Push Pays 10:1 Side Bet

In the December 2008 issue of CBJN, the first page news section mentions a casino in LV that is offering a side bet which pays 10:1 on a push. The max bet allowed was $50 during the reporter's visit, and is subject to change. This bet is said to have a player advantage of 3.8% (with high variance).

As I mentioned in another post, I will be traveling to LV soon - I am wondering if it is worth it to go out of my way to visit this casino and possibly devote a lot of time to playing this game. Obviously a 3.8% advantage is much greater than what a counter can typically achieve, and that can even be increased with certain deviations from basic strategy, such as standing on soft 17 vs. 7 (I am not sure what the other deviations are, though I would assume not splitting nines against an 8 is one).

Was anyone aware of this option being offered currently, and if so have you paid them a visit? Is this likely to just be a short term promotion, or to last for several months?

I have seen this side bet, but did not play it. I didn't think this was a player advantage side bet, but I have never checked it out. I did see a player with counting skills play this bet every time. The fact that he played this bet convinced me that he wasn't a skilled counter, but maybe he knows more than I do.

Someone better at math can do a quick evaluation. One thing you must know. Your side bet is limited to half of the bet you play on your regular hand.

Side bet aside, I do go out of my way to visit this casino.

Edited to add - Just checked your other thread and during slow periods like early morning grave shift, this casino will have $5 DD tables with little to no heat.

Found some info on the side bet at WofOdds.

http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix8.html

I read somewhere that the usual split of wins/losses/pushes was:
42%-50%-8%.

If you expect to push 8% of the time, that would be 2 in 25 hands or 1-12.5.
So a 10-1 payout is still shortchanging and has a HE??

This side bet could be very profitable during high counts when pushes on 20's are much more likely, anybody care to do the math on this? I wouldn't mind playing this heads up! What are the BJ rules?

Pelerus maybe you should alter your post to protect this game, anybody could find the casino your talking about from the information you've posted.

CBJN quotes Basic Blackjack in saying that basic strategy yields a push 9.44% of the time. With modifications to basic, this percentage can even be increased further.

Good point. Hopefully someone will step forward with a bit more info.

I was under the impression that CBJN is considered publicly available information, since they don't attempt to screen out casino employees from their list of subscribers. In any event, the post could be changed to remove any reference to CBJN and to instead just ask about the option itself rather than stating that it is currently being offered in LV. Perhaps a mod can give an opinion on this?

This sidebet should probably change your playing strategy. If you hit 17 vs. 8 and pull an ace, you're much more likely to get a 10-1 payout.

Something to investigate...

Looking at Norm's ebook. http://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount5.htm

It looks like this would be a break even bet at +5 true, with a slight edge at +6 and higher. I would love to see a sim on this. Two of the casinos I like have this sidebet. Recently I played a shoe where I pushed every single hand except for two losses. I had nothing on the side bet of course.

I already provided an alternate basic strategy above in the WofOdds link.

The weird thing about the wizard's page is that he says the aggregate house edge of both bets is 0.5%. That's about the same as a blackjack hand anyway. So what's the point of the casino offering it?

Well, thats the total HE if you use optimal BS for the tie bet. However, assuming BS for just BJ, the total HE is probably a bit lower.

I finally looked at the Wizard of Odds page on the Tie bet (couldn't find it at first) and there seems to be some serious discrepancy between what he is saying and what is stated in CBJN.

From WofOdds:
"The combined house edge of the blackjack wager and the side bet is about 0.5% of the blackjack wager."

From CBJN:
"From page 94 of Basic Blackjack, basic strategy yields ties 9.44% of the time, so the player has an edge of 3.8% on the side bet, with huge variance."

The Wizard does not state what the edge on the side bet alone is, but I find it difficult to believe that it could be as high as +3.8% if the combined total (bet + side bet) is, in fact, -0.33% as he claims ($-0.5 EV / $150 total bet = 0.33% HE). In fact, that would be impossible, because CBJN goes on to say:

"You can do slightly better with selected deviations from basic strategy..."

So in calculating the 3.8% edge, basic strategy was assumed, and thus the HE on the regular bet would not be increased by deviating from BS, since no deviations were used in determining that figure.

What one would expect to see is something more akin to the following:

Regular bet of $100 * -0.5% = -$0.50 EV
Side bet of $50 * 3.8% = $1.9 EV

(EV of $1.9 - 0.50) / Total wager of $150 = +0.93% combined player edge

Wong admitted he was wrong and has since posted a correction in the January edition of CBJN.

