10% refund question
 

Cross posted in the internet bonuses forum...

but I trust the zoo more

[ QUOTE ]
Does getting a 10% refund on Black Jack losses at totalbet, make BJ a +EV game?

simple question...


simple answers please

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: 10% refund question
 

hmmm. i am lazy, but interested in the answer as well.....

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Cross posted in the internet bonuses forum...

but I trust the zoo more

[ QUOTE ]
Does getting a 10% refund on Black Jack losses at totalbet, make BJ a +EV game?

simple question...


simple answers please

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple answer: No

Less simple answer. Suppose you lost $100 and they gave you back 10% ($10), you still lost $90. Plus EV? I don't think so.

Complex answer: If you get 10% of your total action then YES, you should gamble 24/7 before the site goes broke.

Jimbo

Re: 10% refund question
 

Since it's 10% of what the house makes from you, or the house advantage, wouldn't it only lower the house advantage by 10%?

I can't see them making the game +EV.

Re: 10% refund question
 

It would help if you linked the details about this.

I'm going to assume no, because then the site would lose lots of money. I would think that the 10% back on losses is only for a session/month or something like that and not every hand.

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cross posted in the internet bonuses forum...

but I trust the zoo more

[ QUOTE ]
Does getting a 10% refund on Black Jack losses at totalbet, make BJ a +EV game?

simple question...


simple answers please

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple answer: No

Less simple answer. Suppose you lost $100 and they gave you back 10% ($10), you still lost $90. Plus EV? I don't think so.

Complex answer: If you get 10% of your total action then YES, you should gamble 24/7 before the site goes broke.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

Before giving it an absolute no, consider if you deposit $100 and bet it all on one hand. You either win $100 ($150 on a BJ) or lose $90. What % of the time would you have to lose to make this -EV? Someone who knows the % for losing/winning/getting a BJ could give a pretty simple answer for this.

Re: 10% refund question
 

From the email Total bet sent me

10% Cashback on Blackjack
The Progressive Blackjack Jackpot is over £153, 227!

Whether you are aiming to win the progressive, beat the dealer or simply have some fun, play Blackjack at totalbetcasino from Fri 25 Nov - Tue 29 Nov and if you don't walk away with a profit, we will credit your account with 10% cashback on Wed 30 Nov!

Terms and Conditions:
Only play on Blackjack or progressive Blackjack at the totalbetcasino will qualify for the 10% cashback promotion in the promotional period and the minimum refund issued will be £0.10 Only players with an overall loss in their account for play from Fri 25 Nov until midnight Tue 29 Nov (GMT) will be credited - example: a player plays Blackjack on Sat 26 Nov and at the end of the session has won £10, on Mon 28 Nov the player returns and plays Progressive Blackjack and loses £15. The player does not play again and on Wed 30 Nov their account is credited with £0.50 for the overall loss of £5 they had during the promotional period. All qualifying accounts will be credited by 18h00 GMT on Wed 30 Nov 2005.


couldn't find anything on the site

Total bet Casino

Re: 10% refund question
 

what is a progressive blackjack pot

Re: 10% refund question
 

My quick math tells me this is a marginally winning. Assume a 1% house edge in BJ playing perfect strategy. X is your EV.

.49X - .51X + (.1)(.51X) = .031X or a 3% advantage.

Anyone read this any differently?

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
My quick math tells me this is a marginally winning. Assume a 1% house edge in BJ playing perfect strategy. X is your EV.

.49X - .51X + (.1)(.51X) = .031X or a 3% advantage.

Anyone read this any differently?

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from the fact that you gave the house a 2% advantage, I believe your method is ok IF you are going to play a single bet...and either double your money or get a 10% rebate on your loss...

In reality, the house advantage accounts for the 1.5 payoff of a blackajack and the times you double/split. So the real calculation is more complex, but the idea is generally the same...

Acme

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My quick math tells me this is a marginally winning. Assume a 1% house edge in BJ playing perfect strategy. X is your EV.

