Ante every hand question

Unshake

Well-Known Member
#1
A friend and I were having an arguement over the following situation...

A local casino offers a blackjack game that requires a 50 cent "ante" per hand. In exchange for this side bet, they offer 3 black jacks in a row pay $500 and 4 in a row pays $750 and anything over 4 in a row pays $1000. Also 777 pays $50.


Anyways his arguement is that the more you bet the better the game becomes 'better' because the ante is a lower percentage of your bet and thus doesnt hurt you as much.

My thinking was that essentially you are 'forced' to play a 'sidebet' each hand, and that since the sidebet is independent from your black hand/bet that it wouldnt matter how much you bet on your blackjack hand since either way you are losing x dollars per hand regardless of how much you bet.

Any input? Im not really sure on how to do the math on figuring out which viewpoint is correct. Any math would be good.

Thanks
 

shadroch

Well-Known Member
#2
If you are betting $5 a hand,that fifty cents equals ten percent extra that you are pretty much throwing away.You'd need to get three BJs in a row every thousand hands or so to break even.
If you are betting $100 a hand,the fifty cents per hand vig becomes easier to swallow,but still sux.
 

Unshake

Well-Known Member
#3
shadroch said:
If you are betting $5 a hand,that fifty cents equals ten percent extra that you are pretty much throwing away.You'd need to get three BJs in a row every thousand hands or so to break even.
If you are betting $100 a hand,the fifty cents per hand vig becomes easier to swallow,but still sux.
But does betting more/less change the houses edge/change your odds of winning?
 

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#4
Unshake said:
But does betting more/less change the houses edge/change your odds of winning?
The way I see it, since you get paid in fixed dollars (like $500 for 3BJ's in a row, etc), you will be most likely to enjoy the lowest HA by betting minimum.

Better to win 100 units with a $5 bet than five units with a $100 bet.
 

shadroch

Well-Known Member
#6
Kasi said:
The way I see it, since you get paid in fixed dollars (like $500 for 3BJ's in a row, etc), you will be most likely to enjoy the lowest HA by betting minimum.

Better to win 100 units with a $5 bet than five units with a $100 bet.

I disagree. Better to be giving the house a half of one percent on each bet by betting $100 than to give away ten percent of every bet on a $5 bet.The side bet is a sucker bet that no one would take unless forced to.
 

Unshake

Well-Known Member
#7
shadroch said:
I disagree. Better to be giving the house a half of one percent on each bet by betting $100 than to give away ten percent of every bet on a $5 bet.The side bet is a sucker bet that no one would take unless forced to.
But is it really a ten percent disadvantage since its just %.50 and the bets are independent of each other?
 

RJT

Well-Known Member
#9
Kasi said:
The way I see it, since you get paid in fixed dollars (like $500 for 3BJ's in a row, etc), you will be most likely to enjoy the lowest HA by betting minimum.

Better to win 100 units with a $5 bet than five units with a $100 bet.
I understand your reasoning, but there is a major flaw in it - in fact there is a flaw in the line of throught running through this whole thread. This cannot be considered a side bet at all. A side bet you have the choice of taking or not taking - in this instance you don't have that option.
You are better to consider these as extra rules in the game - and due to the infrequency of occurance not very good ones. Better than nothing, but not great. Just like any game you'd get a bonus for 777 or a 6 card hand under 21 etc etc and consider the ante a fixed penelty you have to pay for playing.
You are going to need to be playing at a level where you're at least expecting to earn 50 cents a hand just to break even. Even if in other circumstances you would expect to make $100/hour (assuming an average advantage of 1%, average bet of $100 and 100 hands/hour) you are going to half your hourly EV. If however you were playing an average bet of $500 (so normally your hourly win would be $500) you're still going to win $450 - not nearly as significant.
So overall this isn't a great game, but the higher the level you can play - and that's solely dependant on your bankroll - the less the ante will affect you. Read Arnold Snyder's 'Big Book of Blackjack' if you want more details on ante games.

