Top Three

Playing Blackjack, does making the Top Three bet ever turn favorable with any card count/

Quote: Luke1

Playing Blackjack, does making the Top Three bet ever turn favorable with any card count/

I would say no, because card counting systems all concentrate on rank value, which doesn't correlate with the payable.

2 of the three pays are for 3oak (suited or unsuited) regardless of rank, and the 3rd is a SF, which spans the ranks.

Suit counting would be the most likely to affect EV. A lot of 3 suits gone midway through the shoe would imply a greater chance of suited trips and sf. But with a deck or more cut off, I don't see it ever going positive.

Just my opinion. I am not an expert.

Thank you and you make a good point, the suit count would be of more significance than value count (obviously can't do both simultaneously).

On the other hand, when the card count is extremely favorable indicating a richness of face cards, it would seem that there would be a point that the bet would be advantageous. Complicating it still further, Harrah's Joliet (Illinois) allows a player to spread the $15 minimum bet across the three options (the two top three, and the BJ bet, $5 each). Therefore, "if" there is a negative card count that would be good, you perhaps would increase your chances of a top 3 payout, while betting the minimum on the BJ hand with poorer odds.

Thoughts? Luke1.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I would say no, because card counting systems all concentrate on rank value, which doesn't correlate with the payable.

https://www.888casino.com/blog/side-bets/beating-the-royal-match-blackjack-side-bet

"The Difference Count requires that the AP keep track of the number of cards remaining in each suit. "

https://www.888casino.com/blog/side-bets/beating-the-213-blackjack-side-bet

"it is necessary to keep track of the number of cards in each suit that remain in the shoe."

Quote: teliot

https://www.888casino.com/blog/side-bets/beating-the-royal-match-blackjack-side-bet

"The Difference Count requires that the AP keep track of the number of cards remaining in each suit. "

https://www.888casino.com/blog/side-bets/beating-the-213-blackjack-side-bet

"it is necessary to keep track of the number of cards in each suit that remain in the shoe."

Thanks, Eliot! I appreciate you weighing in. Had not heard of the Difference Count before, so my "all" was inaccurate.

Luke, teliot IS an expert on this, so I suggest you check out the links he provided on his blog.

In practice such counts tend to be way too difficult to consider for the profit potential. Here is how I concluded my 21+3 article ...

"There are two reasons that APs will not target 21+3 with this system. The first is its complexity, the second is the low return..."

I'm not sure we are discussing the same game, the Top Three and 21+3 are different options for BJ. While I believe they are similar in the payout of the three cards (straights, etc, I believe usually 9-1), with Top Three a suited 3 of a kind or straight flush pays about 270 to 1, with other inflated various payouts.

I understand why not to play the +3 game as a card counter, however the potential award at Top Three might change the dynamics of betting while still maintaining the payouts for +3. I'm only smart enough to ask the questions, but not smart enough to make intelligent conclusions. This might be particularly true when you can reduce your minimum bet with a poor count and bet the TT. Thanks for your opinions.

So, this is the Top 3 bet, using 8 decks. You don't say how many decks they're using, but the game gets worse for you the less decks in the shoe, the same way 21+3 does.

Event	Pays	Combinations	Probability	Return
Suited 3OAK	270	2912	.000244	0.06588
Straight Flush	180	24576	.002063	0.37134
3OAK	90	61568	.005169	0.46521
Other	-1	11,823,104	0.992524	-0.992524
Total		11,912,160	1	-0.090094

So, House Edge is 9.0094% . You don't say how much they're cutting off (penetration). That's a lot to overcome, considering you have to not just get far enough into the shoe for a favorable suit distribution, but the cards then have to be in a very specific cluster (3OAK has become less likely, but suited 3OAK and SF more likely) once there IS a dominant suit, AND it has to hit before you get to the cut card. All this on a bet with a hit rate of less than 1%. Yikes.

I suspect that theoretically there is a short window at the end of some shoes where it goes +EV. I would guess, for it to pay consistently, you'd need penetration of 7 decks at least, and at least one other person on the table helping you count, and both of you spreading to 2 hands when it's lopsided enough. Which means you will be eating up the good cards and have maybe 2-3 shots at it before the shuffle.

I think it's not even feasible on 6 deck, with its higher HE, probably around 10.6%, but haven't calculated that.

I just don't see it being worth a protracted effort. JMHO.

I agree with all of Babs' conclusions.

If the first 40 cards out of the 8-deck shoe are all diamonds, and specifically:

8xAd
8x2d
8x3d
8x4d
8x5d

I calculate that the EV of this side bet would then be +0.01238.

At Harrah's they are cutting about a deck+, at Hollywood about a half a deck ! (both Joliet, IL), both 6 deck games. While intuitively it seems that with a significant swing in card count, the Top Three bet would make sense, your posts have convinced me otherwise. (Both casinos have several other BJ games with various other rules including auto shufflers, 6/5 odds, 8 decks, etc, but they each have at least 2 tables with the prior mentioned rules.)

Further, it would seem that a two person team approach would help, one counting suits and the other card count, and they could play off each other, but based on Gordon's analysis that's a waste also. I will stick to my card counting and ignore all else. Thank you.

Cut card at 1/2 a deck? OMG. Yes, with that kind of penetration, you might run into occasional opportunities at the end of the shoe. But those opportunities will be largely theoretical and difficult to exploit efficiently with any practical counting system, IMO.

BTW, as I have thought more about it, the EV of the sidebet (as averaged over many shoes) does NOT get worse as you penetrate deep into the shoe, given that we know nothing about the cards that have been dealt. Here's a simple thought exercise: With a 6 deck shoe, the sidebet will have an advantage of about 10% whether you are dealt the first 3 cards out of the shoe or the last three cards out of the shoe. Therefore shoe penetration does not, by itself, change the average EV of the sidebet.