snipe44 said:
I'm sorry, I don't think I understand. Please elaborate (and tell me what part of my calculations it pertains to).
I would like to note a general undertone of the responses here. People seem to be disregarding the fact that the only statistical advantage the house has over the player, is the situation when dealer AND player bust. The replies I'm seeing only look at player busts, and that is not what I'm talking about.
Yes, the player busts sometimes and the dealer wins with a hand <= 21. Also, sometimes the dealer busts and the player wins with a hand <= 21. The point is that the probability of either happening is EXACTLY THE SAME! That's why in the calculations I've been leaving out those situations - they're irrelevant. It's the situation when both bust, that skews the 50/50 chance of winning.
Licentia:
If my calculations are correct, from there it would put you at a chance to win of about 51.3%! a 2.1% spread against the house. It's unbelievable
I would like to note a general undertone of the responses here. People seem to be disregarding the fact that the only statistical advantage the house has over the player, is the situation when dealer AND player bust. The replies I'm seeing only look at player busts, and that is not what I'm talking about.
Yes, the player busts sometimes and the dealer wins with a hand <= 21. Also, sometimes the dealer busts and the player wins with a hand <= 21. The point is that the probability of either happening is EXACTLY THE SAME! That's why in the calculations I've been leaving out those situations - they're irrelevant. It's the situation when both bust, that skews the 50/50 chance of winning.
Licentia:
If my calculations are correct, from there it would put you at a chance to win of about 51.3%! a 2.1% spread against the house. It's unbelievable