House Edge on this Game(?)

[ZenMaster_Flash]

sefwow,

Look Again. Look carefully.

The graphic you inserted has the WRONG house edge

because it lists EARLY Surrender, NOT ES vs. 10.

There is a world of difference !

[moo321]

Whoa whoa let's not get ahead of ourselves. Just because you can't surrender on ace doesn't mean it's not playable

This is the right kind of thinking...

[Gronbog]

I found this game but I can't work out the house edge because in this game I am not allowed to surrender against a dealer's ace card.

Uses a CSM (should be a good thing because I think it lowers the house edge slightly)

6 deck, Stay at Soft 17, Double Down on any 2 cards (but not soft hands) , Double After Split, up to 4 splits, Can resplit aces, BJ 3:2, Early Surrender

I figured that the house edge is around -0.09% but that is being able to surrender vs Aces and I figure this might be huge as with early surrender basic strategy more hands are surrendered against aces than with late surender.

Yes, from pp. 492-493 of BJA3, the edge is 0.117%.Don

As an exercise, and to make sure I understand the game that is being described, I'm trying to reproduce the 0.117% result using the referenced tables in BJA3. So far I have been unsuccessful. I have

Benchmark 6d S17 game: -0.546
D9: -0.089
DAS/SPL3: 0.142
DAS/SPA3: 0.388
ES10: 0.241
----------------------------------------------------
Total: 0.136

As you can see, I get a player advantage of 0.136% mainly generated by the DAS/SPA3 and ES10 components.

Don, can you show how you obtained 0.117%? Thanks!

[NotEnoughHeat]

I would think that any tables that get you to simply add and subtract house edges would give you a general idea of what the house edge is but not an exact number. Many of the edge effects of rules are interdependent so you can't simply expect to sum individual numbers and receive an extremely accurate result.

[Gronbog]

In the case of these tables, I think that you can. The tables do provide separate values for rules that interact with one another, such as splitting and double after split. Having said that, we may still not be able to get an exact answer because, according to the foootnote, the DAS entries assume DOA which is not the case with this game.

I just want to know that I'm using the tables correctly to evaluate this game and that we came up with the correct answer, or as close as we can come, for the OP.

[NotEnoughHeat]

In the case of these tables, I think that you can. The tables do provide separate values for rules that interact with one another, such as splitting and double after split. Having said that, we may still not be able to get an exact answer because, according to the foootnote, the DAS entries assume DOA which is not the case with this game.

I just want to know that I'm using the tables correctly to evaluate this game and that we came up with the correct answer, or as close as we can come, for the OP.

Fair enough. Although I have heard of the tables before I don't really know what the tables look like or exactly how they work.

Good on you for reading the footnotes. The devil is in the details.


I would also be curious to know whether and by how much the CSM factor changes anything. For this, I believe there is a difference due to the cut card effect. With a fixed cut-card shuffle, the shoes with negative counts towards the end last more rounds than the ones with positive counts. I'm too lazy at the moment to think where or when the relevant positive or negative counts are, but in any case, you get more rounds when things are bad and less when they are good.

[Gronbog]

Re: the cut card effect, tables such as these are generally for the first hand off the top of the shoe/deck, as is basic strategy and its inherent house edge.

I'm getting closer --- I should be using SPA3/RSA2 (single hit 0.069) instead of DAS/SPA3 (0.388), but this still leaves me with -0.183. Had I read the page after the charts as well as the footnote, I would have seen that this game is similar to the example that Don gave and I would have figured out that part much sooner!