House edge = off the top edge?

[1357111317]

On the Basic stratagy calculator off this site the house edge for playing perfect basic stratagy on a 6D H17 NS DA is .66%. I understood this to mean that if you played an infinite amount of hands betting 10 $ a hand you would lose on average 6.6 cents a hand.

Then I was thinking that since Basic stratagy is calculated for a count of 0 then wouldn't it only apply to what you would expect to lose for the first hand played of every shoe? Due to the fact that during a normal shoe a basic stratagy player would experience many different counts where basic stratagy would be making the wrong play. Would this lead to a greater house edge than the "off the top edge" assuming strictly basic stratagy play?

 

[FLASH1296]

"On the Basic stratagy calculator off this site the house edge for playing perfect basic stratagy on a 6D H17 NS DA is .66%. I understood this to mean that if you played an infinite amount of hands betting 10 $ a hand you would lose on average 6.6 cents a hand.

Then I was thinking that since Basic stratagy is calculated for a count of 0 then wouldn't it only apply to what you would expect to lose for the first hand played of every shoe? Due to the fact that during a normal shoe a basic stratagy player would experience many different counts where basic stratagy would be making the wrong play. Would this lead to a greater house edge than the "off the top edge" assuming strictly basic stratagy play?"

A balanced count always returns to an "off the top" True Count of ZERO.
Of course the count moves up and down, but ALWAYS averages ZERO.

You noted: "perfect basic stratagy on a 6D H17 NS DA is .66%"
I presume that by NS you mean NDAS "no double after split"

That is a horrendous game. Where is it ?

If you play Basic Strategy you will hemorrhage money.

It works this way: You will average 100 hands per hour playing at mostly full tables.

If you bet $10 per hand that will equate to a "handle" of $1,000 per hour.

You can anticipate AVERAGE losses of $1,000 times .66%
That equates to average losses of $6.60 per hour.

Unfortunately, that is the average.
Blackjack has a huge standard deviation.
What will ACTUALLY happen is that occasionally an hour's play will win or lose a few dollars or break even; BUT many hours you will lose 10 or 20 times that $6.60.
If losing $120 an hour is vexing to you, do not play.
Seriously -- take up another hobby that you can afford.
Playing Basic Strategy only slows down the rate of how fast you will hand your money over to the casino.

You MUST count cards to make this game profitable.

It requires a big betting spread to make it profitable.

That big spread invites "heat" as it also requires a huge bankroll.
I would attack that game with a spread of at least 25 to 1 [preferably 30 to 1]. To bankroll that game with a reasonable "risk of ruin" will require 24 times the minimum unit bet for a single Max Bet -- so you will need (at least) 150 times 24 times (your) minimum bet. SO ... for a $10 table, presuming that you can find same, you'll need a bankroll of $36,000. Naturally, you can attack that game with1/2 of that - $18,000. Your Risk of Ruin I will not calculate, but I will guess that it wil be above 33%. That means that if you played without errors (and you sized your bets OPTIMALLY, employed NO cover plays e.g. NOT splitting Tens when it is appropriate, doubling down on soft 20's, etc.) until you either went broke or doubled your $18,000, then 1/3 of the time you will go broke and 2/3 of the time you will succeed in doubling up. THAT is a very high level of RISK to accept.

 

[1357111317]

NS = no double after split? What about no surrender? and it is double anything double after split and RSA.

 

[QFIT]

Off the top edge means that theoretically that will be your edge at any point in the shoe, assuming that a fixed number of hands per shoe is played. If you have a cut card, the edge is worse.

 

[Kasi]

A balanced count always returns to an "off the top" True Count of ZERO.
Of course the count moves up and down, but ALWAYS averages ZERO.

Well, a balanced count begins at TC0 before any cards are dealt and ends at 0 after all cards are dealt but, unfortunately, TC's NEVER avg 0.

If they did, in 100 rounds, you'd have 50% TC) rounds and 25% -TC rounds and 25% +TC rounds.

You noted: "perfect basic stratagy on a 6D H17 NS DA is .66%"
I presume that by NS you mean NDAS "no double after split"

He probably meant "NS" = "No Surrender". Just a guess since that is what it usually means. "DA" probably meant "Double on Any" number of cards. While he didn't say, I'd assume he also meant a DAS game.

If you play Basic Strategy you will hemorrhage money.
It works this way: You will average 100 hands per hour playing at mostly full tables.
If you bet $10 per hand that will equate to a "handle" of $1,000 per hour.
You can anticipate AVERAGE losses of $1,000 times .66%
That equates to average losses of $6.60 per hour.

Well, if you call being expected to lose $20 3 hours later hemorrhaging money.
I call it cheaper than taking my wife to a movie even if she doesn't order a big popcorn, big pepsi and those chocolate raisins.

It works this way, you play 100 rounds, you will probably have a "handle" of $1100 due to doubles and splits.

Still though, you would expect a $6.60 loss in 100 rounds.

Blackjack has a huge standard deviation.
What will ACTUALLY happen is that occasionally an hour's play will win or lose a few dollars or break even; BUT many hours you will lose 10 or 20 times that $6.60.
If losing $120 an hour is vexing to you, do not play.

Well, if you call 1.15 units per round for a flat-betting BS player "huge".
If so, what do you call 4 units/rd if you are counting and spreading?

But, yeah, losing or winning $120 in 100 rounds will happen the majority of the time. It's only 12 units.

You MUST count cards to make this game profitable.

It requires a big betting spread to make it profitable.

That big spread invites "heat" as it also requires a huge bankroll.
I would attack that game with a spread of at least 25 to 1 [preferably 30 to 1]. To bankroll that game with a reasonable "risk of ruin" will require 24 times the minimum unit bet for a single Max Bet -- so you will need (at least) 150 times 24 times (your) minimum bet. SO ... for a $10 table, presuming that you can find same, you'll need a bankroll of $36,000. Naturally, you can attack that game with1/2 of that - $18,000. Your Risk of Ruin I will not calculate, but I will guess that it wil be above 33%. That means that if you played without errors (and you sized your bets OPTIMALLY, employed NO cover plays e.g. NOT splitting Tens when it is appropriate, doubling down on soft 20's, etc.) until you either went broke or doubled your $18,000, then 1/3 of the time you will go broke and 2/3 of the time you will succeed in doubling up. THAT is a very high level of RISK to accept.

I too hate those really high ROR's that aren't calculated. Guessing is much better. Apparently, the worse the guess, the better it is.

 

[shadroch]

Few and far between are dealers that will average 100 rounds with a semi-full table, in my experiance. 60 to 70 is much more likely.

 

[1357111317]

I guess I will restate my question to hopefully make it a bit more clear. For example lets just look at the play 16 vs 10. Basic stratagy says hit. Counters know that its basically a hit in neg counts and stand in positive counts. Lets look at two shoes that are identical but opposite when it comes to the count. One stays at a TC of +2 the whole time, the second one stays at a TC of -2 the whole time. A basic stratagy player will hit his 16 ever time however in the positive shoe he is technically making the wrong play. Now looking at those two shoes would the house have an edge of ".66%"" over him or would the house have an edge of more than that since he was making the wrong play for 50% of the time he played.

 

[FLASH1296]

Comments


The probability of a shoe - [with any balanced count] - being +1 OR -1 is, (on average), equal.

Not approximately equal, but precisely so.

Re: Hands per hour:
A dealer with a full 7 seat table may exceed 60 rounds per hour.
I had cited partially-filled tables.
That 60+hand figure is for tables where the cards are hand-shuffled.
At casinos where automatic shufflers are used, far more hands are dealt -
which is why the casino pays the hefty lease fees for those shuffle machines.

 

[Kasi]

IFor example lets just look at the play 16 vs 10. Basic stratagy says hit. Counters know that its basically a hit in neg counts and stand in positive counts. Lets look at two shoes that are identical but opposite when it comes to the count. One stays at a TC of +2 the whole time, the second one stays at a TC of -2 the whole time. A basic stratagy player will hit his 16 ever time however in the positive shoe he is technically making the wrong play. Now looking at those two shoes would the house have an edge of ".66%"" over him or would the house have an edge of more than that since he was making the wrong play for 50% of the time he played.

Well, it's like this the way I understand it.

The 0.66% is an average disadvantage. It might be calced on "total=dependent" BS or maybe on "composition=dependent BS".

Sure, a BS player will sometimes be making the wrong play based on cards remaining.

So will a card-counter. Almost no card-counting system has 100% efficincy.
10,5,A will always be a stand in 1-8 decks with S17 even though it's always a -TC count and a counter will always hit it. Use a level-3 counting system and maybe it will be a stand lol. Even a 6,6,2,2 vs 10 is always a BS Hit in 1-8D S17 game, and correctly so, even though it's a +3R Hi-Lo RC and you'd probably incorrectly stand on it.

I suspect Ken's engine here uses a "total-dependent" BS. It doesn't matter if your 16 vs 10 is a 16 comprised of 2,3,4 or more cards. The frequency of it happening vs the the advantage or not when it does happen is averaged out. I could be wrong and maybe it is only based on an initial 2-card hand but it just doesn't seem like it to me.

Take 16 vs 10. When it happens, you're pretty much screwed. When it happens, you will lose more than half your bet on average. The HA on that hand is over 50% whether you hit or stand as opposed to 0.66% on avg over all initial hands.

Sometimes BS may be based on an infinite number of decks because it's easier to figure out that way. If you ever play a 30-deck game, maybe don't double an A,5 vs 6. ( I think lol).

Basically, BS has nothing to do with card-counting. It's card-counting that tries to improve on BS.

 

[1357111317]

Thank you Kasi, that was the exact kind of answer that I was looking for. So essentially you are saying that if you were to play a game with a .66 house advantage infinitely flatbetting 10$ you would lose an average of exactly 6.6 cents a hand?

 

[UK-21]

I did respond to this posting, but having re-read it I think I misunderstood the original query. As a consequence I've deleted all of the nonsense.

Apologies.

 

[shadroch]

The probability of a shoe - [with any balanced count] - being +1 OR -1 is, (on average), equal.

Not approximately equal, but precisely so.

Re: Hands per hour:
A dealer with a full 7 seat table may exceed 60 rounds per hour.
I had cited partially-filled tables.
That 60+hand figure is for tables where the cards are hand-shuffled.
At casinos where automatic shufflers are used, far more hands are dealt -
which is why the casino pays the hefty lease fees for those shuffle machines.

Again, I'm talking real world vs whatever it is you keep quoting. In the normal course of an hour, players will either buy in or cash out, bringing the game to a halt. Dealers will switch at least once every hour, stopping the game. trays are refilled, drinks are split, ect, ect Play at a table with people coming and going and you aren't going to get 100 hands an hour.

 

[Canceler]

Then I was thinking that since Basic stratagy is calculated for a count of 0 then wouldn't it only apply to what you would expect to lose for the first hand played of every shoe?

I feel the need to get nit-picky here. BS is not calculated for a count of 0, it is calculated off the top totally without regard to any count. Take 3,3 vs. 6, for example. Your RC is +3, but that is just not a factor at all.

Due to the fact that during a normal shoe a basic stratagy player would experience many different counts where basic stratagy would be making the wrong play. Would this lead to a greater house edge than the "off the top edge" assuming strictly basic stratagy play?

Seems like this effect would be balanced out by situations where the BS play would work better than it was "supposed" to. Just an idea.

 

[Kasi]

Thank you Kasi, that was the exact kind of answer that I was looking for. So essentially you are saying that if you were to play a game with a .66 house advantage infinitely flatbetting 10$ you would lose an average of exactly 6.6 cents a hand?

Well, per dealer upcard, in other words per "round" - prefer "round" to "hand" lol. And 6.6 cents of just your intial bet of $10.

So, even spreading to 4 hands in a round, doubling each one, and having $80 out here for that round (don't call it 4 hands), you still expect to lose on average for that round 6.6 cents.

Your avg $amount bet per round will exceed $10 but that's irrelevant for HA. Likely, it might actually be $11 or so with doubles and splits.

HA is not "total dollars wagered*HA=EV". It's "avg initial bet*HA=EV".

Of course you can adjust the HA to total dollars wagered if you want if you know the effect of doubles and splits increasing your avg initial bet.

 

[FLASH1296]

"So, even spreading to 4 hands in a round, doubling each one, and having $80 out here for that round (don't call it 4 hands),
you still expect to lose on average for that round 6.6 cents."

