If I understand the rules of Blackjack and casinos correctly (perhaps a flawed assumption to start with), how is it that the odds are in favor of the house? If I’m the only person playing against the dealer, say, and I follow the same rules as he does - hit on 16, stay on 17 - don’t we both have the same chance of winning a hand? And if no money is moved on a tie (push), then aren’t we both in the same position? I understand that if the dealer is playing against several people, when he wins everyone loses and the house makes a lot of money. But as for the individual player, aren’t his odds the same of winning x number of hands the same as the dealer’s? Thanks. xo C.
The big house advantage is that the players all play first. That means that every time a player goes bust (over 21) it’s an automatic win for the dealer. In reality, if the dealer had had to play all those hands, he would have also busted on many of them.
of course. And it’s just…that…simple. thank you.
To get into the math of it all is not my strong point, particularly b/c I do not understand the probabilities behind it. The biggest reason why this game is in the house’s favor is b/c the house gets to decide last. I can’t recall if my numbers are correct or not, but emulating the house brings your overall rate of return (on your bankroll) down to like a whopping 92% (factoring other normal table conditions, I’ll get to that later). That doesn’t sound like a lot, but it is.
Because you, the player, has to decide first, this brings another point why emulating the dealer is a bad proposition. What if you are dealt a K-5 against a dealer 6? Most of the cards you could draw would make you bust, the dealer has even less chance of making the same card (assuming a 10 whole card). The player has less information in this case, b/c of the hole card, and he has to make his decision first. Ugh, I’m doing a crappy job explaining this, but hopefully you get the gist of my example. The point of the matter is that since you have to draw first, and you know what your cards are, why take that chance of trying to bust? In fact, the dealer needing to draw to 17 is what makes the percentages a little easier to stomach. I think if the deck is dealt to the last card, the rate of return is something as high as 99.5 or 98.6 (assuming 1 deck, and normal rules, like doubling on any two cards, double after split, splitting, surrender).
There are other factors which tilt this game in the house’s favor: multiple decks, deck penetration (the more the better); refusing to allow double after splitting, doubing only a 9, 10, or 11, no surrender, 6:5 BJ pay off (instead of the 3:2).
Lastly, I read somewhere (some guy did the math) and he said that the overall rate of winning hands is 44%. Ok, it’s Friday and I have to go gamble.
- In my experience, a gambler will keep playing until he goes broke.
- Also, the house limit is higher than the amount most gamblers have.
So, if the house limit is 1000$ and the gambler has only 200$, then eventually the gambler will lose all of his money. In this case, the odds that the gambler will reach the house’s limit are very few.
Dogg80The odds being favored by the house have nothing to do with how long a gambler will play for or the house limit. Little Nemo’s answer is correct.
To expand on this a bit - the fact that the house gets to play last gives the house about an 8% advantage. But the house gives much of that back in favorable rules for the player. For instance, the player gets paid 3:2 on a blackjack, while the house gets even money. The player can split, double down, and make strategy decisions the house can’t. In the end, the rules are balanced out to give the house an average of somewhat less than 1% in advantage, making Blackjack one of the best gambles in a casino. Some single deck games with great rules can even give the player an advantage with perfect play (and without card counting).
Although the odds with perfect play are less than 1%, the house has about a 2-3% advantage over the average player, simply because most players play the game badly and don’t use the rules optimally.
And, of course, there have been systems devised that tip the odds in favor of the players, and the houses have responded by banning the systems.
Having spent an hour or so at the tables, my opinion is that the biggest house edge is in player stupidity. Or ignorance, if that be the case. Not to mention “hunches.”
According to Hoyle - Blackjack is a hand in the game of Twenty One.
Certainly not Edmond Hoyle
While we’re here, a question. Suppose that there’s only one player at a table, and he’s holding a 15. He’s nervous, and stands. If the dealer is holding 16, does he still have to hit? After all, the 16 is already enough to win.
And if he does stay there, what about the case where there are two players, one has a 15, and the other has 17. Does the house stay on the certainty of beating the first player, or hit in hopes of beating the second?
The dealer must hit until 17 or greater is acheived. Some hit soft 17’s (A-6), some don’t. It makes no difference what other players have, unless everyone busts, in which case the hand is over anyway.
I don’t think the house has the choice- it must hit on a 16 if that’s how the rules are set. The dealer doesn’t have any say in it.
Actually, if you have a 15 and the dealer has a 16, the best thing you can do is stand.
The dealer has no choice in how he plays. It doesn’t matter if he’s already beaten your 15 with his 16, the house rules (in my local casino at least) force him to draw until he hits either hard 17 or soft 18.
Basic blackjack strategy: Always assume the dealer has a 10 in the hole, giving him a 16 in your case. There’s only 5 cards that can improve his hand without busting (A-5), and 9 cards that will bust him (6-K). And you know he’s gonna have to take a card. On the same note, there’s only 6 cards that can improve your hand, and 8 cards that’ll make you bust. So why take a chance of busting yourself if there’s a (roughly) 2 in 3 chance that he’ll bust?
Here’s a link to a good basic blackjack strategy engine, which you can customize for your local casino house rules.
I am not sure if it is Edmund Hoyle or not. In the early 70s my parents went to Las Vegas for the first time in their lives. I was probably about 13 at the time. When they came back I remember my Mom scouring the house looking for her card game book entitled “According To Hoyle”. She had told us that the casinos where playing a game called black jack and that she grew up knowing it as Twenty One. To this day I remember her laying the book down and saying “Well! According to Hoyle black jack is a hand in the game of Twenty One”. Apparently her assertions that Vegas had misnamed the game had no effect. 
I didn’t do a search but I am slightly curious if newer versions of the book now call it Black Jack?
Jim
Hoyle lived centuries ago, before the modern incarnation of the game. Various authors have written books with the “Hoyle” name. As near as I can tell, there are even older versions that include the name blackjack.
Cronos, The dealer is a robot, and must always perform the same action in the same circumstances. The dealer cannot change their actions based on what players do or do not have. In fact, there is no reason the dealer needs to be a human at all, since they exercise no judgement whatsoever (at least, within the context of the game).
To answer the OP, there is no one factor you can point to as to why the odds are in favor of the player. Given the totality of the game and the odds of each event happening given other events, when you add everything up, it’s in the favor of the house. You cannot point to one piece and say that is the reason. Sure, the “double-bust” accounts for a large chunk. But so does the fact that a player can stop at 16, and a dealer can’t. Going the other way, so does the extra payoff for blackjack. So does early surrender (in those casinos that offer it). So do splits and double-downs. So does any facet of the game that is non-symmetric between the player and the dealer. All you can say is when everything is put together, it favors the casino.
And sometimes the games are handheld, and the dealer does not know what the player has.
OK, I knew that the dealer operated under strict, simple rules (otherwise there’s too much risk of a dishonest dealer helping the players), I just wasn’t sure whether those rules took the players’ hands into account. And I’m aware that you should stand at 15 if the dealer shows 6, but “dealer holding 16” could also be, say, six facedown and a ten faceup (in which case you should hit).