Even Money Roulette vs Blackjack

[N0vocane]

If your going to play a even money system in roulette IE - Red/Black why not just use it at blackjack instead? Would you not have better odds because of the 0 in roulette?

[Proofreaders2000]

From what I understand, Blackjack and American Roulette have similar odds.

[mr.ore]

You cannot use that, because in blackjack there is a basic strategy which determines what should you do in order to minimize house edge. If you followed a system and increased a bet, you might be sometimes forced to double or even split several times, and so you can end up betting say 3 more times higher. For that you might need several times bigger bankroll. If you don't split or double when needed by basic strategy, you increase house advantage.

Another reason - probability of winning is not roughly 50:50, but you lose more often than win, but blackjacks are paid at 3:2, instead of 1:1, and the house edge is lower if played correctly (btw never play 6:5 blackjack). You can never know, at which payout you win, and so you rather should not use money management from roulette. Maybe "six point divisor" could be adapted somehow, it can handle different payouts, and even unexpected bets can be added to it, but I am not sure how it would work.

EC roulette systems can be used in baccarat or craps, but even there would be needed some changes to fit better for them. It seems better to create a new system for these games, and use bets what they offer, and combine them in a good way. Those two games also allows for following "patterns" if you believe in those...

It might be interesting to combine all these casino games together, and create a system which can switch from one to another...

[N0vocane]

You obviously would not split or double, just hit and stand. But you get better odds at blackjack than american roulette on even bets. Even money betting system on roulette is just betting W/L, which is no different than W/L on blackjack or craps for that matter.

[mr.ore]

I am not an expert on blackjack, but what would be a house edge if you played like that, and how would look the basic strategy table with only "hit/stand"? By the way, why would anyone sane willingly decreased his chances of winning by not playing basic strategy? If you can have better house edge, right?

Would not it be better to know probability p that you will reach some certain target and as you lose, increase the bet size so that p remains roughly constant? Not increasing = taking progression in risk, increasing = taking progression in bet. There could be some optimal ratio among those two options, maybe...

[mr.ore]

By the way, you DON'T get better odds at blackjack until you play basic strategy, according to Wizard of Odds, you if play bad, the result is like this:


Taken from Wizard's page:

Bad Strategies

Three popular bad strategies encountered at the blackjack table are: never bust, mimic the dealer, and always assume the dealer has a ten in the hole. All three are very bad strategies. Following are my specific comments on each of them, including the house edge under Atlantic City rules (dealer stands on soft 17, split up to 4 hands, double after split, double any two cards) of 0.43%.

Never bust: For my analysis of this strategy I assumed the player would never hit a hard 12 or more. All other decisions were according to correct basic strategy. This "never bust" strategy results in a house edge of 3.91%.

Mimic the dealer: For my analysis of this strategy I assumed the player would always hit 16 or less and stand on 17 or more, including a soft 17. The player never doubled or split, since the dealer is not allowed to do so. This "mimic the dealer" strategy results in a house edge of 5.48%.

Assume a ten in the hole: For this strategy I first figured out the optimal basic strategy under this assumption. If the dealer had an ace up, then I reverted to proper basic strategy, because the dealer would have peeked for blackjack, making a 10 impossible. This "assume a ten" strategy results in a house edge of 10.03%.

With wrong strategy, your odds are much worse than those in roulette...

[mr.ore]

Found on Wizard's site: probabilities for blackjack basic strategy:

Net Win when Hitting, Standing, or Surrendering First Action
Net win    Total             Probability            Return

1.5       77147473      0.05144768      0.07717152
1          537410636    0.35838544      0.35838544
0         127597398     0.08509145      0
-0.5      76163623      0.05079158     -0.02539579
-1         681213441    0.45428386     -0.45428386

Total       1499532571    1                   -0.04412269

So blackjack is a little different game, you win only 40.9% of time, but lose 50.5% of time. Ties can be considered nonexistent...

This is not EC at all.

[mr.ore]

Since I'm not an expert at blackjack, I will assume this simplified model of blackjack:

Each hand we bet 2 units.

If bet 2 units:

p(win +3u) = 0.05144768
p(win +2u) = 0.35838544
p(win  0u) = 0.08509145
p(win -1u) = 0.05079158
p(win -2u) = 0.45428386

Minimal bet is 2 units.

This can be simply simulated with rng in order to test some systems...

... or Markov decision tree with fixed starting bankroll and fixed target created.

by the way I don't like min bet 2 units, it creates a possibility that player does not lose all or reach target, but I want it all to be integer values.

[ADulay]

Or you could just do it correctly and skip blackjack all together and play the much simpler (and zero decision making) baccarat.

No thinking other than "what do I bet on"?

Play it like red/black, odd/even, high/low and there is no bet where both sides lose (like the zero!)

Much less house vig than blackjack or roulette.

And unlike craps, you get to sit down!

If you're looking for a card game, stay away from blackjack for now, especially with the CSM, mid-deck reshuffles, short decks and now the HORRIBLE 6-5 payoff at a lot of places.

AD

[N0vocane]

Thanks for posting that info man, I always thought it was EC or +/- 1%.

I'll look into baccarat, believe it or not I don't know how to even play the game. I'll take some lessons online lol. Thanks guys

[mr.ore]

Well, what I wrote above is NOT TRUE, I misunderstood the tables, and when I now programmed that, it does not work. I will delete it. But yes - just play baccarat or craps if you want another game than roulette with ECs.

[mr.ore]

I should have rather used this table, that should be close to blackjack:

Summarized Net Win in Blackjack
Event    Avg. win              Total      Probability    Return
Net win    1.210803      723135088    0.424249    0.513682
Net push           0        144520347    0.084787    0
Net loss    -1.052208     836851985    0.490964    -0.516596
Total                           1704507420    1    -0.002915

But still not good for perfect simulation of blackjack, in the long term it should work same though...

[frost]

you know ive always wondered why roulette players dont just play baccarat.

[mr.ore]

If you play insides, you can sometimes get better "odds" than with baccarat by not exposing all your bankroll to house edge. That is an illusion of course, because house edge will "eat" from every bet you really make just as expected. But comparing roulette ECs with bac, then bac is just better.

[ADulay]

you know ive always wondered why roulette players dont just play baccarat.

I've wondered that also, especially if the player is an EC kind of guy!

Just think about being able to eliminate the zero on the roulette wheel!

It's one of the reasons I switched several years ago.

As to learning the game?   About half of the casual players at baccarat actually fully understand the "rules" of the game as it is played.   Most casual players just bet it like any other EC game.   Pick a side, bet it.  Pray.

If you actually wind up playing it a lot, you'll soon have the rules for the dealer branded into your brain, especially the infamous "667" rule.

The game itself is about as simple as a game can be for the bettor.

AD