Wizard Recommends
100 % up to
2250zł +200 spins- Massive gaming platform
- Crypto-friendly
- Loyalty program
120 % up to
1200zł +50 spins- Welcome bonus package
- Loyalty Program
- Participate in Slot Tournaments Featuring Huge Prize Pools
Ask The Wizard #60
Wizard, I just came across an article on a different website discussing Three Card Poker. The writer labeled the 'Pair Plus' wager as a misguided choice when compared to the 'ante' bet. However, I believe the 'ante' bet carries a higher house edge, making it more of a poor choice. Can you explain the risks involved in Three Card Poker versus Let It Ride, especially if a player is placing $5 bets in the three betting circles for Let It Ride and also wagering $5 on the Pair Plus and ante in Three Card Poker?
That's a great inquiry. In standard play, the house edge for Pair Plus in Three Card Poker stands at 2.32%, while Ante & Play sits at 3.37%. However, the risk associated with Pair Plus remains at 2.32%, whereas for Ante & Play, it drops to 2.01%. When comparing games, evaluating risk in terms of expected loss relative to total bets is more fitting. This suggests Ante & Play represents the lesser risk and constitutes a smarter bet. Thus, I would disagree with the article’s author you mentioned. In my experience, house edge index the risk associated with Let It Ride is calculated at 2.85%, which surpasses that of Ante & Play.
Can you explain the distinction between making a come bet followed by taking the odds versus placing a put bet? Your explanation of put bets seemed similar, so does that mean you discourage both put bets and come bets with odds, or am I misunderstanding your point?
A put bet functions similarly to a come bet on a specific point; however, it does not benefit from winning on a 7 or 11 on the initial roll and instead gets placed directly on the player's chosen point. Players can immediately take odds on their put bets, but they are usually not recommended as they double the chance of losing on the first roll of a come bet, which the player forgoes when opting for a put bet. Despite this, if the allowable odds are sufficiently high, a put bet with maximum odds might achieve a lower house edge than a place or buy bet. My guide outlines the conditions necessary for this scenario. Generally, my recommendation for craps players is to focus on line bets (pass, don’t pass, come, and don’t come) while backing them up with odds. craps section While it is common knowledge that casinos place their more lucrative machines in areas with high foot traffic, is it also true that the absolute highest paying machines find themselves in these zones? I imagine a scenario where a casino advertises payouts up to XX% (often over 97%). To achieve this, only one machine needs to offer that return, likely hidden in a low-traffic corner, while the less favorable machines with lower payouts, around 90%, are placed in high-traffic areas, with even lower 85% machines scattered elsewhere. Is there any basis for believing that casinos operate this way? From your slot machine evaluations, how frequently do you notice differing payout percentages for machines of the same kind within the same casino? Apologies for the lengthy inquiry; I appreciate the site and the absence of nonsensical strategies.
From my findings, the theory connecting slot machine payouts and their locations appears to be incorrect. I do believe that larger novelty machines located in visible places tend to have lower payouts, but that’s where my agreement ends. Most casinos maintain consistency, ensuring that all slots of the same type and denomination are set to identical payout percentages. Operations that swap out loose and tight machines seem to do so unpredictably. You are right in noting that if a casino claims 'Our machines pay out up to 99%', only one machine needs to be set at that level. However, some establishments claim that entire banks of machines are uniformly set to particular payout levels. Based on both my experiences and those of my associates who have evaluated such claims, we have found them to be accurate. Therefore, my suggestion for slot players is to seek out specific machines known for offering high returns, and to disregard the guessing games.
I have a question regarding Microgaming Blackjack. After playing the demo versions across about ten online casinos, I became curious about something I can't comprehend. In examining about 1,000 games or more at each casino, I found that there were days when, following the basic strategy from your site, I maintained close to even results against the dealer or even recorded a minor profit. Yet on other days, it felt like I could hardly win 20 hands out of 100. I’ve remained strictly committed to the strategy and only placed even bets. Is it normal for the random number generator to favor the dealer for extended periods? And, if that occurs, does it ever tilt in the players' favor just as significantly? I would love to gain more insight since I genuinely enjoy the game and don’t seek to make a fortune, but losing a couple of hundred credits in no time with minimum bets doesn’t seem right. I would greatly appreciate any clarification you can provide.