.49X - .51X + (.1)(.51X) = .031X or a 3% advantage.

Anyone read this any differently?

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from the fact that you gave the house a 2% advantage, I believe your method is ok IF you are going to play a single bet...and either double your money or get a 10% rebate on your loss...

In reality, the house advantage accounts for the 1.5 payoff of a blackajack and the times you double/split. So the real calculation is more complex, but the idea is generally the same...

Acme

[/ QUOTE ]

This should work over time as well. It is comparable to betting on "The Banker" in Baccaret. I believe Banker has 2-3% advantage, but you must pay a 5% vig on your winnings. In this case you are a 1-2% underdog in BJ, and the house is paying YOU a 10% vig on its winnings. I'll say it again...I think this promotion is +EV.

Re: 10% refund question
 

Suppose you made 1000 $10 bets with a HA of only 1%. You would expect to lose $100 over that span and would be rebated $10 still losing $90. All they are doing is lowering the house advantage by 10% from 1% to .9%, still -EV.

Re: 10% refund question
 

It depends on how you play. If you play one hand you will have an edge. If tou play more hands you will not.

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
It depends on how you play. If you play one hand you will have an edge. If tou play more hands you will not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does that mean if I bet on the flip of a coin only once I have an edge but if i do it twice it is -EV?

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
It depends on how you play. If you play one hand you will have an edge. If tou play more hands you will not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This clearly does not make sense. Each event is independent..either it is +EV or not.

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It depends on how you play. If you play one hand you will have an edge. If tou play more hands you will not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This clearly does not make sense. Each event is independent..either it is +EV or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Each event isn't independant. The 10% refund is given on the net total of all hands played. If you lose the first hand, then win the next 5, you don't get any refund back. You can't count the refund into the EV of each single hand if you are playing more than 1 hand.

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose you made 1000 $10 bets with a HA of only 1%. You would expect to lose $100 over that span and would be rebated $10 still losing $90. All they are doing is lowering the house advantage by 10% from 1% to .9%, still -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]


A 10% rebate on losses creates a +EV situation. You are just not looking at it properly.

Bet your whole deposit on a single bet. Let's ignore the 3/2 payout for BJ and assume that I win 49% of the time (this MORE than accounts for the loss due to not being able to double or split)...

Deposit $100 and bet it all:
49% of the time, I end up with $200;
51% of the time, I end up with $10.

On average, I will end up with $103.

Clearly, this is +EV.

Acme

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It depends on how you play. If you play one hand you will have an edge. If tou play more hands you will not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This clearly does not make sense. Each event is independent..either it is +EV or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It clearly DOES make sense. You do not get the rebate on each individual bet...you get it on the net result during the period in question.

Scenario 1 -- 1 $200 bet -- EV is about +$6.00
Scenario 2 -- 2 $100 bets -- EV is about +$1.20
Scenario 3 -- 4 $50 bets -- EV is about -$.05

In all 3 cases, I have placed the same total bet -- $200. But the EV decreases as I break things into more bets of a smaller amount.

The loss rebate is only on the net loss at the end of the session. With just one bet, you have a reasonable chance of ending up with a net winning session. With many bets, you have very little chance of a net winning session.

If you are unlikely to have a net winning session, you will not have a +EV situation on a loss rebate. So for one bet, it is +EV...but for many bets, it is -EV.

Acme

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bet your whole deposit on a single bet. Let's ignore the 3/2 payout for BJ and assume that I win 49% of the time (this MORE than accounts for the loss due to not being able to double or split)...



[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it doesn't, that is the problem with your calculation.

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bet your whole deposit on a single bet. Let's ignore the 3/2 payout for BJ and assume that I win 49% of the time (this MORE than accounts for the loss due to not being able to double or split)...



[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it doesn't, that is the problem with your calculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not a big deal anyway. Bet half of your bankroll. Actually, I'm sure there is a spot between half and full bankroll that returns the highest EV, but none of this is really the point.

