Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

Is there a rule set (like allowing surrender, double down after splitting, etc) that would make blackjack a zero sum game (assume continuous shuffling) without offering goofy things like a blackjack pay-out of 6.594-to-5 or other silly things to make the numbers even out?

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

The probabilities are quite complex -- and I seriously doubt that a basic strategy and set of rules could create a dead-even game. I think you could get to within about .0005 or so. Why is parity important?

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

6 Deck, Double Any Two, NO double after split, European no hole card, Resplit allowed except aces, early surrender.

0% for 6 decks according to Blackjack advantage calculator

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

As I recall, single deck, S16, double any NDAS is pretty close to even, but I don't think it's exact. If you really are looking for precisely zero sum for a home game or something, just rotate the dealer. Of course, the dealer has to have the bankroll to cover all the player bets.

Edit:
Comes up as +0.02% on the blackjack calculator site linked above.

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The probabilities are quite complex -- and I seriously doubt that a basic strategy and set of rules could create a dead-even game. I think you could get to within about .0005 or so. Why is parity important?

[/ QUOTE ]

A blackjack game a 0% house advantage would be a very very profitable play provided the casio doesn't track the play with a net theo of 0%.

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

[ QUOTE ]
A blackjack game a 0% house advantage would be a very very profitable play provided the casio doesn't track the play with a net theo of 0%.

[/ QUOTE ]
You were speaking of a game with CSM -- I don't see how that could be profitable for anybody but the house. In an online casino, the house would benefit from the value of the float. In both online and B&M the casino would benefit from less than perfect play. How could the player benefit?

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A blackjack game a 0% house advantage would be a very very profitable play provided the casio doesn't track the play with a net theo of 0%.

[/ QUOTE ]
You were speaking of a game with CSM -- I don't see how that could be profitable for anybody but the house. In an online casino, the house would benefit from the value of the float. In both online and B&M the casino would benefit from less than perfect play. How could the player benefit?

[/ QUOTE ]

COMPS

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A blackjack game a 0% house advantage would be a very very profitable play provided the casio doesn't track the play with a net theo of 0%.

[/ QUOTE ]
You were speaking of a game with CSM -- I don't see how that could be profitable for anybody but the house. In an online casino, the house would benefit from the value of the float. In both online and B&M the casino would benefit from less than perfect play. How could the player benefit?

[/ QUOTE ]

COMPS

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, yes. "very very profitable". Online you might be able to squeak $1 an hour -- at a B&M club, you could destroy your liver in about 20 years.

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A blackjack game a 0% house advantage would be a very very profitable play provided the casio doesn't track the play with a net theo of 0%.

[/ QUOTE ]
You were speaking of a game with CSM -- I don't see how that could be profitable for anybody but the house. In an online casino, the house would benefit from the value of the float. In both online and B&M the casino would benefit from less than perfect play. How could the player benefit?

[/ QUOTE ]

COMPS

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, yes. "very very profitable". Online you might be able to squeak $1 an hour -- at a B&M club, you could destroy your liver in about 20 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct if you are talking about someone that bets $5 a hand.

Even at an online casino that gives 0.1% of cash back this play would worth be at least a $500 per hour (assuming $500 bets).

Step that up to $1000 (or even higher)bets at a B&M casino in Vegas or AC (or other gaming markets as well) and the comps will add up very quickly.

If a Vegas B&M casino offered a BJ game with 0% house advantage, rated play at the same rate as a standard BJ game, and had decent limits on the game, that casino would never have an empty seat at the game. It would be filled with pros, all of whom would be betting the limit and always asking for the limit to be raised.

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

hoqua,

What planet are you on?

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Even at an online casino that gives 0.1% of cash back this play would worth be at least a $500 per hour (assuming $500 bets).

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if I understand you right -- you're flat betting $500-$1,000 per hand, playing 1,000 hands per hour (?), and expecting one bet per hour (1,000 hands) in comps.