In my strong belief, the fluctuations you're noticing result from the inherent randomness of the cards, rather than the specific casino you are at. I think you might be overestimating instances of only winning 20 hands out of 100, as that is quite unlikely. Some individuals theorize that Microgaming implements a 'take down' feature in which players will experience prolonged losing streaks. It’s normal for any game to present players with occasional rough patches alongside sudden winning surges. I view these supposed 'take down' durations as simply bad luck; I believe all Microgaming casinos operate fairly.
In games of blackjack or Caribbean stud poker, does it make a difference if you are the sole player at the table compared to a full table?
I just read your latest 'Ask the Wizard' section. You mentioned that sports betting could be one path to making a living. Could you elaborate on that? Does it provide a similar edge over bookmakers as card counting does over casinos in blackjack? Thank you.
No
Unfortunately, I can’t provide much elaboration on that topic. Sports betting isn’t my area of expertise, but I plan to delve deeper when I find the time. I will say that directly comparing profitability between sports betting and card counting is challenging. Card counting is very methodical and adheres strictly to the rules. Earning money through sports betting necessitates more subjective analysis and judgment. There are numerous strategies available, such as seeking arbitrage opportunities by betting on both sides at different casinos with varying point spreads, taking advantage of unusual proposition bets, or targeting correlated parlays. For further reading on successful strategies for sports betting, I recommend 'Sharp Sports Betting' by Stanford Wong.
A friend and I are discussing two blackjack-related issues stemming from his recent Caribbean travel. (1) How does the odds shift if the dealer doesn't draw a second card? Is it beneficial for the house or the player? (2) In your simulations, how does the number of players affect the accuracy of the odds?
(1) The effect depends on whether the dealer would have landed a blackjack if a second card had been drawn. If the player can only lose their initial wager regardless, then it doesn't affect the game whether the dealer draws again or not. However, if the player stands to lose all the money wagered after doubling or splitting, and the dealer ends up with a blackjack, it’s definitely to the dealer's benefit. (2) I don’t have to simulate this since the number of players does not influence the odds.
Thank you for the wealth of valuable information you share. My question pertains to your recent discussion around making a living through internet casino bonuses. Do you believe this is still feasible? Back in 2000, I earned a substantial amount from online bonuses. Had I pursued it full time, I could have possibly left my job. Yet in 2001, my earnings dwindled to roughly $4,000 for the entire year from these bonuses. The issue is that casinos have tightened their bonus offerings considerably. Many now require players to wager their deposits five times or more before withdrawal, which diminishes the advantage for players and increases the potential for a bad streak. Even with a substantial $100,000 bankroll, this doesn't seem like a viable path anymore. Am I mistaken? Is there something I'm overlooking?
The era when it was easy to profit from online gambling has passed. While players can still occasionally make $50 or $100, securing bonuses of $500 or more has become increasingly rare. It's not the playthrough requirements that make bonus hunting frustrating; it's the caps imposed on bonus amounts. For instance, with a 20% bonus accompanied by a five-time wagering requirement, capped at a $100 bonus, depositing $500 would lead to an expected loss of $2500 in action playing basic strategy blackjack, equating to merely $10 in expected loss—with a house edge of 0.4%. Even if a player had to go through the deposit ten times, the potential loss would still only reach $20, which is much less than the available $100 bonus. In my view, it’s simply not worth the trouble when the return is only $80.
Dear Wizard, in video poker, what are the odds of drawing the specific cards needed to complete a royal flush?
I ask this because I recently achieved a royal flush after holding two cards: the ace and jack of diamonds, and then drew the ten, queen, and king of diamonds. I know the chances of drawing three cards to a royal flush must be quite high. Recently, while sitting next to another player, he held the ace of diamonds and drew four additional cards to complete his royal flush. I was quite amazed. Thank you for your response.
1. one card
2. two cards
3. three card
4. four cards
5. Dealt a royal flush
Strategies and information that are mathematically sound for a variety of casino games, including blackjack, craps, roulette, and many others.
1. 1/47
2. 1/combin(47,2) = 1/1081
3. 1/combin(47,3) = 1/16215
4. 1/combin(47,4) = 1/178365
5. 4/combin(52,5) = 1/2598960