Game rules evaluation

[Goodboy]

Hello there!!

I am new at the forum but I've been playing BJ for 2 years and half now.

I would like your opinion in terms of this particular game I usually play with:

- 6 decks
- S17
- Double on 9, 10 and 11 only
- DAS
- Early Surrender (not against Aces)
- BJ 3:2
- One card on Split Aces
- No resplitting Aces
- Up to 4 splits allowed
- Dealer doesn't peek. BB+1 (Player loses any busted hands after splitting and only 1 bet more)


From the math I've made the HE would be 0,29% o 0,30% depending on the source

So first of all, is my HE correctly calculated? And how does this game ranks in your opinion in relative terms to others you know?

Thanks in advance!!

[sagefr0g]

here's what i come up with kc's tdca below.
i'm not sure i set it up correctly but it seems so.
there were no settings for this rule: BB+1 (Player loses any busted hands after splitting and only 1 bet more)game.JPG
-0.518 edge

[Goodboy]

From the file you uploaded I see you are missing the surrender against 2-9, since it's Early Surrender against everything but an Ace

[sagefr0g]

From the file you uploaded I see you are missing the surrender against 2-9, since it's Early Surrender against everything but an Ace

right & i did run the program with those parameters out of curiousity, it didn't change the house edge significantly, was still -0.5 something....game2.JPGedit:

[Gronbog]

- Dealer doesn't peek. BB+1 (Player loses any busted hands after splitting and only 1 bet more)

I assume that if 4 hands are busted, then there is no +1. Correct?

[Shark]

ES10 adds +0.24% to EV.

[Goodboy]

I assume that if 4 hands are busted, then there is no +1. Correct?

Correct

[Goodboy]

right & i did run the program with those parameters out of curiousity, it didn't change the house edge significantly, was still -0.5 something....game2.JPGedit:

I wonder what I am doing wrong, because when I try to evaluate the same game rules on www.wizardofodds.com using the Blackjack House Edge Calculator, they give me -0,45% HE, but only with LS instead of ES from 2 to 10. So the result should be better than -0,45% and not -0,5 like you state.

Also I used the page with the rule variations to calculate the HE:

http://wizardofodds.com/games/blackj...le-variations/

Where you take the baseline game of eight decks, dealer stands on soft 17, player may double on anyfirst two cards, player can double after splitting, player may split to 4 hands and you evaluate that baseline game into their calculator, you get -0,447. After that you adjust with the following:

+0,02 for being 6 decks
+0,24 for the ES against 10 (does not consider the ES against 9 or lower)
-0,09 for doubling on 9,10 and 11 only
-0,01 for BB+1, for a total

for a total of -0,29

Maybe I am missing something you guys can point out?

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Rule of thumb:

A shoe game with restricted doubles is unlikely to be an

exploitable game unless the penetration is quite deep.

[sagefr0g]

I wonder what I am doing wrong, because when I try to evaluate the same game rules on www.wizardofodds.com using the Blackjack House Edge Calculator, they give me -0,45% HE, but only with LS instead of ES from 2 to 10. So the result should be better than -0,45% and not -0,5 like you state.

Also I used the page with the rule variations to calculate the HE:

http://wizardofodds.com/games/blackj...le-variations/

Where you take the baseline game of eight decks, dealer stands on soft 17, player may double on anyfirst two cards, player can double after splitting, player may split to 4 hands and you evaluate that baseline game into their calculator, you get -0,447. After that you adjust with the following:

+0,02 for being 6 decks
+0,24 for the ES against 10 (does not consider the ES against 9 or lower)
-0,09 for doubling on 9,10 and 11 only
-0,01 for BB+1, for a total

for a total of -0,29

Maybe I am missing something you guys can point out?

the game is European no hold card no peek correct?
if so have you factored that into your calculations?

[Goodboy]

the game is European no hold card no peek correct?
if so have you factored that into your calculations?

From what I understand, the fact that is European no hole card with no peek factors in the HE depending on how they handle dealer's blackjack. In this case they follow the BB+1 rule, meaning in case of doubling and splitting you only lose busted hands and one additional bet. That rule is -0,01 in HE unlike the "Dealer takes all" which is -0,11%, Of course you use either one or the other, not both at the same time. (same applies with OBO, OBBO)

[sagefr0g]

From what I understand, the fact that is European no hole card with no peek factors in the HE depending on how they handle dealer's blackjack. In this case they follow the BB+1 rule, meaning in case of doubling and splitting you only lose busted hands and one additional bet. That rule is -0,01 in HE unlike the "Dealer takes all" which is -0,11%, Of course you use either one or the other, not both at the same time. (same applies with OBO, OBBO)

hmm, ok, so apparently i'm not able (at least i don't know how) to set up tdca for the BB+1 rule, so perhaps the game is 0.10% better than what i'm coming up with. no?
but still more house edge than you are calculating by hand.

[Goodboy]

hmm, ok, so apparently i'm not able (at least i don't know how) to set up tdca for the BB+1 rule, so perhaps the game is 0.10% better than what i'm coming up with. no?
but still more house edge than you are calculating by hand.

Indeed, if you make the BB+1 rule count as +0,1%, you still come up with a -0,4% edge against my original -0,29%.

So what I am looking for now is the mistake source of my original calculations. Any help finding it?