You're saying that if I negotiated this game for you at a theoretical 0%, you could fill the seats with players demanding the limits be raised --

I believe I can set that game up for you. Private mail me your requirements.

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even at an online casino that gives 0.1% of cash back this play would worth be at least a $500 per hour (assuming $500 bets).

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if I understand you right -- you're flat betting $500-$1,000 per hand, playing 1,000 hands per hour (?), and expecting one bet per hour (1,000 hands) in comps.

You're saying that if I negotiated this game for you at a theoretical 0%, you could fill the seats with players demanding the limits be raised --

I believe I can set that game up for you. Private mail me your requirements.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not too hard to find online casions that award comp points that can be converted to cash at a rate of 0.1% for BJ play. So at 1000 hands an hour and $1000 per bet, you would earn $1000 an hour in cash back.

I said that a 0% HA BJ game at which B&M casinos would rate play at the same net theo they rate standard BJ would bring out the pros.

Since casinos rate BJ play higher than a net theo of 0%, if this were to happen, the game would have a players advantage once comps (both hard and soft) were taken into account.

If you think that pros wouldn't be all over this, you have no clue as to what pros look for. A 0.1% on BJ would be huge for these guys...especially if the limits were high.

If they could bet $5000-$10000 a hand, and have an advantage of .1-.2% they would be sitting at the table around the clock and using toothpicks to prop keep their eyes open.

Pros pee their pant for a .5% advantage (with promos) at $5 VP ($25 pulls). A .1-.2% advantage with high limits would be even better than that in a terms of $/hr.

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

hoqua,

I would liken this conversation to when I got into a discussion about semi-pro baseball with tdarko without knowing he was a semi-pro baseball player. Needless to say, I question how much BJ you play with some of your assumptions.

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

[ QUOTE ]
hoqua,

I would liken this conversation to when I got into a discussion about semi-pro baseball with tdarko without knowing he was a semi-pro baseball player. Needless to say, I question how much BJ you play with some of your assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good analogy.


I made no assumptions, so there is nothing to question.

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

[ QUOTE ]


Since casinos rate BJ play higher than a net theo of 0%, if this were to happen, the game would have a players advantage once comps (both hard and soft) were taken into account.


[/ QUOTE ]

What would motivate a casino to offer a blackjack game with no house edge, and then comp against it? Am I missing something?

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Since casinos rate BJ play higher than a net theo of 0%, if this were to happen, the game would have a players advantage once comps (both hard and soft) were taken into account.


[/ QUOTE ]

What would motivate a casino to offer a blackjack game with no house edge, and then comp against it? Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question.

Here's another. Why did a LV casino (on the strip) install video BJ games (full pay...i.e. BJ's paid 3/2, etc) and give double points for play, which resulted in a 0.5% players advantage?

This happend a few months ago, and lasted for over two months.

Why did the casino let it last so long?

Why did the casino award comps on top of the points earnned?

BTW, even without the additional comps, this resulted in a $300+ per hour play for the pros that hit it, and most of them played two machines at once.

Why would the casino do this?

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

[ QUOTE ]
... double points for play, which resulted in a 0.5% players advantage

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, even without the additional comps, this resulted in a $300+ per hour play for the pros that hit it, and most of them played two machines at once.

[/ QUOTE ]

To earn $300 an hour with .5% advantage would require a handle of $60,000 per hour -- and you're saying that this earnings was without the additional comps? Do you have links to this information? What limits did the machines have? It sounds fishy.

How could this happen? Most people running casinos are nearly clueless about how their industry operates -- but there's almost always a consultant or one person up the line who gets it. Sometimes games and promotions get released without proper review.

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... double points for play, which resulted in a 0.5% players advantage

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, even without the additional comps, this resulted in a $300+ per hour play for the pros that hit it, and most of them played two machines at once.

[/ QUOTE ]

To earn $300 an hour with .5% advantage would require a handle of $60,000 per hour -- and you're saying that this earnings was without the additional comps? Do you have links to this information? What limits did the machines have? It sounds fishy.

