Games with 'par' odds

**james01** · 27th May 2008, 08:10 PM

Bottom line is that it only works to your advantage if you know when to stop.

You can still lose your shirt even playing with no house edge.

**bryand** · 27th May 2008, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by james01

Bottom line is that it only works to your advantage if you know when to stop.

You can still lose your shirt even playing with no house edge.

I'm missing something in my understanding of how payout percentages are computed. Is it not possible for 1 million people to play at a 100% payout game yet all 1 million lose (i.e. quit when they're behind)? Or, over the life of a 95% payout slot machine, is 95% of the take actually paid out (in hand) to players?

**Jufo** · 28th May 2008, 05:35 AM

I don't have positive things to say about Betfair Zero blackjack. I have never lost so much on any blackjack as I have lost in this zero blackjack, even though I have played this game much less than any other blackjack with a house edge.

In the last session I had only 78% return over 400 hands played and statistically the probability for such or worse result is around 1:10000. It would be interesting to know how much Betfair actually profits from this game.

Also, I don't like the way to make Blackjack games no-house edge by giving a bonus payout for some rare hand. A real no-house edge Blackjack has such rules that the game pays out 100% naturally. And there used to be such a game: Boss Media single deck blackjack with 100.15% return. Unfortunately this 0.15% player edge was enough for players to start hammering this game for profit and eventually no Boss Media casinos could afford to offer it anymore.

Originally Posted by bryand

I'm missing something in my understanding of how payout percentages are computed. Is it not possible for 1 million people to play at a 100% payout game yet all 1 million lose (i.e. quit when they're behind)? Or, over the life of a 95% payout slot machine, is 95% of the take actually paid out (in hand) to players?

If the game pays out 100% then it pays out 100% independent of whether most people lose. Because those who don't lose, win the same amount the other lost. So I don't think it is possible for a 100% return game to give casino any profit even if most players continue to play until they lose it all. That is why casinos should show the figures they have made from these zero house edge games. If they show any profit over long period of time, then the game can't be completely random and 0% house edge, period.
In case of Blackjack, incorrect playing strategies can explain a small net profit for the casino.

**happygobrokey** · 28th May 2008, 07:00 AM

i think kk mentioned already, that the casino has infinite bank and can play against you forever. they will always take the other side of your bet all day long. they can afford to keep putting their money against yours until you're broke.

although their game pays 100%, there is going to come a time during play where you are down enough units that you have to stop. the casino affords to keep you around until this time (hoping you aren't one of those types to leave with a modest win should you happen to get the better of variance).

the game won't pay each player always 100%. it pays a player over his lifetime roughly 100%, and pays all players generally at 100%. and you're just as likely to get "freak hands" as to be continually getting sequential winning streaks, ie is it easier to win two hands in a row at even money than it is to get dealt a suited bj? finally, i also remember aka23 saying one of the games does truly result with optimum strategy in a slight house DIS-advantage.

ok, one more thing, on a feelings level, i do agree 5-card-21-on-the-nose is lame, but suited bj and 5-cards-under in other games are fun to have in play, especially when they pay 2:1. those rules still give you more return. if they come less often than average, you won't benefit, but if they appear any more frequently than they should, then you clean up!

it's all about how you feel playing the game. i love pontoon! it has about .35% house edge, but natural bj's (and usually split cards creating 21's) pay 2:1, and 5-card-tricks 2:1, double any time and draw after double, the strat table's easy to learn. the catch is that dealer wins ties, shows no upcard and you must hit to 15+ every time. way fun though and easily when you catch a good streak you can be up 10-15 bets in one-two minutes. you can also bust 10 bets without a winning hand, but that's the risk you take. so sweet though when you have a 4-card soft total double/hit and rake in the cash, barring a dealer 5-carder. love it!

**SlotsWizard** · 28th May 2008, 07:25 AM

Another thing working in the casino's favor is the horrendously slow gameplay, at least in demo mode (my country cannot sign up at BetVoyager). I can't be sure if the regular and/or real money games play that slow, but if so, it would take a very long time to grind out a profit on their Jacks or Better (0.0051% player advantage) or Joker Poker (0.0169% player advantage) video poker games.

**happygobrokey** · 28th May 2008, 07:41 AM

maybe you could multitable somehow? heheh

**Jufo** · 28th May 2008, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by happygobrokey

i think kk mentioned already, that the casino has infinite bank and can play against you forever. they will always take the other side of your bet all day long. they can afford to keep putting their money against yours until you're broke.

Yep, it is true for single player that going broke is the most likely outcome, if the target when you stop playing is high. But it still stands that for every 10 losing players there is one player who wins 10 times their deposit in a game with 100% return. No-house-edge games are easy to analyze: If you put 100$ in such a game, then there is exactly 10% chance that you will walk away with 1000$ and 90% chance that you lose your 100$. The casino cannot make any profit out of no-house edge games since the game returns all stakes back across ALL players in the long run.

you're just as likely to get "freak hands" as to be continually getting sequential winning streaks, ie is it easier to win two hands in a row at even money than it is to get dealt a suited bj?

The probability to win a hand in BJ is around 43.6% (depending on rules) so two wins in a row is 0.436^2 = 19%. I think the probability for suited bj is only about 1.1% (4.5% of all hands are blackjacks and roughly 1/4 of them are suited).

it's all about how you feel playing the game. i love pontoon! it has about .35% house edge, but natural bj's (and usually split cards creating 21's) pay 2:1, and 5-card-tricks 2:1, double any time and draw after double, the strat table's easy to learn. the catch is that dealer wins ties, shows no upcard and you must hit to 15+ every time. way fun though and easily when you catch a good streak you can be up 10-15 bets in one-two minutes. you can also bust 10 bets without a winning hand, but that's the risk you take. so sweet though when you have a 4-card soft total double/hit and rake in the cash, barring a dealer 5-carder. love it!

Yes Pontoon is much more fun to play than Blackjack (they say that Pontoon is an early version of blackjack).
My best Pontoon hand: http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...tml#post212624

**happygobrokey** · 28th May 2008, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Jufo

The probability to win a hand in BJ is around 43.6% (depending on rules) so two wins in a row is 0.436^2 = 19%. I think the probability for suited bj is only about 1.1% (4.5% of all hands are blackjacks and roughly 1/4 of them are suited).

i'll concede the maths on that, but i was going for you get random cards every time so the freak hands will come when they come, with more or less than the mean frequency over a short time, just as the play outside these freak hands will be fair too, so it's still worth your while.

nice screenie

**bryand** · 28th May 2008, 03:46 PM

If the game pays out 100% then it pays out 100% independent of whether most people lose. Because those who don't lose, win the same amount the other lost. So I don't think it is possible for a 100% return game to give casino any profit even if most players continue to play until they lose it all. That is why casinos should show the figures they have made from these zero house edge games. If they show any profit over long period of time, then the game can't be completely random and 0% house edge, period.
In case of Blackjack, incorrect playing strategies can explain a small net profit for the casino.

This implies that if, for example 1 million BJ players deposit and play at 100% payout, at least 1 player cannot ever lose. Somehow there is a net difference between credits won and cash paid out in hand. I'm just not bright enough to figure it out.

**Jufo** · 28th May 2008, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by bryand

This implies that if, for example 1 million BJ players deposit and play at 100% payout, at least 1 player cannot ever lose. Somehow there is a net difference between credits won and cash paid out in hand. I'm just not bright enough to figure it out.

If 1 million BJ players play until they lose or win 1 million times their deposit, then on average one of them succeeds and all others fail. But I would think that most players withdraw before reaching a balance of one million times their deposit