What was the correction, that the sidebet didn't have a player advantage, or that the casino didn't offer the sidebet?

I don't know - I guess the 3.84% would be "0.0944*10-(1-0.0944)" using that 9.44% ties.

The 0.5% combined HA relates to initial bet only as always. The HA never applies to total dollars wagered.

So I guess, since the Wiz said it was for an 8D H17 game, I guess, the HA is lower using his BS there. I'd assume he assumed one always made the side bet every hand.

Yeah, there are differences between what's offered and what the Wiz has. This game is DD H17 DAS RSA 74% pen. So the house advantage will not work out exactly the same. Also, the wiz says on splits the side bet is divided between the two hands. At the OPs casino, you can put out another side bet for your second hand, but you don't have to. The first side bet only applies to the first split hand.

I think we may be talking around each other, because my main point is this:

Under normal blackjack rules, there is no way that a 3.8% advantage on a side bet half the size of one's initial bet can result in a combined disadvantage for both bets equal to 0.5% of the initial bet.

For that level of combined disadvantage to result, the HA on the initial bet would have to be 1.4%!

(50 * 0.038 - 150 * z) / 100 = -0.005

Solving for z yields 0.014, or 1.4%.

You are correct that in my previous example, I expressed the edge as a percentage of the total dollars wagered rather than only the initial bet, but using only the initial bet as I did here gives an even greater edge!

So my question would be: Was the Wizard using 6:5 payout when he computed those odds? Or is suicyco maniac correct in stating that Wong issued a retraction of the 3.8% figure?

Exactly.

In the sense, his BS is designed to maximize the percentage of pushes and has nothing to do with the BS a normal BS player would use in the same game with the same rules never betting on this side-bet.

In other words, were a BS player to use his side-bet BS without playing the side bet, he'd be playing a really bad BS.

One plays the BS for the game one is going to play.

Can you imagine hitting 16 vs 2,3 & 4 in normal BJ, etc?

If I used normal BJ BS in SP21, I'd lose my ass then too lol.

As I said, Wong clearly states that the 3.8% player advantage on the side bet assumes normal BS, not modified BS.

And assuming the 3.8% figure is correct, the corresponding 1.4% HA needed to arrive at the Wizard's -0.5% combined HA would have to exist with the player using normal BS, which would require the game to be 6:5 or some other outrageous set of rules.

I realize that the Wizard is not claiming the 3.8% figure, but Wong clearly is claiming that, and if so there is no way that the Wizard's -0.5% combined HA figure can result. Hence there is indeed a definite discrepancy between the two that cannot be explained through "different sets of playing conditions" or "different playing strategies" and must imply a mistake by one of them. (The retraction by Wong mentioned would seem to confirm this.)

And if it is the Wizard who is modifying basic strategy to arrive at the -0.5% combined HA, then the question becomes why the heck would he modify basic to arrived at a combined disadvantage higher than what it would have been sticking with normal BS (which would have been a combined player advantage of 1.4%)! That would clearly be a mistake.

Well, I think when you said above the $50 has an EV of $1.90 I think you forgot that the 3.84% adv only occurs 9.44% of the time.

So it may be more like, since original HA = 0.69% that

100*.0069=-69 cents
50*.0384*.0944= 18 cents
so new HA= 51 cents or the .5% claimed.

I have no idea what Wong said or later correcteded. What did he correct?

At first I thought that 9.44% seemed high but since then I fiunds some table that says that is what the dealer ties.

Than there's maybe all that split hands stuff and what is a tie. I think I pushed if I win one split and lose the other. But I guess neither pushed against the dealer total lol. I guess the Wiz said if you split your original hand you also had to split the side bet.

And now you have me wondering what that BS table the Wiz has is all about lol.

And then jimb above said the bet exists in other decks with other rules.

Basically, whatever it is, I would never play it anyway even if I believed it had an advantage. If not-counting, i don't care much about $10 or $15 bucks a 1000 hands later anyway. If counting, I'd go crazy if I only know HA without the effects of what happens to dealer pushes in high counts, the variance etc.

Although maybe I learned enough to let my wife bet $1 on it when she wants.
They haven't invented a side-bet yet she won't play lol. Last trip she was paying the Pair-Plus at 3-card with a paytable I had never seen before. Turned out to be like 13% or something. Is there no limit to their greed and arrogance?