RJT.
 

k_c

Well-Known Member
#10
RJT said:
I understand your reasoning, but there is a major flaw in it - in fact there is a flaw in the line of throught running through this whole thread. This cannot be considered a side bet at all. A side bet you have the choice of taking or not taking - in this instance you don't have that option.
You are better to consider these as extra rules in the game - and due to the infrequency of occurance not very good ones. Better than nothing, but not great. Just like any game you'd get a bonus for 777 or a 6 card hand under 21 etc etc and consider the ante a fixed penelty you have to pay for playing.
You are going to need to be playing at a level where you're at least expecting to earn 50 cents a hand just to break even. Even if in other circumstances you would expect to make $100/hour (assuming an average advantage of 1%, average bet of $100 and 100 hands/hour) you are going to half your hourly EV. If however you were playing an average bet of $500 (so normally your hourly win would be $500) you're still going to win $450 - not nearly as significant.
So overall this isn't a great game, but the higher the level you can play - and that's solely dependant on your bankroll - the less the ante will affect you. Read Arnold Snyder's 'Big Book of Blackjack' if you want more details on ante games.

RJT.
Good post.

k_c
 

Unshake

Well-Known Member
#11
RJT said:
I understand your reasoning, but there is a major flaw in it - in fact there is a flaw in the line of throught running through this whole thread. This cannot be considered a side bet at all. A side bet you have the choice of taking or not taking - in this instance you don't have that option.
You are better to consider these as extra rules in the game - and due to the infrequency of occurance not very good ones. Better than nothing, but not great. Just like any game you'd get a bonus for 777 or a 6 card hand under 21 etc etc and consider the ante a fixed penelty you have to pay for playing.
You are going to need to be playing at a level where you're at least expecting to earn 50 cents a hand just to break even. Even if in other circumstances you would expect to make $100/hour (assuming an average advantage of 1%, average bet of $100 and 100 hands/hour) you are going to half your hourly EV. If however you were playing an average bet of $500 (so normally your hourly win would be $500) you're still going to win $450 - not nearly as significant.
So overall this isn't a great game, but the higher the level you can play - and that's solely dependant on your bankroll - the less the ante will affect you. Read Arnold Snyder's 'Big Book of Blackjack' if you want more details on ante games.

RJT.



I agree good post... I guess here is mine line of thinking

Say both people have a $10,000 bankroll and each play the same game, but one plays $500 and the other plays 30$. After two hours of play (200 hands) they each have lost 100 units and won 100 units.

Both players are down 200x$.5 = $100. Because the 'hand tax' is the same no matter what you bet, it has the same affect on both players and thus by betting more, you really don't gain an advantage.

Also I thought of it as a "forced side bet" because it is NOT dependent on your black jack hand/bet.
 

shadroch

Well-Known Member
#12
But in real life,a person betting $5 is more likely to have a $500 BR,not a $10,000.After 200 hands,win lose or draw,he has lost 20% of his BR to this tax. The $100 a bet person with a $10,000 BR has lost the same $200,but its only 2% of his BR. The person betting $5 now needs to win 44 hands in a row just to be even. The $100 bet needs to win three to be a good bit ahead.
 

Unshake

Well-Known Member
#13
shadroch said:
But in real life,a person betting $5 is more likely to have a $500 BR,not a $10,000.After 200 hands,win lose or draw,he has lost 20% of his BR to this tax. The $100 a bet person with a $10,000 BR has lost the same $200,but its only 2% of his BR. The person betting $5 now needs to win 44 hands in a row just to be even. The $100 bet needs to win three to be a good bit ahead.
But in real life $100 is $100, they are down the same amount. It is just (in your example) a different percentage of bankroll.
 

RJT

Well-Known Member
#14
Unshake said:
But in real life $100 is $100, they are down the same amount. It is just (in your example) a different percentage of bankroll.
But in one instance you can play on comfortably and in the other you can't. You are failing to take into consideration 2 things - how long you have to play to get even with the tax and ROR.