How could this happen? Most people running casinos are nearly clueless about how their industry operates -- but there's almost always a consultant or one person up the line who gets it. Sometimes games and promotions get released without proper review.

[/ QUOTE ]

This type of thing happens from time to time. Hasn't anyone here read Sklansky's "Getting the Best of It" and "Gambling for a Living"? Basically, casinos make mistakes.

Maybe someone did the math wrong. Maybe no one did the math. Maybe the slot technician turned on the wrong setting on the machine. Maybe it was done by a disgruntaled employee who either wanted to get back at his/her employer or perhaps was on the payroll of a pro. Maybe Casino Operations (the group that determines what machines to put on the floor and what settings to set on them) didn't know/care that the slot club (run by Marketing Department) was running a double points promo.

The machines had a limit of $50 per hand and a fast player can do 1500 hands an hour. $50*1500= $75,000 per hour of action. Subtract some hands for breaks, feeding money into the machine, etc, and this easily offered $300 per hour of +EV. This only takes into account the "free play" that the players were rewarded by the slots club for the points they're play earned. It doesn't not factor in the soft comps that $75,000 of action (per machine) will merit.

You've heard the stories about what Vegas casinos will do to attract whales to their properties, haven't you? Well someone that is good for $75,000 of coin-in per hour, and is going to play 14-16 hours a day (or more) 7 days a week is going to get whale status.


I don't have a link to the play. Pros don't like to make their plays public (especially ones this good) even after they're dead. I do know for a fact that it did exist for at least two months.

I'm sure some 2+2ers, especially Vegas locals, have heard about this play. Since it died, it has been talked about more freely than most plays usually are. I can't be the only one, so maybe someone else can confirm that they heard about this too.

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

You do realize that is a hand every 2.4s. That is retardedly fast. Online play is like 600 per and screaming. I'd pay someone 1k to play a VPBJ machine that fast for 8 hours.

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You do realize that is a hand every 2.4s. That is retardedly fast. Online play is like 600 per and screaming. I'd pay someone 1k to play a VPBJ machine that fast for 8 hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever played one of these video BJ games? They are fast..faster than online games.

BTW, I'm not sure where you're playing BJ online, but if your only getting 600 hands an hour either the site's software/cnnection is slow or you are slow a slow player.

A pro can easily play 1000-1200 hands of video poker per hour. So why is it hard to beleive they getting in 1500 hands of video BJ per hour? Each hand of video BJ is dealt faster than VP there are never any tricky decisions to make (just follow the basic stategy chart). VP on the other hand tends to require a bit more complicated strategy, which could slow down play.

LOL at "retardedly fast".

I'm not sure why you're going out of your way to poke holes in this true story, when it is clear you know little about the subject. I mean comparing online play to machine in a casion is just pointless.

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever played one of these video BJ games? They are fast..faster than online games.

BTW, I'm not sure where you're playing BJ online, but if your only getting 600 hands an hour either the site's software/cnnection is slow or you are slow a slow player.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've played them, because I write code for them. I've written for both Internet and cabinets -- and never made any distinction in the rate of play. Thremp is very close to our observations at his max rate of 600 hands per hour, on a heads up game.

I honestly don't believe that 1,000 is possible -- let alone 1,500. One of the reasons is that all wagers are acknowledged, as well as all winners. There are dwell times on those screens that, while short, are not zero. The player options do not function during those periods. The play is also animated to make it more interesting -- the deal itself takes time. Insurance options have to be responded to, and the dealers hand, upon a win, includes another dwell period. I'm sure they've reprogrammed these machines rather than remove them, and all you have to do is go monitor your own play as fast as you can for about ten minutes to realize how ridiculous a 1,000 to 1,500 hand per hour rate is.

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

Hoqua,

The online numbers are what some professionals I've talked to have experienced. In reality I'm closer to 300-400 for a 8 hour type workday. I need to take 15 minute breaks, I lose focus, etc. I can't imagine live play would be much quicker than online play. Though what you're saying at 2.5x the speed is insanity.

