Ante every hand question

[Unshake]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by shadroch

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]

Originally Posted by Unshake

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]

Originally Posted by Unshake

But does betting more/less change the houses edge/change your odds of winning?

In this instance,yes.In a normal game ,no.

[shadroch]

Originally Posted by Kasi

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]

Originally Posted by shadroch

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?

[moo321]

Why not just back-count it, and only bet when the count justifies it?

[RJT]

Originally Posted by Kasi

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]

Originally Posted by RJT

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