to do this analysis directly rather than via simulation. One set is at BJMath.com and the Wizard has another. The specific table you're looking for is here. When you dump that into a spreadsheet, you have the odds and impact of every decision a player can make. Taking the MAX() of the possibilities gets you the basic strategy so all you'd need to do is add in the weighted differences for each of your exception/mistake cases. No simulation required. To make it configurable, what I'd do is create a column which identifies the best play for each hand and another column that you can use to override that best play, then just have everything automatically recalculate every time you add in a change to the basic strategy.

(n.b. to use the BJMath numbers you have to account for post-peek probabilities.)

Quote: Alan

Me too, especially after busting and busting and busting; the hell with it I'm staying this time.

And inevitably the next card is a 5.

Quote: DorothyGale

I'm satisfied with arriving at a value of 1.40% -- it is relatively close to the 1.43% that Bill Zender quoted somewhere (but I can't recall where). You have my permission to hijack ...

--Ms. D.

Dorothy, i think the quote you are looking for is here:
Ask the Wizard

Quote: DorothyGale

I want to modify the program to have a "common player" basic strategy, to get a sense of the edge most players play with. I know there are a number of basic mistakes players make -- so ...

So just how common are common players.
How "average" is the average player, what variation is there?

I think some players have fundamentally mistaken views of the game:
Goal is to get as close to 21 as possible rather than goal is to beat the dealer's hand.
Goal is to have a team-spirited set of players who don't disturb the natural order of the universe... er uh, natural order of the cards.

I think there are some players who have simply a misunderstanding as to some of the finer points. Now some of those finer points are disputed by the experts too. For instance, I never seem to know the correct number of peas to put on a knife at the dinner table so for some things the answers are not readily available but for others they are.
Whether someone should Hit, Stand, DoubleDown or Punt at a particular combination can be debated and analyzed but often the true, proper and correct answer ain't all that much different from the common player's wrong answer and this sort of mistake is not all that significant.

The other category of mistake is the Time At Table Mistake:
Time at table mistakes involve alcohol consumption, waitress distractions, player conversation distractions, total number of players mistakes that affect comp rate, etc.

So no matter how sober the "common player" is assumed to be, its clear that the real world casinos have some intoxicated patrons and also have some stone cold sober ones.
So no matter how naive some of the "common players" actually are, some know the goals properly and some just coast along with a hazy grasp on what is happening.

So we can accept a certain " common player " even if we don't really know if he wears a fanny pack or drinks like a fish or is as dumb as the day is long. We don't know precisely how much effect the girl with the low cut dress and talkative nature will distract a fellow player. We don't know precisely angry and distracted a player will become at some other player's "theft" of a bust card. Yet we can still come up with a "common player" and assign this phantom player an "impairment rate" by which he improves the casino's house edge thru his own actions and ignorance.

So you want to refine the comp system? Well, perhaps you should comp that chatty young thing in the slinky dress or perhaps you should give a bonus to the cocktail waitresses so that they come 'round sooner and more often since perhaps it is they who are making your money for you.

Most players stay on 12 vs dealer 2 and 3. In fact, they even say vs dealer 12 and 13. I correct them every time (for saying 12 and 13), no matter how big they are.