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bet your whole deposit on a single bet. Let's ignore the 3/2 payout for BJ and assume that I win 49% of the time (this MORE than accounts for the loss due to not being able to double or split)...



[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it doesn't, that is the problem with your calculation.

[/ QUOTE ]


Just went to verify my numbers. I mis-remembered things slightly -- the 2% number is what no-double/no-split costs you (actually 1.91%), not the total house edge. So the total house edge ends up being 2.35%. But even with this HA, the rebate is a +EV situation for a single bet.

48.825% of the time you double up; 51.175% of the time, you end up with 10% of your bet. The EV is +$2.76.

So despite all your protest to the contrary, a 10% rebate is a +EV offer.

Acme

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bet your whole deposit on a single bet. Let's ignore the 3/2 payout for BJ and assume that I win 49% of the time (this MORE than accounts for the loss due to not being able to double or split)...



[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it doesn't, that is the problem with your calculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not a big deal anyway. Bet half of your bankroll. Actually, I'm sure there is a spot between half and full bankroll that returns the highest EV, but none of this is really the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think betting the full amount up front gives the greatest EV...it costs you in HA and thus %EV, but not in $EV.

Acme

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
So despite all your protest to the contrary, a 10% rebate is a +EV offer.


[/ QUOTE ]

And despite all your calculations the only thing I can agree with is that getting 10% of your losses back makes it less -EV but never +EV. After all if you end up losing money on your session you still lost. How can losing ever be +EV without a jackpot?

Jimbo

Re: 10% refund question
 

I didn't notice the cross-post, so I'm copying over most of my answer:

As has been pointed out, it all depends on the granularity. If it's per hand, it's a huge advantage -- you lose just over half your hands in BJ, so a 10% refund is worth over 5% overall. A 5% edge at BJ is unheard of.

But awarding it once per month is very different with many hands played. If you play 100,000 hands per month at $10 each, and the house advantage at BJ is 1.0%, then you will have lost, on average, 1.0% x 100,000 x $10, or $10,000. Getting back 10% of that is a refund of $1000, reducing the house edge from 1.0% to .9% -- so the refund is worth 0.01%. That's not a whole lot.

Somewhere between the two extremes is reality. If you chose to play just a few hands per month, ten or twenty, you're effectively playing just one tiny session. Odds are pretty high that the session will have some wild variance. If you win big, great. If you lose big, you get a big 10% refund. The advantage of 10% back on the loser makes it a net positive game.

To have the 10% effect big enough to make it a winning game, you have to play so few hands (per refund) that you're not experiencing a long term average at all. You have to be experiencing mostly variance. . . This can be fun if you enjoy individual gambles and you want to place some bigger wagers. If you can't afford that, or don't get a thrill from playing 10 or 25 hands per month, you can't pull off the +EV trick. If you play enough hands per refund, you are guaranteed a refund every month simply because you are guaranteed a loss!

In short, it's not a viable way to make money as a regular thing; again, it's only +EV when you play so few hands that you do NOT experience the EV at all; you experience the variance. That makes it simply a gamble, albeit a gamble with a +EV, which is a rare thing for most people. If you enjoy gambling a little, this is a great way to go. And if you enjoy gambling a lot, this is just a road to disaster which takes a little longer. If you don't enjoy the gamble at all, play something that doesn't involve money!

It would be interesting for someone to calculate roughly how many hands per month can be played with a 10% loss refund to equate to a real house advantage of 0%. I don't have the time to spare.

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So despite all your protest to the contrary, a 10% rebate is a +EV offer.


[/ QUOTE ]

And despite all your calculations the only thing I can agree with is that getting 10% of your losses back makes it less -EV but never +EV. After all if you end up losing money on your session you still lost. How can losing ever be +EV without a jackpot?

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG...you must be kidding me. Nobody can have >3000 posts here and be this ignorant...so I am going to assume you are just a worthless troll and ignore you going forward...

Acme

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So despite all your protest to the contrary, a 10% rebate is a +EV offer.


[/ QUOTE ]

And despite all your calculations the only thing I can agree with is that getting 10% of your losses back makes it less -EV but never +EV. After all if you end up losing money on your session you still lost. How can losing ever be +EV without a jackpot?

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

So I offer to flip a coin with you, and if you lose you pay me $95, and if you win, I'll pay you $100. If you lose, you lost $95. Does that mean it wasn't a +EV situation?

Re: 10% refund question
 

This problem is a tricky one. "Bet it all at once and it's +ev" was the first thing that occurred to me too. Ok, say you bet $100 and lose. If you really think the proposition is +ev, nothing has changed. You still have exactly the same proposition. Why not make another bet if that proposition was +ev. The fact that you have already done it once cannot matter to whether doing it now makes sense. So, while I can't quite wrap my brain around it, I'm in the -ev camp on this one.

Let's imagine that the rebate on losses is 90%. This suddenly seems like a fantastic deal. Is it? I can easily imagine people bankrupting themselves trying martingales on this.

Anyway, I'm curious to see the definitive math on this.

One other consideration here is that Total Bet has a monthy casino bonus: I forget what the wagering req is, but if nothing else, this deal should increase the ev of clearing that bonus.

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
This problem is a tricky one. "Bet it all at once and it's +ev" was the first thing that occurred to me too. Ok, say you bet $100 and lose. If you really think the proposition is +ev, nothing has changed. You still have exactly the same proposition. Why not make another bet if that proposition was +ev. The fact that you have already done it once cannot matter to whether doing it now makes sense. So, while I can't quite wrap my brain around it, I'm in the -ev camp on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason you can't keep making bets is because the refund if for the net result of all of your play. You don't get to play one hand, get a 10% refund, then play another. You don't get the refund on a per-hand basis, but only at the end of the qualifying period of time.

Back to your example, say you lost a hand, and decide to do it again, and now win a hand, you LOSE that 10% rebate that you were lined up to receive after the first hand, since you are not at a net loss now.

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So despite all your protest to the contrary, a 10% rebate is a +EV offer.


[/ QUOTE ]

And despite all your calculations the only thing I can agree with is that getting 10% of your losses back makes it less -EV but never +EV. After all if you end up losing money on your session you still lost. How can losing ever be +EV without a jackpot?

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

So I offer to flip a coin with you, and if you lose you pay me $95, and if you win, I'll pay you $100. If you lose, you lost $95. Does that mean it wasn't a +EV situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your example bears no comparison to the 10% rebate on your losses offer. What would be close though still not the same is this: We must each pay the house 50 cents everytime we flip the coins. If we flip a coin 100 times for $100 per flip and then stop our session if I am behind, let us say 4 flips, which would equal $400 in losses you will give me back $40 and I will have $410 less than when I started. If I am ahead suppose the same number of flips I just keep the $400 I already won minus the $50 in commissions so I have $350 more than when I started.

The house will have a 1% edge everytime we flip the coins. All my example does is to take out the variance in BJ but the 1% HA stays similar to BJ.

An even better example is that you are flipping the coins with the house paying a 1% commission for every flip. If after 100 flips you won 50 and lost 50 you would be even except for the HA of 1%. You will have $100 less than when you started so the house gives you back 10% of your commission after the session ends. You have a net loss of $90 instead of $100 but you still lost. Now suppose you won 51 flips and only lost 49 flips. In this case you win $200 in flips but still paid $100 in commissions with no rebate since you won the session.

Jimbo

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Back to your example, say you lost a hand, and decide to do it again, and now win a hand, you LOSE that 10% rebate that you were lined up to receive after the first hand, since you are not at a net loss now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, that's the missing piece of the puzzle. So, maybe the way to play this is to organize a consortium: decide how much to risk and then all players in the group make a single wager of equal value on their accounts and then lump the results and share the profits. This removes the penalty for winning bets after losing ones.

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So despite all your protest to the contrary, a 10% rebate is a +EV offer.


[/ QUOTE ]

And despite all your calculations the only thing I can agree with is that getting 10% of your losses back makes it less -EV but never +EV. After all if you end up losing money on your session you still lost. How can losing ever be +EV without a jackpot?

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG...you must be kidding me. Nobody can have >3000 posts here and be this ignorant...so I am going to assume you are just a worthless troll and ignore you going forward...

Acme

[/ QUOTE ]

Very nice, you cannot refute my logical argument so you resort to name calling. I expected better but alas I am often disappointed.

Godd luck getting rich on your new +EV blackjack system. May I have an autographed copy of your book after it goes to print?


Jimbo

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So despite all your protest to the contrary, a 10% rebate is a +EV offer.


[/ QUOTE ]

And despite all your calculations the only thing I can agree with is that getting 10% of your losses back makes it less -EV but never +EV. After all if you end up losing money on your session you still lost. How can losing ever be +EV without a jackpot?

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG...you must be kidding me. Nobody can have >3000 posts here and be this ignorant...so I am going to assume you are just a worthless troll and ignore you going forward...

Acme

[/ QUOTE ]

Very nice, you cannot refute my logical argument so you resort to name calling. I expected better but alas I am often disappointed.

Godd luck getting rich on your new +EV blackjack system. May I have an autographed copy of your book after it goes to print?


Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

When you present a logical argument, I will refute it. Until then, I will continue to assume you are a troll.

All you have said is that losing cannot be +EV. I have presented the way it is +EV, but all you say (over and over ad nauseum) is that if you lose, you only get back 10% of your bet, so it cannot be +EV.

If you will not accept the math, you are either ignorant or a troll...and thus, I will not waste another second on you...

Acme

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Back to your example, say you lost a hand, and decide to do it again, and now win a hand, you LOSE that 10% rebate that you were lined up to receive after the first hand, since you are not at a net loss now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, that's the missing piece of the puzzle. So, maybe the way to play this is to organize a consortium: decide how much to risk and then all players in the group make a single wager of equal value on their accounts and then lump the results and share the profits. This removes the penalty for winning bets after losing ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, you have it...but you can do this as an individual by doing it over numerous such offers. Say you know of several casinos that offer such a deal every month. ..you can split your bankroll into bets that you can stomach losing and then run the bonus at each site month after month. Since each bet is +EV overall, you are likely to end up with more money than you start with.

Naturally, there is no guarantee -- just as you can bust a dozen stickies in a row, you can bust one a dozen (or more) rebate offers in a row. But that does not change the fact that the long-term result of this offer is +EV.

Contrary to another poster's thinking, the fact that you CAN lose money does not mean the deal is -EV.

From the casino's perspective, the only real way for this to hurt them is if a large number of people play these as 1-bet bonuses. They are counting on people making many bets and, thus, ensuring that the rebate simply reduces their overall advantage. And they are ok with reducing their HA some if it significantly increases the action.

Acme

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you will not accept the math....

[/ QUOTE ]

How you cannot understand that your math is flawed is beyond me. What is so hard to understand about the refund? You are becoming quite stubborn and displaying it and your ignorance for all to see.

Jimbo

Re: 10% refund question
 

Yawn...

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
48.825% of the time you double up; 51.175% of the time, you end up with 10% of your bet. The EV is +$2.76.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually you will win 43.31% of the time, you'll tie 8.8% of the time and lose 47.89% of the time. Now do you see why you are mistaken and how you made your math error? These percentages still allow for blackjack, doubling and splitting. So in your single hand scenario for your max bet the odds are even worse.


It should be aparrent (even to you) why the 10% rebate on your total session losses (yes even a session consisting of one hand) is -EV.


Jimbo

Re: 10% refund question
 

And despite all your calculations the only thing I can agree with is that getting 10% of your losses back makes it less -EV but never +EV. After all if you end up losing money on your session you still lost. How can losing ever be +EV without a jackpot?

