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 Lucrative Prize Pools
Ask The Wizard #85
Firstly, I must praise your website for the valuable insights you provide, not only on the internet but also through television and newsletters. Whenever I encounter a tricky question regarding gambling mathematics, I know I can rely on your expertise.
I would like to inquire about a concept referred to in certain blackjack communities as The Flaw. Essentially, this idea suggests that the pioneers of the basic strategy intentionally introduced an error in their mathematical framework, which has been replicated by subsequent mathematicians working on their versions of basic strategy. One advocate of this theory noted, 'Only three others are aware of this who contribute to this forum. One is a recently retired IBM professional who asserts that uncovering this flaw necessitates a specially programmed computer simulation; hence, prior knowledge is mandatory. The math experts are convinced of their correctness, yet Thorp questions why so few actually come out ahead. The one percent makes that abundantly clear.'
So, what precisely is The Flaw, and is there any factual basis to it? Or is it merely theoretical nonsense? I acknowledge it’s easy to disregard those who disagree, but I find this puzzle captivating.
I appreciate your encouraging remarks. The notion of this 'flaw' theory is utterly nonsensical, which isn't surprising given the dubious environments where such discussions typically arise. It's not accurate to assume that a single individual composed the basic strategy while all other blackjack specialists merely copied it. Many mathematicians have crafted the basic strategy independently, resulting in similar conclusions. I highly doubt that every one of them, myself included, has embedded the exact same so-called flaw.
Should you give a tip to the individual who pays you after hitting a payout on a slot machine that the machine doesn't cover? I’ve heard this is considered proper etiquette. To me, this seems ludicrous, especially if I win, say, $375 after initially investing a comparable amount. While I am open to tipping, this person is not akin to a dealer with whom I have direct interaction. Thank you.
If you've just won a jackpot exceeding $1200 that requires a hand pay, it is considered standard practice to provide a tip. Even if you've incurred greater losses during your session, tipping is still expected. The reason being, the slot staff not only deliver your winnings (and the W2G form) but also assist with change and machine restocking. Losing doesn’t excuse you from expressing gratitude financially; this applies to table games as well.
The situation is different when you've pressed 'cash out' and the machine runs out of coins prior to completing your payout. Although I haven’t seen this topic discussed elsewhere, I will state that tipping in this case is unnecessary. This is due to the fact that the casino is partially responsible for allowing the machine to run low on coins, and conversely, the casino should consider compensating you for the wait caused by the need to refill the hopper. Personally, I welcome the arrival of coinless slots, which do away with the need for hopper refills.
Which games are known to have high volatility and which are the low volatility ones?
Pai Gow Poker is generally the least volatile option, whereas Keno tends to be the most volatile game on average.
Hello, Mr. Wizard! I recently played at a Casino Boat's Blackjack table that offered a Bust Bet. This bet, which pays even money, can be placed anytime after observing the dealer's up card. Is this a poor wager, and what are the odds associated with it? Thank you.
This is regarded as a sucker bet. The dealer is most likely to bust when showing a 6, but even then, their bust rate is only about 42%, varying slightly based on specific rules, resulting in a house edge of 16%.
Some friends and I spent the weekend at the Claridge in Atlantic City, playing something called 'Multiple Action Blackjack.' If you're not familiar, this game allows you to place two or three bets. After being dealt your hand, the dealer receives one card face up. You can make the standard hits, stands, doubles, or splits as in regular AC blackjack. The dealer evaluates the first bet in the usual way, then retains the original face-up card before proceeding to resolve the second bet, followed by the third. Essentially, you're playing the same hand multiple times against the dealer's one face-up card.
We noticed that this format seemed to alter the strategies we would typically employ in blackjack. The game appeared to prioritize remaining in play, particularly with soft hands, to avoid busting on all three bets. For instance, if the dealer's up card is an 8, conventionally, you would hit on a 16. However, in this game, it felt more advantageous to stand on a 16 and hope the dealer would bust at least once out of the three opportunities, minimizing our potential losses.
I’m curious if you're familiar with this variant and how it may modify the basic blackjack strategy. Additionally, I'm interested in understanding the house edge for this version compared to regular blackjack played in Atlantic City.
The playing strategy for Multiple Action Blackjack closely resembles that of traditional blackjack. By choosing to stand on 16 against an 8, you mitigate the possibility of a total loss. However, what might seem like the safest option may not always be the most beneficial. Hitting could potentially increase your chances of winning two or all three hands. Think of it as playing the same hand multiple times consecutively; what works for one hand generally applies to all variations.
Greetings! I have an inquiry regarding the no hole card rule for single deck blackjack games offered by Microgaming. I remember seeing in a forum thread that you concluded there’s no difference to the house advantage based on whether the hole card is dealt initially or not. Is that accurate? I've observed that Microgaming games tend to yield a higher probability of blackjack.
Taking as an extreme example:
Dealer - Ace
Player - 2,A followed by A,A,2,2 (soft 19).
Would the dealer's chances of hitting a blackjack actually increase due to the removal of four additional non-face cards from the deck by the player's actions in a single deck setup? Conversely, the player lacks the ability to sufficiently eliminate face cards to noticeably lower the probability of the dealer achieving a blackjack. I would appreciate your insights on this matter. Thank you.
While I don’t recall stating that your assertion is true, the likelihood of the dealer’s hole card being a ten remains unchanged whether it is dealt face up (as in Microgaming settings) or after the player's actions (as seen in European games). In your scenario, yes, the dealer's likelihood of obtaining a blackjack does increase, but that would apply whether it's from the next card in the deck or from a previously unseen hole card. An unseen card is still an unseen card, much like the effect remains consistent whether the dealer discards a card or deals one less from the shoe. I hope this clarifies your question.