Penalty for standing on all hands

[Oscar21]

Sorry i should have been more specific. I meant literally standing on all my hands. I know its a horrible losing strategy, I have other reasons for wanting the edge on alternative ways of playing. That's good to know that not busting is 4% disadvantage, but believe it or not I wanted the edge on never touching any hands. So if it is 4% for not busting then it is much worse for never taking a hit, splitting, or doubling. I was looking for the fastest way to play with a disadvantage of 5% or less. I want the perfect way to play with a compromise between speed and accuracy. If my simple math is correct then i can give up around 5% for something else I am getting.

[21forme]

Sorry i should have been more specific. I meant literally standing on all my hands. I know its a horrible losing strategy, I have other reasons for wanting the edge on alternative ways of playing. That's good to know that not busting is 4% disadvantage, but believe it or not I wanted the edge on never touching any hands. So if it is 4% for not busting then it is much worse for never taking a hit, splitting, or doubling. I was looking for the fastest way to play with a disadvantage of 5% or less. I want the perfect way to play with a compromise between speed and accuracy. If my simple math is correct then i can give up around 5% for something else I am getting.

This is really stupid.

If you want to play a game with 5% disadvantage, just play slots.

[Oscar21]

I want to make sure I understand the house edge. If I am playing a game with a disadvantage of .5 it means that I lose 50 cents per 100 total bet, regardless of whether it is $100 on one hand or 100 one dollar hands , correct? Then .05 disadvantage is 50 cents per $1000?

[Freightman]

I want to make sure I understand the house edge. If I am playing a game with a disadvantage of .5 it means that I lose 50 cents per 100 total bet, regardless of whether it is $100 on one hand or 100 one dollar hands , correct? Then .05 disadvantage is 50 cents per $1000?

No, no, no. Disadvantage of .5 assumes perfect basic strategy. If you play like a moron, Or simply substandard basic, house edge rises.

[ericfarmer]

Sorry i should have been more specific. I meant literally standing on all my hands. I know its a horrible losing strategy, I have other reasons for wanting the edge on alternative ways of playing. That's good to know that not busting is 4% disadvantage, but believe it or not I wanted the edge on never touching any hands. So if it is 4% for not busting then it is much worse for never taking a hit, splitting, or doubling. I was looking for the fastest way to play with a disadvantage of 5% or less. I want the perfect way to play with a compromise between speed and accuracy. If my simple math is correct then i can give up around 5% for something else I am getting.

This is the sort of weird question that my CA can answer relatively easily. By always standing, you give up an almost 16% advantage to the house, losing your hand about 57% of the time, winning the hand (without blackjack) about 34% of the time, and stumbling across blackjack about 4.5% of the time.

[BJPloppy]

Sorry i should have been more specific. I meant literally standing on all my hands. I know its a horrible losing strategy, I have other reasons for wanting the edge on alternative ways of playing. That's good to know that not busting is 4% disadvantage, but believe it or not I wanted the edge on never touching any hands. So if it is 4% for not busting then it is much worse for never taking a hit, splitting, or doubling. I was looking for the fastest way to play with a disadvantage of 5% or less. I want the perfect way to play with a compromise between speed and accuracy. If my simple math is correct then i can give up around 5% for something else I am getting.

Are you not concerned with the extra attention that standing on every hand would bring?