Alert Player Sounds the Alarm
April 10, 2009
Dear Mark: I just
finished reading your most recent column. You
mentioned that it's best for a player to play at
a casino with liberal rules, but the number one
thing you failed to mention to your readers is
to play at tables that pay 3-2 on a blackjack,
and not to play any table that pays 6-5 or less.
I think it's really important for you to convey
this message to your audience to STAY AWAY from
those RIP-OFF blackjack tables that pay 6-5.
Jeffrey N.
I've adverted to, admonished, averred, attacked,
antagonized, and all-but-wept about the pitfalls
of getting paid 6:5 for a blackjack multiple
times, but perhaps you’re right, Jeffrey, some
more ‘splainin’ about that rotten rule change is
warranted.
On a conventional blackjack game, a blackjack
typically pays 3:2. Say you bet $10 and get a
natural, you’d be paid $15. However, these new
6:5 games pay only $12 for a $10 wager. Tweaking
this one rule dramatically increases the house
advantage—big time!
Without the 6 to 5 rule, the house edge is
typically a half of one percent against a basic
strategy player. Add a 6-5 rule on blackjacks
and the cost to a smart player zooms an extra
1.39%.
So in dollars and cents, what’s the difference
between the two? For a $10 player using perfect
basic strategy at 60 hands per hour, the
expected loss is $3 per hour. The expected loss
for the same player on a 6:5 game is an
additional $8.35. Oh, and once all casinos start
to utilize the 6:5 rule for a blackjack, all
bets are off as to ever seeing a blackjack
paying 3:2 again. It will be tough noogies for
all.
'Caveat emptor' - 'let the buyer beware,’
Jeffrey’s question advises. He’s right. Don't
waste your hard-earned money on any blackjack
game that pays less than 3:2 for a blackjack.
You're buying a pig in a poke with a pretty pink
ribbon attached if you do …well, not
all that pretty.
Dear Mark: My friend, Ed, will never,
ever, split aces, especially against a dealer
ace. What is the best strategy? Rick G.
What’s important here, Rick, is to
determine when to take advantage of the
splitting rule. Even against a dealer Ace,
splitting a pair of aces is a no-brainer in that
without splitting them, all you have is a two or
soft 12.
So being that there are more 10-value cards than
any other card in the deck, why then, would
anybody not split a pair of Aces?
I’m guessing your friend might be somewhat hot
and bothered by the fact that a split ace and a
10 counts as an ordinary 21, paying 1:1, and not
as a blackjack, which pays 3:2. He may feel
cheated by that, and decide, in view of the
limitation, not to bother splitting them.
Then there is the rule that says a split ace may
receive only one additional card. There are
blackjack players who believe that this rule
limits their opportunity for additional cards,
so they, too, refrain from splitting.
The bottom line is that if you put all emotions
aside and focus solely on the blackjack odds and
probabilities, you are better off with a hand of
11 than a hand of 12. Splitting aces gives you
two hands of 11, and the correct blackjack
strategy is, therefore, always to split them.
Gambling Wisdom of the Week: “A
poker player is like a teabag. You don’t know
what they’re made of until you put them in hot
water.” --VP Pappy
|
