I've never really been able to understand why he fact that if there are more decks are in a game that the house advantage has a higher advantage.
It seems like the extra small cards would be cancelled out by the extra big cards...
I'm missing something here.
Help.
The more experience players here will chime in but I ran across this article while breaking out the "Google-Fu" at one point in time... http://www.coloradogamingnews.com/ho...use-advantage/
More decks = Fewer Blackjacks is the main one. For example just looking at when your first card is an Ace, for single deck if your first card is an Ace there are 16/51 chances at a ten which is 31.37% On six deck if your first card is an Ace there are 96/311 chances at a 10 or 30.87%. You can do a similar calculation for when your first card is a 10 and find for single deck you will catch an Ace more often than you will for multiple deck games.
From a casino game protection standpoint, multiple deck games are harder to beat because the count hovers at or near 0 a far greater percentage of the time preserving the house advantage a greater chunk of the time.
Last edited by bigplayer; 02-28-2014 at 05:21 PM.
While bigplayer has cited one example of how the "effects of removal" influnce the probabilities of single-deck vs. multiple-deck, getting a blackjack is far from the only effect. Suppose you double on your total of 11 (6,5) in SD. You certainly don't want either of them as your next card, do you? Well, the fact that one-fourth of each rank is no longer available for you to receive is significant. Conversely, in multi-deck, just 1/24 of those ranks has been removed, and your chances of getting a 5 or 6 as your next card are significantly higher than in single-deck. (This by the way, along with the removal of an ace, which you don't want as your double card either, is one of the reasons why BS in SD is to double 11 vs. Ace, whereas we hit in multi-deck.)
Don
jbuck
Wow, that's hard to believe that such a table can offer ANY profit to the Casino... Zender did a study on hold and table minima and showed that $3 tables are not profitable. Quoting Zender:
"If the casino offers a $3 minimum game, and everyone at the game plays only $3 per hand, the game is an overall loser for the house. Even if we “pack” the table with seven player hands, the tables still do not make money under this model structure."
http://www.casinoenterprisemanagement.com/articles/february-2013/table-game-minimums-and-profitability
(Is it ok to post links?)
The dealer busts more with less decks in situations where the player could take advantage of this info. For example when the dealer has a 5 up in single or double deck, the dealer is less likely to have a 5 under and more likely to have a stiff as compared to an 8 deck game. This makes sense because the count is higher in these scenarios. Another way to think of it is that the player can play more efficiently since the dealer up card provides slightly more info, even if they are not counting.
There is a great article on this on some blog somewhere that I can't find right now. But from what I remember this effect is more significant than the extra BJ probability.
Griffin discusses the topic of this thread on pp. 115-16 of ToB. By far, the biggest contribution to the difference in edge is the doubling phenomenon I posted about. The second biggest (but not the main reason) is the difference in frequency of naturals that bigplayer mentioned. The third is, basically, your comment, above, so among the three of us, I think we have most of the bases covered!
Don
partly also because you can get more specific with basic strategy with fewer decks ie: 77 vs T is a stand in sd. this doesn't have close to the same importance as those listed above though.
Last edited by steveistheman84; 03-01-2014 at 12:03 PM.
big dog in charge
How are you measuring the relative contribution of these effects? Or is there a particular study/source you are referencing that orders the contributions in this way? Because Griffin doesn't really answer the mail here, and this question bothered me enough a couple of years ago that I looked at it in quite a bit of detail, and I saw quite different results.Originally Posted by DSchles
Griffin discusses the topic of this thread on pp. 115-16 of ToB. By far, the biggest contribution to the difference in edge is the doubling phenomenon I posted about. The second biggest (but not the main reason) is the difference in frequency of naturals that bigplayer mentioned. The third is, basically, your comment, above, so among the three of us, I think we have most of the bases covered!Don
There is a description of the analysis here:
http://possiblywrong.wordpress.com/2...ckjack-player/
A decent summary of the relative contributions is in the comments (using a reasonable metric described in the post):
57% due to higher probability of dealer bust
21% due to doubling and splitting "power"
15% due to higher probability of player blackjack
7% due to composition-dependent strategy
In short, by far the dominant effect is the higher likelihood of dealer busts.
Last edited by ericfarmer; 03-01-2014 at 02:11 PM.
This can happen with some combination of IE and Windows. If it's IE10, there is a small compatibility icon to the right of the url that, when clicked, usually solves the problem.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks