Some basic observations and questions about casino whoring

[SheetWise]

Reading this thread a related question popped up --

Has anyone ever calculated the players EV when then everything is risked on a single hand of BJ? There is an assumption being made that it's a constant.

If the player cannot double, split, resplit, DAS, insure, etc. because they have wagered their entire BR on a single hand -- expectation goes down. How far?

My guess is that it's a lot. If nobody knows, I'll run some simulations.

[midwestkc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, on say, the crypto bonuses that you can cash out your deposit if you lose the bonus regardless of whether you finished the WR, what would be the best strategy? It seems like making bigger bets again would be better, but since the WR for the monthly bonus carry over, would this still be the case? What if you bust a few months in a row (leading to exceedingly higher WR)?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the WR carries over month to month AND you plan to play the bonus again and again indefinitely, then your expectation is basically the same no matter how you bet.

Making big bets is almost certainly more fun, though.

BTW, carrying over WR from bonus to bonus seems severely stupid from the casino's perspective. Why would they want to risk their regular suckers getting so stuck that they feel like the next bonus has no shot to get them unstuck?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that it's the smartest thing for them to do, but for a different reason. The reason is that not only do they carry over, but (at least on WillHill) you can withdraw your deposit without clearing the bonus. For example, it's a $40 match bonus that you get up front. If you lose your $40, though then you can withdraw your deposit, and wait until next month (albeit with the higher WR).

I've busted the last 3 months, and now I have to wager like $2k this month for a crappy $40 bonus, but why not? It's not like I can actually lose money on it.

[Boredom]

[ QUOTE ]
Reading this thread a related question popped up --

Has anyone ever calculated the players EV when then everything is risked on a single hand of BJ? There is an assumption being made that it's a constant.

If the player cannot double, split, resplit, DAS, insure, etc. because they have wagered their entire BR on a single hand -- expectation goes down. How far?

My guess is that it's a lot. If nobody knows, I'll run some simulations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a related question. Ed stated that (in the case of wagering your whole br, in example 2): "If you win ([as you will] 49.5% of the time)...". Now, I am a newb, but is it really true that the player simply wins 49.5% of the time in BJ (assuming a .5% house advantage structure)? My thinking is that the house advantage is derived from a confluence of all the possibilities inherent in the game (ie. dealer busting, player hitting bj, doubling and winning, etc.), and therefore, the house advantage is more complicated than whether the player wins 49.5% of all hands. The player may win less than this but because of doubling, blackjacks, etc. his overall edge is the -.5% mentioned. Am I correct here? As I said, I am a newb to this stuff so somebody explain if I'm wrong here and why.

[Double Down]

The player wins ~43% of the hands, loses ~48% of the hands, and ties ~9% of the hands. And then all of the advantages that come with splitting and doubling erase that gap, bringing it to an almost break even game.

[Boredom]

[ QUOTE ]
The player wins ~43% of the hands, loses ~48% of the hands, and ties ~9% of the hands. And then all of the advantages that come with splitting and doubling erase that gap, bringing it to an almost break even game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
The player wins ~43% of the hands, loses ~48% of the hands, and ties ~9% of the hands. And then all of the advantages that come with splitting and doubling erase that gap, bringing it to an almost break even game.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your consideration of winning hands, are you making the assumption that player plays 88 as a 16 and AA as a 2 using basic strategy? I've never seen a breakdown of wins without split options -- but I have noticed that even in true +5 or better situations (single level), using liberal rules, the win of hands never gets even close to 50%. My guess is that even if you were shadow betting or using a spotter, you would never find an advantage (or even a 0-EV game) having only one bet.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The player wins ~43% of the hands, loses ~48% of the hands, and ties ~9% of the hands. And then all of the advantages that come with splitting and doubling erase that gap, bringing it to an almost break even game.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your consideration of winning hands, are you making the assumption that player plays 88 as a 16 and AA as a 2 using basic strategy? I've never seen a breakdown of wins without split options -- but I have noticed that even in true +5 or better situations (single level), using liberal rules, the win of hands never gets even close to 50%. My guess is that even if you were shadow betting or using a spotter, you would never find an advantage (or even a 0-EV game) having only one bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Betting your entire bankroll on one hand might be +EV to move to slots or roulette compared to 1 hand of BJ.

[ImsaKidd]

[ QUOTE ]
Reading this thread a related question popped up --

Has anyone ever calculated the players EV when then everything is risked on a single hand of BJ? There is an assumption being made that it's a constant.

If the player cannot double, split, resplit, DAS, insure, etc. because they have wagered their entire BR on a single hand -- expectation goes down. How far?

My guess is that it's a lot. If nobody knows, I'll run some simulations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I remember a figure of about 3% HA with no doubling.