NO. Spreading to four $10 hands will cost the basic strategy player four times 6.6 cents or 26.4 cents;
precisely the same as if there were $40 wagered on one hand.

 

[1357111317]

"So, even spreading to 4 hands in a round, doubling each one, and having $80 out here for that round (don't call it 4 hands),
you still expect to lose on average for that round 6.6 cents."

NO. Spreading to four $10 hands will cost the basic strategy player four times 6.6 cents or 26.4 cents;
precisely the same as if there were $40 wagered on one hand.

Flash I'm pretty sure you are wrong on this one. Why on earth would you ever split then if you were just going to lose more money by splitting? Same with doubling, why would you ever double if you putting more money out there just increased the amount you lost.

 

[Kasi]

The probability of a shoe - [with any balanced count] - being +1 OR -1 is, (on average), equal.
Not approximately equal, but precisely so.

Just curious, where in the world do you get these ideas from?

After counting all these years, does it actually, even subjectively, seem to you you spend an equal amount of time in neg TC's as pos TC's?

 

[FLASH1296]

Sometimes I am mistaken, but in this case, I am quite correct.

The Basic Strategist loses on average a computable percentage, not an amount, per hand played. The e.v. when computed includes the normal expected frequency of splits, double downs, and blackjacks. Please re-read this. It is essential to the nature of the game. Misunderstanding this basic fact leads to further misunderstandings re: blackjack.

To answer your question -- "Why on earth would you ever split then if you were just going to lose more money by splitting? Same with doubling, why would you ever double if you putting more money out there just increased the amount you lost." ... OF COURSE you lose money playing Basic Strategy. The more hands played the more money is lost. The more hands played per hour the faster money is lost. Of course, most splits are profitable, but some splits e.g. splitting 8's vs. a dealer Ten are defensive splits, as your net loss is reduced by splitting.

 

[Kasi]

"NO. Spreading to four $10 hands will cost the basic strategy player four times 6.6 cents or 26.4 cents;
precisely the same as if there were $40 wagered on one hand.

Sorry Flash.

Hey, you memorized all those 6-digit EV's in the BJAIII appendices.
Why do you think the EV doubles when you double on dealer upcards of 6 or less in those tables?

It's because EV is always expressed as a % of your initial bet, not a % of total dollars wagered.

 

[FLASH1296]

kasi,

You said: "Just curious, where in the world do you get these ideas from?

After counting all these years, does it actually, even subjectively, seem to you you spend an equal amount of time in neg TC's as pos TC's?"

Here is a simple explanation that will prove my point. Let's looks at the simplest balanced count in existence. It will be the same for the most complex count as well. I will use the Ace-Five Count. The 5's are tagged as +1 and the Ace's are tagged at -1. This is actually good enough to beat a (no longer existent) Single Deck S17 DAS game with a non-threatening bet spread. Interestingly, the running count can not be greater than +4 or less than -4. At the "top of the deck" and at any time there is a ZERO True Count (or Running Count) - The probability of a hand having an Ace is the same as the probability of the hand having a 5. Correct ? Therefore the count will move up and down with the depletion of Aces and Fives. By the bottom of the deck the count MUST return to ZERO [if all cards are dealt.] High and Low cards are equally present in the deck or the shoe and the + and - True Counts MUST exist equally. The reason that the Basic Strategist has a losing situation is that he starts off with a disadvantage that we call the "House Advantage". Therefore, the basic strategist will only be "getting the best of it" when the True Count is +1 or +2 (Hi-Lo) depending on the size of the house edge.

You statement about "... subjectively ..." is accountable by what psychologists call "selective memory" If you are a poker player you will recall the bad beats you have suffered but will not recall many of the bad beats that you have been on the winning side of. Ask any ploppy if he or the dealer gets more blackjacks and 9 out of 10 will look at you like you are crazy, as they say, "Of course the dealer always gets more BJ's than I do." OBVIOUSLY, the dealer, you, me, and everyone else receive one "snapper" in every 21 hands. Think about it.


Eshew Subjectivity. Embrace Objectivity.


"...there is a method to scientific thinking and it includes being constantly vigilant against self-deception and being careful not to rely upon insight or intuition in place of rigorous and precise empirical testing of theoretical and causal claims."