Collusion With Dealer Advantage Play, How much can I win?

The wizard mentioned in three card poker that the best way to take advantage in collusion with dealers, is to bet minimum on your ante bet and maximum for the dealer. With an A high or better, simply raise the wager for both your bet and for the dealer. Otherwise, just play your standard Q64 hands for yourself and not for the dealer.

It is not realistic to go into a casino and bet $5 for yourself and $50+ for the dealer. That just looks fishy altogether. Assuming I do a 1-1 ratio for example, $10 for myself and $10 for the dealer. How much can I expect to win by following the wizards play? He mentions there is a 26% house edge.

Keep in mind all the tips that go to the dealer is still my money. Take those profits and subtract it with the house edge that I am expecting to lose from my bet.

This might be a confusing question. Please let me know if something needs to be clarified.

He mentions there is a 26% house player edge. Fixed that for you.

I was ready to accuse you of making this up, but here it is below. I do not think it is ethical to suggest such a collusion and I would suggest to the Wizard he go back and edit this to say this is just a thought experiment and condemn it. Or even just eliminate it. Elsewhere he is on the record against cheating.

I'm a little shocked to realize I have read this before [probably] and given it little thought.

Quote: WoO 3 card poker page

Tipping Strategy


At many casinos if the player makes a tip for the dealer then the player has the option to call on the tip portion of the bet. For example, if the player bets $5 for himself, and $1 for the dealer, the player may raise his own wager but not the tip. The correct strategy based on the tip alone is to call any hand of king high or less. So on hands of Q/6/4 to K/Q/10 the player should raise his own bet but not the tip. However, with less than Q/6/4 there is a conflict of interest. To maximize the total expected value of the player's bet and the tip, the player should raise on hands just under Q/6/4. The greater the ratio of tip to bet the more hands under Q/6/4 the player should raise on.

A fantastic advantage play, in collusion with the dealers, would be to bet the table minimum on the bet and the table maximum on the tip. Then raise on ace high or better, otherwise call. This would result in a player advantage on the tip of 26.09%.

Quote: odiousgambit

He mentions there is a 26% house player edge. Fixed that for you.

I was ready to accuse you of making this up, but here it is below. I do not think it is ethical to suggest such a collusion and I would suggest to the Wizard he go back and edit this to say this is just a thought experiment and condemn it. Or even just eliminate it. Elsewhere he is on the record against cheating.

I'm a little shocked to realize I have read this before [probably] and given it little thought.

I believe the Wizard should edit the verbiage

This is not dealer collusion in the legal sense (the player has an illicit agreement with the dealer for him to bend or break the rules to his advantage)

Instead this is the player (any player) who is using the rules of the game to his advantage with a strategy that while a bit unorthodox returns a decent player advantage

I believe the word Wizard meant was conjunction not collusion and he needs to stress he is referring to the wagers NOT the people . "When player and dealer wager and tip are used in conjuntion..."

Or "when player wager and dealer tip are used in conjunction..."

That sounds like a more legit AP move and a more accurate description

EDIT: if I read the suggestion correctly the point of the move is to create the largest ratio between player wager and dealer tip which while unorthodox is within the rules. This is the move that creates a player advantage

NOT colluding with the dealer so that his very large winning tip wagers are later split between him and the player

Quote: darkoz

Quote: odiousgambit

He mentions there is a 26% house player edge. Fixed that for you.

I was ready to accuse you of making this up, but here it is below. I do not think it is ethical to suggest such a collusion and I would suggest to the Wizard he go back and edit this to say this is just a thought experiment and condemn it. Or even just eliminate it. Elsewhere he is on the record against cheating.

I'm a little shocked to realize I have read this before [probably] and given it little thought.

I believe the Wizard should edit the verbiage

This is not dealer collusion in the legal sense (the player has an illicit agreement with the dealer for him to bend or break the rules to his advantage)

Instead this is the player (any player) who is using the rules of the game to his advantage with a strategy that while a bit unorthodox returns a decent player advantage

I believe the word Wizard meant was conjunction not collusion and he needs to stress he is referring to the wagers NOT the people . "When player and dealer wager and tip are used in conjuntion..."

Or "when player wager and dealer tip are used in conjunction..."

That sounds like a more legit AP move and a more accurate description

EDIT: if I read the suggestion correctly the point of the move is to create the largest ratio between player wager and dealer tip which while unorthodox is within the rules. This is the move that creates a player advantage

NOT colluding with the dealer so that his very large winning tip wagers are later split between him and the player

No. It only creates a player advantage if the tips are later split. Otherwise it creates a “tip advantage” but the player still loses on the non tip bet.

Quote: unJon

Quote: darkoz

Quote: odiousgambit

He mentions there is a 26% house player edge. Fixed that for you.

I was ready to accuse you of making this up, but here it is below. I do not think it is ethical to suggest such a collusion and I would suggest to the Wizard he go back and edit this to say this is just a thought experiment and condemn it. Or even just eliminate it. Elsewhere he is on the record against cheating.

I'm a little shocked to realize I have read this before [probably] and given it little thought.

I believe the Wizard should edit the verbiage

This is not dealer collusion in the legal sense (the player has an illicit agreement with the dealer for him to bend or break the rules to his advantage)

Instead this is the player (any player) who is using the rules of the game to his advantage with a strategy that while a bit unorthodox returns a decent player advantage

I believe the word Wizard meant was conjunction not collusion and he needs to stress he is referring to the wagers NOT the people . "When player and dealer wager and tip are used in conjuntion..."

Or "when player wager and dealer tip are used in conjunction..."

That sounds like a more legit AP move and a more accurate description

EDIT: if I read the suggestion correctly the point of the move is to create the largest ratio between player wager and dealer tip which while unorthodox is within the rules. This is the move that creates a player advantage

NOT colluding with the dealer so that his very large winning tip wagers are later split between him and the player

No. It only creates a player advantage if the tips are later split. Otherwise it creates a “tip advantage” but the player still loses on the non tip bet.

Well the Wiz needs to clarify what he is suggesting I suppose

Yes and my question is how much can I earn assuming All the tip money is mine subtracted by my losses from my main bet if the bet ratio was 1-1

Quote: ADVplayer

Yes and my question is how much can I earn assuming All the tip money is mine subtracted by my losses from my main bet if the bet ratio was 1-1

So you think a Dealer is going to collude with you, risk their job and risk being arrested and you get to keep all the tip money? Interesting concept.


ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

So you think a Dealer is going to collude with you, risk their job and risk being arrested and you get to keep all the tip money? Interesting concept.


ZCore13

That’s something you can let me worry about right? I simply want to know the answer to the question.

Quote: ADVplayer

That’s something you can let me worry about right? I simply want to know the answer to the question.

You'll have plenty of time to worry about it from jail.


ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

You'll have plenty of time to worry about it from jail.


ZCore13

Wonder what would happen if casino owners banned tipping dealers?