You are not ANAL? Huh? 
Like an ATM machine I guess.
Huh? What’s like an ATM machine?
Yes, the dealer IS just as likely to benefit on the initial two dealt two cards as the player is. There are a few factors that make it in the players advantage, though: a) the player can choose to stand on any two cards when he knows there’s an extremely likely chance of busting; the dealer cannot. This of course is true even to a non-counting player at any point, but becomes all the more important with a high count, and therefore a higher chance of busting. b) The player gets paid 3-2 for blackjacks, which are more likely in a deck with a high count. If the house gets blackjack, they only get your bet, of course. c) High counts give the counter opportunity to take advantage of splits and double-downs, in more situations then they might in a deck with a low count. The house of course doesn’t get to do this. As an example, if the count gets sufficiently high enough, a player might split tens against certain dealer cards. This particular play might raise eyebrows and draw heat, but there are other changes to basic strategy as well that wouldn’t.
Mainly, yes. But don’t underestimate this… this is a HUGE advantage.
Upon thinking it over, maybe calling it a “HUGE” advantage is overstating it. But it is those few percentage points that this brings to the house that give it its edge.
I believe the original, mathematically sound system to beat the casino in blackjack was “Beat the Dealer” which was printed in the 1960s. It was based upon card counting but the exact system is no longer of use because it worked and the casinos changed the rules.
Contrary to a statement earlier made, in a perfectly “fair” game, the party that begins with the greater bankroll stands a disproportional chance of ruining the other. If I have $1 for every $10 you have, in a coin flip, my chances of ultimate ruin aren’t around 90% but much greater.
I believe the original, mathematically sound system to beat the casino in blackjack was “Beat the Dealer” which was printed in the 1960s. It was based upon card counting but the exact system is no longer of use because it worked and the casinos changed the rules.
Contrary to a statement earlier made, in a perfectly “fair” game, the party that begins with the greater bankroll stands a disproportional chance of ruining the other. If I have $1 for every $10 you have, in a coin flip, my chances of ultimate ruin aren’t around 90% but quite a bit closer to 1.
Saying ‘I am ANAL’.
Wow, that’s an interesting hypothesis you are putting forth there, Sam Stone. I have read up on the computer aided systems used to beat roulette, but it never occured to me that a human could be capable of performing much more simplified equations. As you said, removing a mere 3 numbers from contention would be enough to shift the advantage to the player. Has anyone ever done some in depth research on this that you are aware of?
This may sound silly to the more experienced card counters out there, but couldn’t the casino simply use a different deck every time they deal a hand to eliminate the card counting advantage?
If they wanted to, the casino could use a hundred-deck shoe, and shuffle it after every hand. There are a lot of things that they could do which would make counting completely impossible. But they don’t want to, for a few reasons.
First, they like for people to believe that they can beat the house. Of course, most folks can’t, but a great many think that they can. They’re the ones who go to the casinos often, and end up spending a lot of money.
Second, most of the measures which could be used to defeat counting slow down the game considerably. If you had to shuffle a few thousand cards after every hand, you might only get in a dozen hands a day. Although the house would have better chances for those hands, with counters out of the picture, they still wouldn’t make much money. Obviously, there’s a tradeoff here, and the casinos know just exactly how much protection to put in place to maximize their profits.
It’s been tried, with “Automatic Shuffling Machines”.
Play drops drastically.
See, that’s a problem the casino has. IF they make the game TRULY unbeatable, no one will play!
If they shuffle all the time, they will negate counting (And Shuffle tracking).
And… Yes. If you could eliminate 3-4 numbers from the wheel, and assure they would NEVER come up, well, you’d have an advantage.
BTW: The biggest advantage isn’t the House Edge, it’s casual gamblers overbetting their bankrolls.
But, time spent shuffling can’t win you any money.
So, they shuffle and change the rules enough so that only super counters… Like Tim Hyland and his team, can win.
Speaking of House odds, does anybody know what the actual odds are in BJ, assuming the player plays precisely according to the odds all the time? I’d read somewhere (long ago) that the odds are actually very slightly in favor of the player if he plays perfectly (without counting), and that the casino makes its money off the fact that most people don’t play the odds, they play off their hunches. This sounds moderately plausible, at least, but I’m not sure.
Jeff
Odds depend on the rules. There are calculators on several websites that compute the house advantage (or disadvantage) based on factors such as: # of decks, if the dealer stays or hits a soft 17 (A-6, A-A-5, etc.), early, late or no surrender, etc.
All assume perfect basic strategy play and some of the calculators take into account counting strategies. I haven’t seen one that adjusts for errors (how could it?), and with more complicated counting strategies errors are common.
The average blackjack game in the casino has a house advantage of anywhere between .3 and .9%, depending on the rules and number of decks. That’s assuming perfect basic strategy play, no card counting.
Occasionally you’ll find a single deck game with great rules where the player has the advantage with just basic strategy, but it’s not very common any more.
If you do find a game like this, let us know where it is :).
Last time I played in a single deck game, only about 40% of the deck was dealt out, so the table I was at only went two rounds between shuffles. I didn’t even try to count, because it would be a waste of time.
I still got shown the door (the first and only time that has happened). I can only assume it was because I was sober (it was only about 10am), playing good basic strategy for the table minimum. The other two at the table were blind drunk and betting wildly. I must have been slowing them down too much.
In a real casino, it’s obviously difficult to do all these card counting calculations in your head. But what about online casinos? What could possibly stop someone from running a program on their computer that counts every single card played with perfect precision?
Isn’t it typical for dealers to win on pushes when the value of the cards is 19, 20, or 21?
That’s where I thought the small statistical house advantage came from.
That’s not typical as far as I know. Have you played somewhere that they do that?
Online casinos use the equivalent of a continuious shuffling machine – every round is dealt from a fresh ‘deck of cards’.
Nope. In “Double Exposure” Blackjack, a variant you’ll find at a lot of casinos, all pushes go to the dealer. But in regular blackjack, all pushes are pushes.