Ask The Wizard #66

This rule was established because, prior to its introduction, some players would make equal bets on red and black in roulette or on the pass and don’t pass options in craps. This tactic allowed them to claim bonuses while minimizing their risk. To combat this practice, the casinos added this regulation. online casinos Casino on Net permits players to engage in any game but retains the authority to deny bonus eligibility if players place opposing bets, which appears to be a more sensible policy.

You're completely correct in asserting that casinos ought to honor bonuses even if players wager the exact minimum requirement and not a dollar more. Unfortunately, many online casino operators believe they can alter their own rules at will. For example, two years ago, Golden Palace locked out players they deemed insufficient in terms of free play, including myself. After a lengthy review process, some accounts were reinstated, but others had their funds seized and donated to charity, despite following all regulations. This highlights the lack of credible oversight in online gambling, emphasizing the importance of appearances. Therefore, I advise players to avoid even the slightest hint that they are solely interested in securing a bonus and to engage in extra gameplay.

It seems you've overlooked the fact that the 5% commission is deducted upfront and is non-refundable upon winning, (with some exceptions for Buy 4 or 10 bets at certain casinos). Thus, a $100 Place 5 bet will return $100 plus $100 multiplied by (7/5), equaling $240 if it wins. Conversely, with a $100 Buy 5 bet, the 5% commission reduces it to $95.24. If this bet wins, the player receives $95.24 plus $95.24 multiplied by (3/2), totaling $238.10. Consequently, the Place 5 bet yields an additional $1.90.

He's simply fortunate. As I've pointed out countless times, no betting system can maintain consistent success over time.

In reality, a blackjack comes up more frequently, roughly once every 21 hands. Specifically, in a six-deck setup, the odds of a blackjack are calculated as 2 times (4/13) times (24/311), resulting in about 0.047489. An additional quarter earned this often translates to 0.25 multiplied by 0.047489, equating to approximately 0.011872. When divided by the $2.50 bet, it adds 0.004749 to the expected value for the player. Most games with a dealer standing on a soft 17 or using one or two decks typically have a house edge lower than this. Thus, yes, there could be a slight advantage. Assuming we take six decks and the dealer stands on a soft 17, a player's expected profit per hour, calculated over 100 hands, would be around 16 cents.

Yes, I've indeed made some revisions to the two-card strategy list. I removed the recommendation for a 9+3 against a 3 and included the guidance to hit on a 10+2 against a 6. In a single-deck game where the dealer stands on soft 17, the expected value of hitting in this scenario is -0.159436, whereas standing results in -0.160379. Thus, hitting is statistically the better option. I prefer to avoid overly simplistic responses regarding basic strategies, as the outcomes can vary based on how the cards unfold. The dealer's likelihood of busting is higher when showing a 6. However, as you mentioned, a dealer is also more prone to achieve a 17 when showing a 6 than when showing a 5. Achieving a 17 isn’t an impressive hand and prompts players to hit in an attempt to surpass it.

I explored this very question for an assignment in my casino mathematics class at UNLV. While the house edge on Ante & Play is generally steeper, it tends to be the more favorable wager overall. This is because it carries a lower risk ratio when comparing expected losses to the total amount wagered.