Ask The Wizard #182

I sincerely hope you appreciate the effort; I dedicated two days to running simulations to tackle this question. To summarize for others, the Cut-Card Effect claims that a game with continuous shuffling has a lower house edge compared to a game where a cut card is used, assuming all other factors are constant. The 'Floating Advantage' asserts that for a card counter, the odds improve the more the dealer goes through the decks or shoes. Stanford Wong notes that, 'Once we have counted down to n decks remaining, the edge when the count is zero is quite similar to starting with n decks.' - Blackjack Attack, third edition, page 71. Thus, in a scenario with six decks where one deck remains, at a zero count, the house edge would be nearly identical to that of a single-deck game under the same rules.

Regrettably, the Floating Advantage does not aid those who do not count cards. Although they may inadvertently benefit at nearly neutral true counts, they perform worse at both high and low counts. Schlesinger states, 'It appears that at the one-deck level, very high counts yield a lower edge than expected for the standard strategist (often resulting in pushes), and severely negative counts are even more detrimental than previously assumed (doubles, splits, and stands can be disastrous).' - Blackjack Attack, third edition, page 70.

From my perspective, the reason that counters benefit from the Floating Advantage, whether consciously aware of it or not, is that they place larger bets when the Floating Advantage supports their position and smaller bets when it does not. Conversely, a non-counter, who lacks awareness of when the Floating Advantage is at its strongest, will find that the upsides and downsides cancel each other out.

In summary, both the Cut-Card Effect and Floating Advantage are separate issues and do not contradict one another. Comparing them is akin to comparing apples to oranges. For further insights, please refer to chapter 6 in Blackjack Attack by Don Schlesinger.

You’re welcome! That game was quite complex to explain. The table below illustrates the difference in house edge observed in both scenarios, assuming that both the player and the dealer adhere to the same house rules.

Yes, Bodog Does indeed provide a payout of 9 to 1 on tie bets. When using eight decks, this modifies the house edge from 14.360% to 4.844%.

For leisure gambling, my personal rule is to get up when the fun quotient diminishes.

The probability of six sixes is (1/6)⁶= 1 in 46656. The probability of rolling 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 with six dice is 6. ! /6⁶= 1 in 64.8

You did not specify the number of decks, but if we assume there are six, then the house edge is approximately 5.66%. Here is the return table for your reference.

Upon casual observation, I would suggest tracking aces as the most beneficial card and making bets in a deck rich in aces. My recommendation is to consider aces as -12 and all other cards as +1.

That probability would be 52/ combin (260,5) = 5/9525431552 = 1 in 1,905,086,310.

Finding a $5 blackjack table on the Strip during the weekend will be quite challenging. You might need to settle for a more budget-friendly casino like the Riviera, Sahara, Frontier, or Circus Circus. However, it will be significantly easier to find such tables downtown. Meanwhile, Let It Ride is becoming increasingly rare, but if available, the minimum unit is typically $5.

In Nevada, there is a state law mandating that electronic card representations must provide the same probabilities as those presented by a human dealer. To operate in Nevada, a gaming manufacturer must comply with this regulation for every machine they produce anywhere in the world. Therefore, if they use well-known U.S. brands like IGT or Bally, I would expect the games to be fair. However, with lower-quality imports, I cannot provide any guarantees. As with any live game, it’s imperative to review the rules before playing. Most importantly, avoid games that offer even money on blackjack.

There are 30 black numbers, 30 red numbers, and 4 green. This would render the probabilities for black at 30/64, red at 30/64, and green at 4/64. For any probability, p, the fair odds would be calculated as (1-p)/p to 1. Thus, the fair odds for a red bet would be (34/64)/(30/64) = 34 to 30, which simplifies to 17 to 15. The same calculation applies to black. For the green, the fair odds are calculated as (60/64)/(4/64) = 60 to 4, which results in odds of 15 to 1. For an individual number, the fair odds would equal (63/64)/(1/64) resulting in 63 to 1.

I would recommend payouts of 1 to 1 for red and black bets, 14 to 1 for green, and 60 to 1 for any single number. One method to calculate the house edge is (t-a)/(t+1), where t represents the true odds and a reflects the actual odds. Here, the house edge for a red or black bet is (63-60)/(63+1) = 3/64, equating to 4.69%. In the case of a green bet, the house edge is (15-14)/(15+1) = 1/16, or 6.25%. Finally, for individual numbers, the house edge remains (63-60)/(63+1) = 3/64, about 4.69%.

For the benefit of other readers, my blackjack appendix 10 It reveals that the house edge in a five-deck game is reduced by 0.028% when using a continuous shuffler instead of a hand shuffle. The disparity between five decks and two decks, assuming all other rules remain the same, is 0.18%. Consequently, playing without a shuffler with two decks would be more advantageous. Let's analyze a five-deck continuous shuffler game against a four-deck hand-shuffled game. As my blackjack calculator illustrates, the difference in house edge between four decks and five decks is 0.0329%. Thus, the advantage of a continuous shuffler amounts to less than simply removing one deck.