RJT.
 

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#15
RJT said:
I understand your reasoning, but there is a major flaw in it - in fact there is a flaw in the line of throught running through this whole thread. This cannot be considered a side bet at all. RJT.
I agree it is not a side bet.

But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the rest lol.

But I think, since you are paid in a fixed dollar amount, not x to 1, the HA will be minimized or player advantage maximized by betting the minimum per hand.

Let's pretend you will get 3 BJ's in a row every 8000 hands. And that without that rule, the HA is 0.5%.

Bet $5.50 a hand and you will be down $220 after 8000 hands. Collect $500 and you have positive EV per hand played.

Bet $100.50 a hand and you have negative EV per hand.
 

Unshake

Well-Known Member
#16
RJT said:
But in one instance you can play on comfortably and in the other you can't. You are failing to take into consideration 2 things - how long you have to play to get even with the tax and ROR.

RJT.
I'm not asking about ROR or playing comfortably... Just if beting more in this game lowers the house edge/increases the player edge? (Assuming the game is 0% house edge)

Is it possible to run a sim on something like this (I have no sim software) or somehow figure out the math behind it?
 

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#17
Unshake said:
Just if beting more in this game lowers the house edge/increases the player edge?
No, for the third time, it doesn't. Just the opposite.

Since one is paid in a fixed dollar amount, apparently, from what u say, the house edge is variable depending on original bet size.

So, there is only one bet size, if any, that would make it a 0% HA game.

Apparently, for some reason, no one agrees with me.

But, if you'd rather win an extra $500 every 10000 hands betting $100.50/hand, instead of 51 cents per hand, knock yourself out.

Trust me, bet the min. Depending on specifics, it's even possible you may be enjoying a +EV game if you bet minimum.
 

RJT

Well-Known Member
#18
Kasi said:
No, for the third time, it doesn't. Just the opposite.

Since one is paid in a fixed dollar amount, apparently, from what u say, the house edge is variable depending on original bet size.

So, there is only one bet size, if any, that would make it a 0% HA game.

Apparently, for some reason, no one agrees with me.

But, if you'd rather win an extra $500 every 10000 hands betting $100.50/hand, instead of 51 cents per hand, knock yourself out.

Trust me, bet the min. Depending on specifics, it's even possible you may be enjoying a +EV game if you bet minimum.
Kasi you're really not getting this. The bonuses are too small and too infrequent to make up for the lousy hand tax. They are pretty much inconsequential.
But to use a point from the other side of this argument, you are going to have to pay the same amount in hand tax no matter what level you play at to get to the point where you are going to win the bonuses (assuming that they occur at the statistically right time). Hence you are better playing large, so that your own advantage off sets the extra amount you are going to lose due to the hand taxes. You are talking about taking only a small fraction of your win rate compared to halfing it or worse. For one player it's still worth playing, for another it's not.

RJT.
 

Unshake

Well-Known Member
#19
Just to add this in I was curious about a 0 percent house edge game flat betting using no counting.

There is no advantage gained/no use of counting/ just plain flat betting so winning more because 1% advantage on $100 versus $10 yields more is irrelevant.
 

shadroch

Well-Known Member
#20
It's not a matter of winning more,it's a matter of how many hands you can play before this "tax" wipes you out.Someone betting $5 a hand will quickly fall so far behind that there is no chance of them having a successful outcome.Someone betting $100 a hand will have a punchers chance.

Player 1- bets $5 a hand. After 200 hands,he has broken even on the BJ,but lost $100 on the ante.If he now wins 10 hands in a row,he is up $50 on BJ,but down $65 overall. He will never catch up on his BJ hands. He needs to hit one of those 15,000 to 1 shots to turn a profit.

Player 2- bets $100 a hand.After 200 hands,he also has broken even on BJ,and is $100 down on the ante.Yet if he wins his next two bets,he is well ahead of the game.

Player 1 is in a death spiral,with no real chance of recovery. Player 2 is in a much better situation.
 
Top