Blackjack statistics

There is some variation in the blackjack statistics found on the web and in the various books published on the subject. Part of this is certainly due to the variations in the rules and number of decks used, but it seems that there should be agreement on the flat basics of the game, and on the details upon which the statistic is based.

The calculation of house edge is a case in point. In many cases, the particular discussion neglects to mention the number of decks used for the result, in other instances, the author will mention the decks, but omit as to whether splitting is to 2 or 3 or 4 hands total, or whether the figure was arrived at independently, or copied from others, or based on a simulation or on probability calculations.

I know that the differences between �about -.5%� and �-.4408%� and �-.48%� may be of interest only to those of us with an obsession for this kind of detail and may be a source of eye rolling among most, but I am hooked on finding that answer, and also the answer to a hard standard deviation figure.

I am running my own blackjack simulation program, using the Generic Basic Strategy published by Stanford Wong in Basic Blackjack, on page 30, with the adjustments for �double allowed after split� shown on page 31.

My simulation uses 8 decks, dealer stands on soft 17, double on any 2 cards, aces split once, other splits allowed to re-split up to 3 hands, naturals pay 1.5 to 1 and no one wins tie hands.

The house edge calculation is based upon the initial bet (1 unit), and that initial bet constitutes 1 hand, regardless of whether the player subsequently splits or doubles, or both.

My simulation program is presently at 400,000,000 hands and shows a house edge of .4804% (-.4804 % for the player), playing 1 on 1 with the dealer, and a standard deviation of 1.1494. I do not know how many hands I have to run in order for the 4 digit house edge result to lock in, but it looks like at least twice as many as I have now.

Of course, there can be errors in my program, so I would welcome any input on these topics.

I like the structure of your post. Clearly written in SHORT paragraphs. Well punctuated.

Let this be an example to all.

Most questions that looks like a CLUMP remains unread by me.

But you know, house edge varies with different spreads and even penetration due to the cut card effect.

As more cards are dealt out, there is a tendency for less rounds with 10's, 9's etc.

Hope this help ya,

NA

My request comes late in the post. I am asking for any input regarding the statistics I have generated.

Perhaps this will help. The accuracy is as good as it gets. But, here's the problem: you need to resplit to a total of four hands; three is a strange number. Also, your "generic" BS may not be "perfect." Finally, by definition, BS involves a shuffle after every round. If you deal to a cut-card, your value will be more negative than the "standard" values.

Don

(8D, S17, DOA, DAS, RSA=0, RSP=4)
Ev = -0.429881%

Don and others...thanks for your replies. I have been running the simulation to a 75% penetration, and I see now that that will affect my results. Much appreciation.

... simply by playing a fixed number of rounds per shoe. With 8 decks, one player, you could certainly play 55 rounds per shoe and keep a very, very low probability of running out of cards. This should give exactly the same results as shuffling after every round.

I would expect the generic strategy to have an effect on the order of 0.01% for 8 decks. Most of that comes from the "total dependant" nature of the generic strategy. Figures published by eg. Griffin and Cacarulo are usually based on perfect "composition dependant" play.

ETF

"Finally, by definition, BS involves a shuffle after every round. If you deal to a cut-card, your value will be more negative than the "standard" values."

If you deal through a deck, rather than shuffle after every hand, the BS EV is more negative? How does dealing to a specific point alter things?

for mention of the "cut-card" effect, which has been discussed on these and other pages many, many times. Perhaps it is in the Glossary, to the left.

Don

P. 173 mentions it ("the dreaded CC effect"), and the glossary on the left gives a brief description - is more detailed information available somewhere? It seems that this would provide enlightenment as to why CSMs favour the basic strategist - something I'm also in the dark about.