BJ Tables in Argentina (question for House Edge expert)

[Seraph]

The game you describe is really horrible without the additional rules you mention.
Although it may not seem like it, those rules really make a difference. Let's see:


2) 8D, S17, D10, NDAS, SPA1, SPL1, NS, ENHC, BJ 3:2 but with the additional rules.
With optimal play, the house edge is 0.5650%.
Using a TD-BS (total dependent basic strategy), the house edge is 0.5731%.


Sincerely,
Cac

Hi Cac
First of all thank you for ALL of your replies.
Specially coming from a well respected member

Now, I cant actually understand the reason why the house edge change so much (from 0.8932%. to 0.5731%.)
Could you please elaborate a little if you dont mind?

Cause Im thinking on playing under those rules and is imposible to me to simulate those conditions on CVCX or even in CVDATA(already asked NORM and I cant SIM both rules together) and Im a little worry about the EV

[Cacarulo]

Hi Cac
First of all thank you for ALL of your replies.
Specially coming from a well respected member

Now, I cant actually understand the reason why the house edge change so much (from 0.8932%. to 0.5731%.)
Could you please elaborate a little if you dont mind?

Cause Im thinking on playing under those rules and is imposible to me to simulate those conditions on CVCX or even in CVDATA(already asked NORM and I cant SIM both rules together) and Im a little worry about the EV

The first rule, which states that after splitting two aces and receiving a ten, it is considered a blackjack and paid as such, is worth 0.2028%. The second rule, where tied blackjacks with the dealer pay 0.5, is worth another 0.1172%.
That is the whole reason.

Sincerely,
Cac

[dalmatian]

Hi Seraph,

Can you please email me @ [email protected]

Fellow counter, international.

[Seraph]

Yes, that is correct. Without the additional rules, the normal indices would be +5, +5, and +7 for TT vs 6/5/4.
In this case, the values would be +1, +2, and +3 respectively.

Sincerely,
Cac

Cacarulo, I think I found a way to use CVData with these unusual rules.
Can you please confirm those deviations? So I can use them in the SIM

It is kinda tricky cause RC of +1 is not rare and I will probably have to split Tens way too often, but the advantage seems to good to not split to avoid heat

The first rule, which states that after splitting two aces and receiving a ten, it is considered a blackjack and paid as such, is worth 0.2028%. The second rule, where tied blackjacks with the dealer pay 0.5, is worth another 0.1172%.
That is the whole reason.

Sincerely,
Cac

Cac splitting TENS and receiving Aces also is considered a Blackjack. Is this taking in consideration for the number you gave me??

Thank you so much in advance

Sorry to bother you with all this questions, I really appreciated

[Cacarulo]

Cacarulo, I think I found a way to use CVData with these unusual rules.
Can you please confirm those deviations? So I can use them in the SIM

It is kinda tricky cause RC of +1 is not rare and I will probably have to split Tens way too often, but the advantage seems to good to not split to avoid heat



Cac splitting TENS and receiving Aces also is considered a Blackjack. Is this taking in consideration for the number you gave me??

Thank you so much in advance

Sorry to bother you with all this questions, I really appreciated

Hi Seraph,

The deviations are correct and are mainly due to the fact that after splitting tens and receiving aces, it is considered a blackjack.
These indices are correct for the Hi-Lo player's use. This has nothing to do with the calculation of basic strategy, as splitting tens is not part of it, but splitting aces is.
If you found a way to implement these rules in CVData, I would be interested to know how you did it. Obviously, it is much easier to implement them in my own simulator.
Your questions don't bother me at all.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Seraph]

Hi Seraph,

The deviations are correct and are mainly due to the fact that after splitting tens and receiving aces, it is considered a blackjack.
These indices are correct for the Hi-Lo player's use. This has nothing to do with the calculation of basic strategy, as splitting tens is not part of it, but splitting aces is.
If you found a way to implement these rules in CVData, I would be interested to know how you did it. Obviously, it is much easier to implement them in my own simulator.
Your questions don't bother me at all.

Sincerely,
Cac

Cac

Im not in my home right now, so Im not 100% sure but I did this:

1) In the payoffs I put "Blackjack pays 10:10"
2) In the Custom Bonuses I set "Player Hand Number of cards 2, Hand total : 21"
3) Set Conditions as "Split Hands Counts"
4) Payoffs as 0.5 variable

I might be wrong, cause I was triyng those settings in the Casino Verite Blackjack to check, and didnt have the time to actually running the CVData, but is working fine in the CV Blackjack

[Cacarulo]

Cac

Im not in my home right now, so Im not 100% sure but I did this:

1) In the payoffs I put "Blackjack pays 10:10"
2) In the Custom Bonuses I set "Player Hand Number of cards 2, Hand total : 21"
3) Set Conditions as "Split Hands Counts"
4) Payoffs as 0.5 variable

I might be wrong, cause I was triyng those settings in the Casino Verite Blackjack to check, and didnt have the time to actually running the CVData, but is working fine in the CV Blackjack

I'm not sure if this is correct. Maybe Norman has something to say. Why 0.5? 0.5 is the payoff for a BJ tie.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Seraph]

I'm not sure if this is correct. Maybe Norman has something to say. Why 0.5? 0.5 is the payoff for a BJ tie.

Sincerely,
Cac

0.5 is a bonus for any BJ
a) Because the Original Payoff is 1:1 , for a natural blackjack you win 1:1 + the 0.5 bonus
b) Because the split option is on, for an unatural BJ you win 1:1 + the 0.5 bonus
c) for the tied BJ you only receive the 0.5 bonus (no original payoff)

Thats was my reasoning, I might be wrong tho

[Norm]

Using the Debug function and the logs is the best way to examine settings like this. You can specify the cards and see what happens. It will run a one hand sim and provide results. Takes a while to get used to but is what I use to test custom bonuses and side bets.

[Cacarulo]

0.5 is a bonus for any BJ
a) Because the Original Payoff is 1:1 , for a natural blackjack you win 1:1 + the 0.5 bonus
b) Because the split option is on, for an unatural BJ you win 1:1 + the 0.5 bonus
c) for the tied BJ you only receive the 0.5 bonus (no original payoff)

Thats was my reasoning, I might be wrong tho

It seems that options a) and b) are correct although I'm not sure about c). I think this bonus is good for BJs in general and after splitting.
A quick simulation shows around -0.68% (instead of -0.89%). That aligns with the 0.20% for this rule. But it seems that another bonus should be used for the BJ tie.
That other bonus would add another 0.11%. With both bonuses activated, it should reach 0.57%.
Norm?

Sincerely,
Cac

[Norm]

Try it. You can always add more bonus definitions.

[Cacarulo]

Try it. You can always add more bonus definitions.

I don't know how to create this new bonus where each tied BJ pays out 0.5.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Norm]

I'm cooking and can't look at it now.