Casino F'N War (Foxwoods)

[Daniel Magix]

So I have a couple of goofy friends who are at the shallow end of the gene pool. We used to hit the casinos a lot when we were younger, and I primarily played BJ and they loved Casino War (simple game for simple men).

So, a few years ago I switched to Poker and never looked back. They still play Casino War as their primary game when they go to Foxwoods.

As retarded as this game is in general, I think the “going to war” option has to take the cake as MOST retarded bet. No matter how many times I try to explain it to them, they just don't seem to understand it.

They bet $10 - they tie.
They put up ANOTHER $10 to “go to war”
If they win, they still only get $10!

So they are now risking $20 to win $10??!! Am I misunderstanding something about this bet?? Why would people do this? I don't get it.

[Thremp]

www.wizardofodds.com


You go to war.

[playersare]

you go to war because you have a slight advantage on top of the original tie bet which is now essentially even money. if you win war, you get your original bet back. if you tie at war, then you do win both bets.

irregardless of your original bet, you bet on war because you now have a separate coinflip proposition when you win ties. of course this does not make up for you losing both the original and war bet when you lose, but it explains why you always go to war. in fact, if someone else was playing and was hesitant to go to war, you should offer to buy the war bet for him. your +EV is 7.69% (1 in 13).

of course, it's best just not to play the game in general, but it's NOT because of the going to war part. unless they don't have the rule where the player wins both bets when war ties again. in those cases the casino will probably have a surrender option.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
irregardless

[/ QUOTE ]


Not a word.

[Scott_Baio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
irregardless

[/ QUOTE ]


Not a word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is. It means without lack of regard.

[Daniel Magix]

Eh, ok. I am sure you guys are right on the odds stuff, but man, I just can't see how people can play this game at all. I still can't imagine how you would have odds in war that would make betting $20 to win $10 ever profitable, but I am just not motivated enough to investigate it. Not saying I don't believe you guys, just seems like a terrible bet.

[Daniel Magix]

[ QUOTE ]
www.wizardofodds.com


You go to war.

[/ QUOTE ]

I checked out the site, and found this:
“I'm often asked where the house edge lays in this game. It is absolutely true that the probability of winning is 50%. Where the edge comes from is when there is a war you either win one unit or lose two. For example, if you originally bet $5 you have to double your bet, risking $10, to win only $5.”

How does that back up the argument of going to war? I'm confused.

[playersare]

[ QUOTE ]
How does that back up the argument of going to war? I'm confused.

[/ QUOTE ]
what happens if you don't go to war? you lose your entire original bet, or perhaps surrender half as I read from most of the rules?

on the other hand, if you do go to war, you still have a 50/50 chance of pushing on the original bet while winning 1 unit on the war bet. on top of that, you have a 1 in 13 chance of winning BOTH bets if the war bet ties (assuming the casino has this rule). your variance increases obviously, but you will "lose less" in the long run by going to war rather than just surrendering 50% of your bet every time you tie on the original bet.

if your friends are stupid enough to play war in the first place, how do you expect them to understand the percentages of the additional war bet? however, there is no mathematical reason not to go to war. at worst it increases your variance a little, but it can never make the house odds worse. you cannot factor in the original bet when determining whether you are going to war or not. it is already locked up and you cannot remove it (unless to surrender) so you need to analyze the war bet as a separate 1 unit wager in of itself.

[CORed]

When you tie, you can either go to war or give up half your original bet. If you tie a second time, you win. In some casinos, you just win your original bet. In others you win twice your original bet. Either way, it's better than the option of giving up half your bet. The crappy options you get with a tie are the source of the house edge in Casino War. Also, because the dealer, takes money out of the tray to "match" your second bet when you go to war, I think a lot of people don't even notice that they're getting screwed. The first time I encountered the game, in Vegas downtown casino (I don't remember which one) several years ago, I played a little $2 min. bets, and at first I couldn't figure out where the house edge was. After about a half hour (I was running lucky, and was up about $20 bucks), I suddenly realized that the dealer wasn't really matching my extra bet; he was just taking the money he would pay me if I won anyway and moving it to the table while I was now laying 2:1 for a bet that was actually just a little better than even money.

If you want a mindless game of chance with no thinking required, playing craps, betting pass and odds, is a lot more fun and a lot less -EV.

I used to play the original War, where no money was bet and the object was to end up with all the cards, when I was a kid. As I got older, I began to realize that it was a boring, pointless, stupid game. Only the casino industry could make it even stupider, by turning it into a carnival game to fleece suckers.

[CORed]

The war bet isn't profitable, it's just the least bad of the two alternatives. All house-banked casino table games screw you one way or another. Some are just a little more subtle in how they do it than Casino War, some, Roulette, anyway, are less subtle.