Blackjack tilt: The hidden house edge

[Dan Druff]

I have played a good deal of blackjack this year, and it got me thinking about the game a bit more. I came up with a theory as to why normal basic strategy players lose so much money at it -- far more than the house edge of less than 1% at a standard-rules game.

The best of the non-card-counters are "basic strategy" players -- players who perfectly follow the by-the-book rules as to what to do with each hand. For example, a basic strategy player will hit a 12 versus a dealer's 2 or 3, but will stand versus a 4 through 6. Most players know basic strategy to at least some degree, and some know it perfectly.

But how does the house turn such a small edge on basic strategy players into a big one? A lot of this occurs from the compounding of the edge over hundreds (or in some cases, thousands) of hands. As the player keeps playing, his bankroll will (mathematically) keep dwindling, with higher expected total losses as time passes. Some other additional losses occur from a player deviating from basic strategy (sometimes based upon "feelings"), which can change the house edge to as high as 5%. These are all old concepts that have been discussed over and over. While I believe both of these explanations are valid, I think there is one other explanation for losses that is often overlooked: Tilt.

To understand my theory, you need to first understand the basic principle behind card counting, which by itself is quite simple:

- If there are a lot of tens and aces left in the deck (compared to the number of 2s through 6s), the player has an advantage. Therefore, it is wise for the player to raise his bet substantially.

- If there are a lot of 2s through 6s left in the deck (compared to the number of tens and aces), the dealer has a greater-than-usual advantage. Therefore, it is wise for the player to either lower his bet or avoid playing the hand altogether.

Of course, well over 99% of all blackjack players don't count cards. Therefore, they are unaware of the composition of the remaining shoe, and they are also unaware of the effect it has on them. Of course, that doesn't change the actual effect of the deck's composition on the player -- he just doesn't realize it.

Blackjack players tend to go on tilt because of two factors:

1) Mounting losses
2) Losing hands they expected to win, such as a dealt 20 versus a low dealer's upcard, where the dealer draws to a freak 21.

But how can a blackjack player tilt? While tilting blackjack players may deviate some from basic strategy, they still tend to stick to it for the most part. The greatest form of tilt comes from bet amounts. A player betting $50 per hand may suddenly bet $300, then $500, then $1000 per hand, in a sad attempt to chase his losses.

But how does the house have a greater advantage here, other than simply taking bigger action? I have come to believe that such tilt occurs at the WORST time for the player -- when there is a disproportionately small number of tens and aces left in the shoe.

Why do I believe this? A player is most likely to go on tilt when he is both losing and taking bad beats. This is most likely to occur when the "count is low" -- i.e. a lot of small cards left in the deck. For example, if the dealer shows a 5, he's much more likely to bust when there are a lot of big cards left in the deck than when there are a lot of small ones. Thus, while freak 21-drawouts can happen at any time, they are most likely to happen when the count is low. This, of course, is the time that the player is at the greatest disadvantage, whether he realizes it or not. If a player suddenly raises his bets at this point, he's not only giving the house more action, he's giving them the most action at the time when they have the greatest edge!

I have watched this happen to my table-mates time and time again. I feel like telling them, "No, it's not a surprise at all that the dealer didn't bust after showing a 6" or, "I expected your double-down on 11 to end up with a small card", but obviously I can't. Usually their response to such frustrating losses is to slam down a much bigger bet, which of course the house quickly eats up.

Apologies if this has been discussed before, whether here or elsewhere.

Comments?