Highest card wins. A beatable game?

One of the casinos I sometimes go to recently raised their minimumbet in blackjack. I was already overbetting my bankroll before and add to that a less than ok penitration i didn't really feel like spending to much time a the BJ table.
So I took a look around and found a game called Combat which is a fancy name for the highest card wins.

The dealer and you get one card each and the one with the highest card wins. if you win you get payed 1 to 1. With my usual suspiction against the casinos I figured that they would probably take all or some of the ties.
but so was not the case. when you get a tie. the dealer will burn 3 cards and then give one card to himself and one card to you. Highest card wins again.
Cool I thought. this should make it a breakeven game.
It was even better than that though. if you and the dealer get two ties in a row you will get payed 2 to 1. even if it was a tie.
I am not a statistical geinius but I think that a tie should come up once every 14 hands. 2 ties in a row should on avarege happen once on every (1/14)*(1/14)= 196 hands.
In a breakeven game a tie would not pay anything no matter how many times in a row it happens. In this game you get payed 2 units. In my understanding that means that I should win on avarage 2 units every 196 hands. This would give the player an advantage slightly over 1 % and this is on a game that any 5 yearold could play.

If I am right in my very basic calculations, why would a casino offer a game like this?
If I am not right, can someone please explain why?

Here, it's called War:
http://wizardofodds.com/war

When you tie, you can "go to war" and play again, but to do so, you need to bet an extra unit. If you win, you only win one unit, even though you've bet two. That's where the house edge comes from.

I don't think there's any standard way to beat this game.

That sounds similar. but I am not sure that it is the same.
I don't think I saw anyone put out the extra money. Will take an extra look on that table if I ever go there again.

What kind of an advantage would i have if I don't have to put an extra bet out on ties?

None. You'd lose half a bet on ties. Someone said a tie occurs every 14 hands,so you'd be losing one bet every 28 hands on average.Roughly a 3.5% house edge.

It was me that said a tie occors every 14 hands(since there is a1/14 chance that the dealer will get the same card as me).

You are right that I will lose half of the ties(slightly less because it don't take in the possiblityof another tie) but I will win the other half. So this should take out each other.
And since I would get payed 2 to 1 incase of a second tie I think this should give the player an advantage.

No,you are missing the point.
On a tie,you have two choices-surrender half of your bet(ie-lose half of your bet),or put up an extra bet. In the long run,it works out exactly the same.
If you put up the second bet and lose you lose both bets. But if you win,you win only the additional bet,your first bet is returned as a tie.

Your choices and the results on a $10 bet
Tie-you surreneder and lose half your bet. Result-$5
Tie,you increase your bet to $20 and win Result +$10,other bet is a push
Tie,you increase your bet and lose Result-$20 you lose both bets.
Tie,you increase the bet and get another tie-different casinos seem to treat it differently,you may win your original bet,or you might win both bets.How this hand is paid will effect your EV,but it won't be enough to offset the house edge.

yes I understand the disadvantage when you have to surrender or put an extra bet out on a tie. However if you read closely I asked what my advantage would be if I didn't have to put out the extra bet.
For as long as I was watching I never saw anyone put an extra bet out and they were still playing on in the ties and giving 2 to one on a tie after a tie.
This might be and is most likly a dealer mistake but I am pretty sure it will give me an advantage so I want to try and exploit it as much as I can.
Atleast if it is worth my time. It would be if my calculations in my first post ar correct. which I still belive them to be.
Now can anyone please confirm this or tell me why not.

Thanks in advance

If the game is the same as casino war,you are not understanding the rules. If it is different,no one else knows the game.

It is like wars. only exception is that so far i haven't seen anyone but an extra bet out.
So in case of a tie with a 10 dollar bet.you can one

1. surrender/push. you lose half your bet or maybe you get to keep it. I don't know i have never seen anyone do this.
2. go to combat/war.you win you win 10 dollar
3. go to combat/war. you lose you lose 10 dollar
4. go to combat/war. you tie again and you win 20 dollar.

Now considering that the math I used to come up wasn't that advanced compared to what is needed for BJ I am hoping that there is some one here that can take a look at my calculations and say if I am right about the 1 % advantage.

casino war is the dumbest game in the casino

dumber than let it ride

there would be no way of coutning or gaining an advantage. pure luck

As opposed to craps? Slots? Sic Bo? Roulette?
Of course there is a way to get an advantage in Casino War.
Between Comps and match play coupons,you can turn the game in your favor,under the right circumstances.
To me,its no more mindless than any of the above games,but it is a lot faster,which hurts the player.

Slots are for retards.

The most other games at least there is SOME level of skill involved. Even in crap like let it ride you can choose to let your bets ride or pull them back. In craps you can pick your bets, roulette pick your bet red or black or number.. you at least have some control.

again, without comps or coupons, the game doesn't really have many ways to catch an advantage.

I dont understand why slots are so popular, they aren't even that fun. It's just clicking a button over and over with no socializing, as opposed to table games.

Ever played the Denver Duck bonus round?
Or the Star Wars Bonus?
There is a heck of a lot more to them than clicking a button.

No I havn't, I don't play slots!

I have still not gotten an explination to why this game would be disadvantagous. It is to simple to be very fun to play so I really want to know if I would be throwing my money in the drain by playing this game or if I am actually likly to make some money.

There really is a difference between not getting an explanation,and not getting one you like.
Let me try a different tack.
Do you agree that the house would NEVER put in a game that anyone can beat. That the House has to have an edge in the normal course of the game?
If you answer yes,then you know that there is something wrong with your math.

Yes I do agree. The casino would not put a game like that out. However I can not understand what is wrong with my math and i would like someone to e`plain it to me.
I understand that it will be a disadvantage if I had to put extra money in to play a tie.
But since I don't have to do that I really can't understand what would give me a disadvantage, even if understand that there has to be something.

I know I seem closedminded and I am sorry about that, but I do not belive that anyone has given me a mathematical answear to why I am wrong while taking into consideration that I do NOT double my bet on ties.
If anyone can explain this to me I romise I will be openminded.