Jimbo
__

Hi, I just stumbled upon this thread....

Consider the casino giving you back 100% of your losses. You play 100 hands. That is clearly +EV right? Consider normally, where the casino gives you back 0% of your losses. You play 100 hands. That is clearly -EV. So there must be a magical percentage for our example, 100 hands, that is the crossover between + and - EV. I haven't thought about any of the math, but I don't know how you can be sure where 10% stands with regards to that magical #, especially since you don't even have the number of hands we are playing.

Re: 10% refund question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
48.825% of the time you double up; 51.175% of the time, you end up with 10% of your bet. The EV is +$2.76.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually you will win 43.31% of the time, you'll tie 8.8% of the time and lose 47.89% of the time. Now do you see why you are mistaken and how you made your math error? These percentages still allow for blackjack, doubling and splitting. So in your single hand scenario for your max bet the odds are even worse.


It should be aparrent (even to you) why the 10% rebate on your total session losses (yes even a session consisting of one hand) is -EV.


Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, assuming your numbers are correct, and that they somehow encompass doubling / splitting / getting a blackjack (I don't see how they could, but whatever), if we bet $100 we would get $200 back 43.31% of the time, $100 back 8.8% of the time, and $10 back 47.89% of the time.

(.4331 * 200) + (.088 * 100) + (.4789 * 10) = 100.199

This is still +EV, and doesn't account for blackjack payouts or doubles, etc.

Re: 10% refund question
 

Yoshi,

When I play craps or blackjack in a Vegas Casino I get back 40% of my projected losses in comps. Yet that doesn't make the casino table games +EV. So to answer your question as to where the percentage lays I know it must be greater than 40%. Right? Keep in mind I get that whether I win or lose.

Re: 10% refund question
 

I ignore Jimbo, but another person's text has his text in it...and it is a reply to one of my posts...so I guess I should acknowledge it... While this falls as a reply to another poster, it is really a reply to Jimbo.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
48.825% of the time you double up; 51.175% of the time, you end up with 10% of your bet. The EV is +$2.76.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually you will win 43.31% of the time, you'll tie 8.8% of the time and lose 47.89% of the time. Now do you see why you are mistaken and how you made your math error? These percentages still allow for blackjack, doubling and splitting. So in your single hand scenario for your max bet the odds are even worse.


It should be aparrent (even to you) why the 10% rebate on your total session losses (yes even a session consisting of one hand) is -EV.


Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]


I'll accept your numbers. But they do not get worse for the no double/split possibility. In fact, the win/loss rate actually IMPROVES if you never double. (Since you can take a second card when you double against a high card and get an A, your chances of winning improve by not doubling; but your EV suffers because you are not getting extra money out there when you are better than 50/50 to win.)

So, we will accept your numbers and say you can never double or split AND you only get paid even money on a blackjack...and it STILL comes out slightly +EV! (This has already been shown, so I will not bother showing it again.)

Add in the (correct) 3:2 payout on blackjacks and the bonus becomes even better. Approximately 4.7% of the time, you will be dealt a blackjack. In approximately 4.7% of *those* cases, the dealer will also have BJ and you push (this is included in the 8.8% of the time you mention as being pushes).

So adjusting your numbers to allow the 3:2 payoff on BJ, you get something very close to:

4.47% of the time you win 3:2
38.84% of the time you win even money
8.8% of the time you push
47.89% of the time you lose

Adding in the payouts...on a $100 bet with no doubles/splits:
4.47% of the time you end up with $250
38.84% of the time you end up with $200
8.8% of the time you end up with $100 (and can start over)
47.89% of the time you end up with $10

Doing the math, the EV comes to $2.44. So the offer is clearly +EV. And if allow yourself to split and/or double, your EV will climb a bit higher than this. (Also notice that the degree to which it is +EV is close to my earlier rough calculation of $2.76.)

Somehow I expect you will continue to claim you are correct...after all, there is no reason to let the math get in your way!

Acme