Blackjack: House advantage

[Hermlord]

Here is something I've been wondering about for a while: how did blackjack develop to give the house such a narrow advantage?

First, I'm ignoring card-counting, just talking about playing optimum basic strategy. The house has about a 1% advantage over an optimum non-counting player, give or take a bit depending on the various rules in use. But basic strategy is less than 50 years old, yet blackjack is much older. From what I understand, calculating the optimal play for every situation takes a lot of computing power. So how, when bj was developed in the Dark Ages, did they ensure a house advantage? Is there a much easier way to give a lower bound to the house edge, only requiring computers for an exact answer? Or what? I have no idea, that's why I'm asking.

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is something I've been wondering about for a while: how did blackjack develop to give the house such a narrow advantage?

First, I'm ignoring card-counting, just talking about playing optimum basic strategy. The house has about a 1% advantage over an optimum non-counting player, give or take a bit depending on the various rules in use. But basic strategy is less than 50 years old, yet blackjack is much older. From what I understand, calculating the optimal play for every situation takes a lot of computing power. So how, when bj was developed in the Dark Ages, did they ensure a house advantage? Is there a much easier way to give a lower bound to the house edge, only requiring computers for an exact answer? Or what? I have no idea, that's why I'm asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that they did ensure a house advantage against players using perfect BS. I'm pretty sure +EV single deck games were prevalent back in the day.

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is something I've been wondering about for a while: how did blackjack develop to give the house such a narrow advantage?

First, I'm ignoring card-counting, just talking about playing optimum basic strategy. The house has about a 1% advantage over an optimum non-counting player, give or take a bit depending on the various rules in use. But basic strategy is less than 50 years old, yet blackjack is much older. From what I understand, calculating the optimal play for every situation takes a lot of computing power. So how, when bj was developed in the Dark Ages, did they ensure a house advantage? Is there a much easier way to give a lower bound to the house edge, only requiring computers for an exact answer? Or what? I have no idea, that's why I'm asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without doubling and splitting, the house advantage would be much higher (around 3%?). I would expect that blackjack developed without them and that they were added as gimmicks later.

[charlie_t_jr]

[ QUOTE ]
Without doubling and splitting, the house advantage would be much higher (around 3%?). I would expect that blackjack developed without them and that they were added as gimmicks later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, understand the "house" never adds things to the game to make it better for the players. Ever since BS and cardcounting, they have done everything they can to increase their advantage.

I'm sure in the early days the "house" or the guy who offered to be the dealer, realized he had the advantage simply by going last. Dearler shows a T or face...everyone with a stiff hits...if they bust, the dealer wins regardless of his hand...thats a big advantage.

As Homer pointed out, there were most likely +ev single deck games in the early days. Why? Because nobody knew perfect BS. When BS became more common the rules changed. More decks added, and now the sh*tty 6:5 payout for BJ.

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Without doubling and splitting, the house advantage would be much higher (around 3%?). I would expect that blackjack developed without them and that they were added as gimmicks later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, understand the "house" never adds things to the game to make it better for the players.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true. Competition between casinos forces them to add innovations that benefit the players, and eventually players can come to expect them so casinos have to have them. Downtown Las Vegas casinos in particular often have gimmicks beneficial to the player that draw in business. In any case, a game with a small house advantage can be more profitable for casinos in the long-run than one with a huge house advantage, since people who play the small advantage game will be more likely to continue to play it.

[ QUOTE ]
Ever since BS and cardcounting, they have done everything they can to increase their advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not about increasing the house edge against all players so much as protecting the casino from small numbers of well-funded high stakes counters that would have a massive advantage.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure in the early days the "house" or the guy who offered to be the dealer, realized he had the advantage simply by going last. Dearler shows a T or face...everyone with a stiff hits...if they bust, the dealer wins regardless of his hand...thats a big advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also thought that at one time the dealer used to win ties.

[ QUOTE ]
As Homer pointed out, there were most likely +ev single deck games in the early days. Why? Because nobody knew perfect BS. When BS became more common the rules changed. More decks added, and now the sh*tty 6:5 payout for BJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

The extra decks were put in to stop counters.

Basic strategy blackjack with a 3:2 blackjack has one of the smallest house edges in the casino, so unless they can get people to play (1) badly or (2) at high stakes, it's much less profitable for the house than other table games (e.g. three-card poker, Let-It-Ride...) where the house advantage is more like 3%-5% even for good players. Even someone who just approximates basic strategy (hit stiffs vs. 7-A, stand otherwise, double 10/11 against 2-9, split 8s or As) has only around a 1% disadvantage. Without 6:5, you'd probably see low-stakes blackjack disappear.

[charlie_t_jr]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not true. Competition between casinos forces them to add innovations that benefit the players....Without 6:5, you'd probably see low-stakes blackjack disappear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't disagree more.

[slickpoppa]

6:5? When the hell did this happen? Is this a common rule now?

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's not true. Competition between casinos forces them to add innovations that benefit the players....

[/ QUOTE ]
I couldn't disagree more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Las Vegas has the most competition, and as a result it has the lowest poker rakes, highest slot payouts, and most favorable blackjack rules. In places where there's a monopoly by one gambling operator, you have the worst rules and payouts.

[ QUOTE ]
Without 6:5, you'd probably see low-stakes blackjack disappear.

[/ QUOTE ]

With a limited amount of space, you offer the games that make the most profitable use of that space, and low-stakes blackjack isn't it. In Atlantic City, at peak times you can't find any blackjack under $25 minimum in the major casinos.

[CORed]

I don't think there was really much calculation done when blackjack was invented. I think it was assumed that the fact that when both the player and dealer bust the house wins gave the house an unbeatable advantage. Of course with correct basic strategy, this advantage is offset by the 3:2 blackjack payout, the double down and split options and the fact that the player gets to see one dealer card and can vary his strategy accordingly nearly offsets this.

I think it helps the house that a lot of basic strategy is counter-intuiitive. Most players that don't know basic strategy, for example, will stand on 15 or 16 against big dealer cards, and will double either too much or not enough. Hitting soft 18 against 9 and 10 is particularly counter-intuitive (at least for me). Low limit blackjack would not be a profitable game for the casino if everybody played correct basic strategy, because the game would not make enough money to pay for the overhead.