Also, long term play at that speed is going to be riddled with errors. Playing anywhere near max speed increase your error rate dramatically especially when grinding hour after hour.

Also IIRC isn't handle for BJ typically right around 1.1x your base wager due to doubling/splitting etc. If automated, I'd assume this would be the way its calculated, no?

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hoqua,

The online numbers are what some professionals I've talked to have experienced. In reality I'm closer to 300-400 for a 8 hour type workday. I need to take 15 minute breaks, I lose focus, etc. I can't imagine live play would be much quicker than online play. Though what you're saying at 2.5x the speed is insanity.

Also, long term play at that speed is going to be riddled with errors. Playing anywhere near max speed increase your error rate dramatically especially when grinding hour after hour.

Also IIRC isn't handle for BJ typically right around 1.1x your base wager due to doubling/splitting etc. If automated, I'd assume this would be the way its calculated, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so you've never played these machines? So you have no idea how fast they are, correct? You're comparing them to online play, which is like comparing apples and oranges.

Go to Vegas. Find a VBJ game. Set it at run on the fastet mode possible. Once you do that, you'll see just how fast the hands can be played by someone that doesn't need to think about basic strategy. Until you do that, you have no clue about this and, by contining to talk about it, you only highlight your ignorance of the subject.


You're correct about the doubles and splits. The 1500 hands per hour number takes that into account (i.e. 1500 bets per hour), which is a low estimate for rate of play for solid pros on these machines.

Any Vegas pro isn't going to have a problem with errors. Most of these guys have can play error free for hours on end on any of at least 12-15 different versions of VP, almost all of which have much more complicated strategies than BJ, and do so at a rate of 1000-1200 hands per hour.

If they can do that, they can handle BJ basic strategy at a high hands/hour rate in their sleep.

This is how these guys make their living. They play for hours on end. When they aren't playing in a casino, they are at home practicing.

Just because you cant do it doesn't mean that these guys, who train for to be able to do this, can't.

Have you ever talked about multi tabling poker online with someone who even hear that people would do this? If you have, you know the reaction they give if/when you mention that people play 10-12 (hell even 30) tables at a time for hours on end. That reaction is one of disbelief, which is based on ignorance. Because they can't do it, they assume no one else can.

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

Thremp,

You might want to check out this link before trying to refute hogua's story any further.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/79002

It looks like hogua's got his fact right - for once - this time.

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thremp,

You might want to check out this link before trying to refute hogua's story any further.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/79002

It looks like hogua's got his fact right - for once - this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yahoo links suck. I feel no need to give up my first born to view a link -- copy and post it.

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thremp,

You might want to check out this link before trying to refute hogua's story any further.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/79002

It looks like hogua's got his fact right - for once - this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yahoo links suck. I feel no need to give up my first born to view a link -- copy and post it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted the link, but I'm not going to copy a whole thread in a forum discussion because you don't want to be bothered with a yahoo link.

If you want to read it, then do what needs to be done to view it. Otherwise, either forget the whole subject or admit that hogua was posting accurate information - for a change.

Re: Zero Sum Blackjack: Possible?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I posted the link, but I'm not going to copy a whole thread in a forum discussion because you don't want to be bothered with a yahoo link.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need to copy the thread -- just whatever in the thread you think makes your point.

I made the mistake of looking -- and found nothing. There's about an hour of my life I'd like back. What I found was what past experience taught me, Yahoo sucks.

Install their software, go through endless cycles of verification and alternate email addresses, install yahoo toolbar (required), etc, etc, etc, --- all to learn nothing. And if you're not at your primary computer, or don't use web based mail -- you'll have to create a couple new email accounts to make it work. Yahoo sucks rocks.

Is that really your point? A link to a bunch of Yahoos in a Yahoo group who say they can play 1500 hands an hour and make $300 an hour? We have that here, without the link.