August 10th, 2022 at 11:15:07 AM
permalink

This might be totally fallacious - I am not a mathematician!

Suppose that I came into bonus money very easily (like won a contest). The effort to obtain the bonus was nominal; I seek only to collect its stated value.

Say the only requirement was a single playthrough (for simplicity's sake).

Would I not alter basic strategy to consider a push as positive outcome, based on the goals above (single playthrough/even recovery)?

This would include changes like doubling down on 10/10, splitting 10s, basically driving for pushes?

Your thoughts, please!

Suppose that I came into bonus money very easily (like won a contest). The effort to obtain the bonus was nominal; I seek only to collect its stated value.

Say the only requirement was a single playthrough (for simplicity's sake).

Would I not alter basic strategy to consider a push as positive outcome, based on the goals above (single playthrough/even recovery)?

This would include changes like doubling down on 10/10, splitting 10s, basically driving for pushes?

Your thoughts, please!

August 10th, 2022 at 12:48:02 PM
permalink

Take the 94.7% of value you can get at roulette with no variance. 97.3% of value if you can use a single zero wheel. Easy peasy.

“You don’t bring a bone saw to a negotiation.” - Robert Jordan, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia

August 10th, 2022 at 1:09:33 PM
permalink

Unfortunately roulette is not an option, otherwise totally agree.

August 10th, 2022 at 1:19:05 PM
permalink

If you HAVE to play Blackjack then counting would help but if you are looking for a casino game where pushes are common then Pai Gow Poker is your game.

I am not aware of any real basic strategy in Blackjack that actively goes for pushes.

I am not aware of any real basic strategy in Blackjack that actively goes for pushes.

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

August 10th, 2022 at 1:58:29 PM
permalink

My assumption would be that you should play basic strategy to maximize your potential win but it will add variance.

At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.

August 10th, 2022 at 2:10:31 PM
permalink

Really the only options are Blackjack and 7/5 Video poker and slots. I could autoplay the slots but the volatility is heartbreaking. I'd rather jockey cards and feel like the universe is reasonably under control. Once again, rife with fallacy, I realize. But optics count and emotions are real.

Here's the gist of my math:

Although the rules vary, it looks like, generally:

Blackjack Outcome Odds

If I treat those both as positive outcomes, I wind up having a positive outcome > 50% of the time.

Remember, pushing is a positive outcome because it satisfies the playthrough requirement.

If I use the above math, the matrix on splitting 10s when dealer shows a 10 favors the split:

In the above I'm 'canceling' the <20 faceoffs because these are standard hands (50.58% in W+P), basically 50/50

Standing (no Split) using the above rationale yields 2:1.

So what this tells me is that splitting on 10s (against a dealer 10) in the W+P paradigm will yield the same results in fewer plays. But will it stabilize overall volatility as a result?

Please, someone smack this out of my hand and tell me my math skills must have been learned from a cracker jack box.

Here's the gist of my math:

Although the rules vary, it looks like, generally:

Blackjack Outcome Odds

W | 42.2% |
---|---|

L | 49.1% |

P | 8.48% |

------------------------ | |

W+P | 50.68% |

If I treat those both as positive outcomes, I wind up having a positive outcome > 50% of the time.

Remember, pushing is a positive outcome because it satisfies the playthrough requirement.

If I use the above math, the matrix on splitting 10s when dealer shows a 10 favors the split:

Player/Dealer | D20 | D<20 |
---|---|---|

H1 20 | P | W |

H1 <20 | L | - |

H2 20 | P | W |

H2 <20 | L | - |

(W+P):L | 4:2 |

In the above I'm 'canceling' the <20 faceoffs because these are standard hands (50.58% in W+P), basically 50/50

Standing (no Split) using the above rationale yields 2:1.

So what this tells me is that splitting on 10s (against a dealer 10) in the W+P paradigm will yield the same results in fewer plays. But will it stabilize overall volatility as a result?

Please, someone smack this out of my hand and tell me my math skills must have been learned from a cracker jack box.

August 10th, 2022 at 3:18:57 PM
permalink

Quote:wildpalmsThis might be totally fallacious - I am not a mathematician!

Suppose that I came into bonus money very easily (like won a contest). The effort to obtain the bonus was nominal; I seek only to collect its stated value.

Say the only requirement was a single playthrough (for simplicity's sake).

Would I not alter basic strategy to consider a push as positive outcome, based on the goals above (single playthrough/even recovery)?

link to original post

Pushing (pays 1 for 1) is "ok".

Winning (pays 2 for 1) is "better".

Basic strategy already incorporates this.

Basic strategy suggests the course of action most likely to yield the best probable result for a situation.

You should be using the correct basic strategy for the rules in play. A calculator like https://www.beatingbonuses.com/houseedge.htm can help. (The WoO calculator is good too, but I have a hunch you may value the extra odd rules & CD variants supported by the other.)

I'm inferring that this is a computerized blackjack of some type, based on the other games available for the bonus requirement satisfaction. Because of that, I don't think that splitting 10's or similar "quirky" oddities would ever be an optimal play.

Best of luck

May the cards fall in your favor.

August 10th, 2022 at 4:39:36 PM
permalink

Thanks! I do have a sense of 'winning is better', and this is why I've been doubting myself all along.

I thought that my goals of achieving RTP in as few hands as possible vs Winning made me a motivational outlier that went outside the presumptions that form basic strategy, but sounds like a no.

Interestingly, when I input my specific ruleset into the beatingbonuses calculator, a few of the double downs on 11 (from other basic strategy cards) changed to hits, and I had noticed empirically these were coming to fruition infrequently.

I thought that my goals of achieving RTP in as few hands as possible vs Winning made me a motivational outlier that went outside the presumptions that form basic strategy, but sounds like a no.

Interestingly, when I input my specific ruleset into the beatingbonuses calculator, a few of the double downs on 11 (from other basic strategy cards) changed to hits, and I had noticed empirically these were coming to fruition infrequently.

August 10th, 2022 at 11:15:34 PM
permalink

Quote:DRichMy assumption would be that you should play basic strategy to maximize your potential win but it will add variance.

link to original post

Agreed.

I'd suggest sticking with Basic strategy and accept some variance. Mitigate the variance by having a long session at low stakes. Decide for yourself how long you want to bother to play and stake accordingly. Maybe split 10s to get a bit more out there.

Beware. The earth is NOT flat.
Hit and run is not a winning strategy:
Pressing into trends IS not a winning strategy:
Progressives are not a winning strategy:
Don't Buy It! .Don't even take it for free.

August 10th, 2022 at 11:38:09 PM
permalink

Quote:DRichMy assumption would be that you should play basic strategy to maximize your potential win but it will add variance.

link to original post

Take a look at the spreadsheet used to derive BS and modify it to see what effect some of these marginal decisions have on RTP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCF-Btu5ZCk

Beware. The earth is NOT flat.
Hit and run is not a winning strategy:
Pressing into trends IS not a winning strategy:
Progressives are not a winning strategy:
Don't Buy It! .Don't even take it for free.