Push Pays 10:1 Side Bet
- Thread starter Pelerus
- Start date
3.8% advantage only occurs 9.44% of the time? 
That would be like saying the house advantage over a player only 'occurs' when the house wins a bet. In fact, the advantage is there on every hand, regardless of the outcome of the hand.
If the house advantage over a player is -0.33, that advantage does not occur only on the 48% of the time when the house wins. The EV for a bet of $100 is not 100*-.0033*.48=16 cents, clearly. It is simply 100*-.0033=33 cents. The same is true for the player advantage on this side bet. The advantage is present on every single hand, not merely for the 9.44% of the time when a push occurs. Thus for a $50 bet, 50*.038=1 dollar 90 cents is correct.
Understood. I was simply demonstrating why this had to be the case, rather than some sort of "different house rules," "different basic strategy," or a misunderstanding in application.
That would be like saying the house advantage over a player only 'occurs' when the house wins a bet. In fact, the advantage is there on every hand, regardless of the outcome of the hand.If the house advantage over a player is -0.33, that advantage does not occur only on the 48% of the time when the house wins. The EV for a bet of $100 is not 100*-.0033*.48=16 cents, clearly. It is simply 100*-.0033=33 cents. The same is true for the player advantage on this side bet. The advantage is present on every single hand, not merely for the 9.44% of the time when a push occurs. Thus for a $50 bet, 50*.038=1 dollar 90 cents is correct.
Understood. I was simply demonstrating why this had to be the case, rather than some sort of "different house rules," "different basic strategy," or a misunderstanding in application.
Not that I even know what the plot is lol but I thought he also said something about a correction.
I mean he wouldn't know he was "wrong" unless he knows what's "right" now, would he?
I'd sort of like to know the "why" of it all.
Was he assuming different rules, different number of decks, a different percentage of pushes, etc. Or even just wrong in saying the game still exists lol.
I don't know - it at least seems plausible that the side bet may have an advantage even for a BS player.
So I hereby recant my previous nonsense, admit I was wrong, and declare a positive player side-bet is humongous.
I mean he wouldn't know he was "wrong" unless he knows what's "right" now, would he?
I'd sort of like to know the "why" of it all.
Was he assuming different rules, different number of decks, a different percentage of pushes, etc. Or even just wrong in saying the game still exists lol.
I don't know - it at least seems plausible that the side bet may have an advantage even for a BS player.
So I hereby recant my previous nonsense, admit I was wrong, and declare a positive player side-bet is humongous.
Pelerus said:
3.8% advantage only occurs 9.44% of the time? That would be like saying the house advantage over a player only 'occurs' when the house wins a bet. In fact, the advantage is there on every hand, regardless of the outcome of the hand.
That would be like saying the house advantage over a player only 'occurs' when the house wins a bet. In fact, the advantage is there on every hand, regardless of the outcome of the hand.
A HA of say 0.5% is an avg adv over all hands played. It includes hands like BJ when the player adv is 150% when it happens. It includes hands like 16 vs 10 with a HA over 50% when it happens.
If they had a side-bet of 3-2 for BJ, would the overall player advantage increase by $50*1.5=$75=150%?
Not if you only make that 150% 5 times in 100 kind of thing.
Say you get to make 100 side 10-1 push bets. That's great, you make 3.8% on every one of them. The problem is you have to play 10000 hands to get 94.4 winning push bets.
Last edited:
OK I - coul;dn't edit my post so maybe this is a new one.
But I think you are right and I'm full of it lol.
The 3.8% is an avg adv lol.
At that rate, I'll just pay other people to make the side bet and not even worry about the original bet since I won't be making it anyway lol.
Does that make sense?
But I think you are right and I'm full of it lol.
The 3.8% is an avg adv lol.
At that rate, I'll just pay other people to make the side bet and not even worry about the original bet since I won't be making it anyway lol.
Does that make sense?
Kasi, I don't think you were totally off base insofar as 3.8% is, in fact, incorrect as an "average advantage," in your words (I would simply say "advantage" though). The fact is, as Seriously said, the 3.8% figure is just incorrect period. All I was attempting to express was that Wong did indeed intend the number as an "absolute/average" advantage, and so either he or the Wizard had to be incorrect. As it turns out, Wong was the one in error.
The simplest demonstration of the error is as follows.
The payout in question is 10 to 1. In order for the bet to carry a player advantage, the probability of a win would then have to be greater than 1 in 10, or 10%. However, the probability is only 9.44%. Thus, the bet carries a disadvantage for the player of -0.56%.
The simplest demonstration of the error is as follows.
The payout in question is 10 to 1. In order for the bet to carry a player advantage, the probability of a win would then have to be greater than 1 in 10, or 10%. However, the probability is only 9.44%. Thus, the bet carries a disadvantage for the player of -0.56%.
I probably shouldn't be posting this cut and paste from CBJN and it appears a lot of posters here should probably spend the money and subscribe to CBJN but anyway heres Wong's retraction.
The December 2008 CBJN overstated the probability of tying the dealer with basic strategy; a better estimate of that probability is 8.7%, giving the house an edge of 4.3%
The December 2008 CBJN overstated the probability of tying the dealer with basic strategy; a better estimate of that probability is 8.7%, giving the house an edge of 4.3%
Thanks for being so kind lol.
Anyway, I finally found where I got the 9.44% from - I had a table somehwere but didn't know where it came from.
Anyway, it's table 4.1 page 50 in BJAIII.
Although, the nuances of what is a "push" in that table compared to what is a "push" in this side-bet, I have no idea. Not to mention, I thinks it's for a 6D Strip game.
So, I split, get a 17 and 20, dealer gets 19. I have a net win for the round of 0.
Usually that 8.8% push whatever assumes a "net push" for a round. I think lol.
So I split get a 17 and 20 and dealer has 20. Do I get paid 10-1 on the 20 even though I actually lost money for the round?
Usually, I think, a "hand", actually a round, like that would be included in a "net loss" percentage for the round.
But, hey, whatever the rules are, if it's +EV, play everyone else's empty side-bet spot as much as you can lol.
In that case, who give's a rat's as* what the combined HA may or may not be
Anyway, I finally found where I got the 9.44% from - I had a table somehwere but didn't know where it came from.
Anyway, it's table 4.1 page 50 in BJAIII.
Although, the nuances of what is a "push" in that table compared to what is a "push" in this side-bet, I have no idea. Not to mention, I thinks it's for a 6D Strip game.
So, I split, get a 17 and 20, dealer gets 19. I have a net win for the round of 0.
Usually that 8.8% push whatever assumes a "net push" for a round. I think lol.
So I split get a 17 and 20 and dealer has 20. Do I get paid 10-1 on the 20 even though I actually lost money for the round?
Usually, I think, a "hand", actually a round, like that would be included in a "net loss" percentage for the round.
But, hey, whatever the rules are, if it's +EV, play everyone else's empty side-bet spot as much as you can lol.
In that case, who give's a rat's as* what the combined HA may or may not be