$2.50 chips

[Blue Efficacy]

I was playing Blackjack the other night at a card club at a horse racing track (which is minutes away from the major casino around here) and they refused to let players bet .50 chips. I watched a good half dozen people attempt it after getting a Blackjack.

The dealer said "we can't pay you .75 if you get BJ" as the reason for not allowing those chips in play. (They allow them if you bet for the dealer though, hmm... toke hustling policy in place, perhaps?)

So that reminded me how most casinos will give you $4 payouts if you bet the pink twofer chip and get Blackjack.

That got me thinking, would the increase in EV be anything remotely significant if you had a pink chip on every bet, hoping to benefit from the roundup when you get a blackjack?

[Canceler]

At four BJs per hour, that would be a dollar an hour.

[mjbballar23]

I think you can just about eliminate the house edge (assuming average rules) if you bet $2.50 a hand

EV = 2.50*100 hands*.005 (.5% house edge) = $1.25/100 hands
assume 4.5 blackjacks per 100 hands you get $1.125 extra per 100 hands. So

New House edge: $.125 = 2.50*100 hands* X
New House edge = .0005 = .05%

Obviously the more you bet the less influential this extra quarter per blackjack becomes.

[Blue Efficacy]

If only the big store in town still had $2 tables. It wouldn't look at all out of the ordinary if you asked for $20 all pink.

[callipygian]

Originally Posted by Blue Efficacy

So that reminded me how most casinos will give you $4 payouts if you bet the pink twofer chip and get Blackjack.

There's a discussion about $2.50 chips in one of Snyder's books, particularly about whether insuring a $2.50 bet costs $1 or $1.50. If $1 can insure an entire $2.50 bet, the index for taking insurance drops significantly (actually, off the top of my head, it should be negative, meaning you should always take insurance).

There's also discussion about what happens if you bet $3.50 ($1 + $2.50). I think in those cases blackjack usually pays $5 (less than 3:2) but if $1 can insure all $3.50, it's worth playing.

[Cardcounter]

When you bet a $2.50 chip a lot of casinos will round down and pay you $3.50 instead of $4.00 for a blackjack correct is $3.75 but if the choice is between rounding up and rounding down most casinos will take the quarter for them selfs and round down. If you insure for a $1 they will take your $2.50 and pay you $2 for your bet if the dealer is competent. As far as betting .50 for the dealer don't bother either bet at least a $1 or don't bet at all for the dealer. The dealer doesn't get a blackjack payout just even money when you bet .50 and you get a blackjack so just give him the .50 cents rather than bet it. Plus if the casino has $2.50 chips they elimante the need for .50 pieces.

[Blue Efficacy]

Originally Posted by Cardcounter

When you bet a $2.50 chip a lot of casinos will round down and pay you $3.50 instead of $4.00 for a blackjack correct is $3.75 but if the choice is between rounding up and rounding down most casinos will take the quarter for them selfs and round down. If you insure for a $1 they will take your $2.50 and pay you $2 for your bet if the dealer is competent. As far as betting .50 for the dealer don't bother either bet at least a $1 or don't bet at all for the dealer. The dealer doesn't get a blackjack payout just even money when you bet .50 and you get a blackjack so just give him the .50 cents rather than bet it. Plus if the casino has $2.50 chips they elimante the need for .50 pieces.

Every casino I've ever been to that wasn't at a racetrack pays $4 for BJ on a 2.50 chip.

There are two card rooms in my state that are at horse tracks that have no $2.50 chips and don't allow .50 in play. Maybe it has something to do with the fact they're "non banked" games or whatever.

[Kasi]

Originally Posted by Blue Efficacy

That got me thinking, would the increase in EV be anything remotely significant if you had a pink chip on every bet

Like Moo said, increase in EV likely quite significant.

Likely very insignificant in dollars per hour if you'd choose to bet $2.50 every hand in the possibly resulting +EV game lol. Enjoy that 1 cent +EV every 5-10hands lol.

[Blue Efficacy]

Originally Posted by callipygian

There's a discussion about $2.50 chips in one of Snyder's books, particularly about whether insuring a $2.50 bet costs $1 or $1.50. If $1 can insure an entire $2.50 bet, the index for taking insurance drops significantly (actually, off the top of my head, it should be negative, meaning you should always take insurance).

There's also discussion about what happens if you bet $3.50 ($1 + $2.50). I think in those cases blackjack usually pays $5 (less than 3:2) but if $1 can insure all $3.50, it's worth playing.

I thought BJ would pay 5.50 with 3.50 out. Aren't most places required to pay color for color? You'd think they'd break down the bet by color and train the dealer to throw out 4 whites for every odd pink chip.

[Cardcounter]

Originally Posted by Blue Efficacy

I thought BJ would pay 5.50 with 3.50 out. Aren't most places required to pay color for color? You'd think they'd break down the bet by color and train the dealer to throw out 4 whites for every odd pink chip.

No places aren't required to pay color for color for instance if you bet a $1 and get a blackjack it perfectly exceptable for the dealer to take the dollar and give you a $2.50 chip. It is also acceptable and legal for a place to round down a pay you a $2.50 and $1 chip for for $2.50 on blackjack. On 50 cent pieces if the casino doesn't have quarters they can pay you even money on the 50 cents and pay you 3 to 2 on the rest of there bet. A solution to the problem is ask the dealer how you will be paid if you happen to get blackjack with a certain amount bet. I would avoid betting odd amounts when the dealer will round down.