“The dealer must continue to take cards until the total is 17 or more, at which point the dealer must stand”.
It seem too risk for the dealer, am I wrong?
In: 5
Also, don’t they take the $’s from all losing hands and only pay against what the winner wins?
1-on-1 would be less profitable for the house.
The dealer wins ties, so if both sides use the same algorithm the dealer wins 51% of games instead of 50%. The dealer is already using the best algorithm for a player with no deck knowledge, so he can’t be beaten “fairly” – however he can be beaten by someone that has deck knowledge (e.g. card counting) because that margin is so slim.
The main sources of the advantage are the rules about how busting is handled. If the player busts, they automatically lose, it doesn’t matter if the dealer busts on the same hand (any other tie result would just be a “push”). The other advantage would come from the payout structure. For example, players recommend only playing at blackjack tables with 3:2 blackjack payout. Some tables offer 6:5 payout, which is less than 3:2 .
the dealer plays **last**.
this doesnt seem huge till you notice that this position give them the choice ot respond to the other players that made their play without this knowledge.
result: evne if both the player and the dealer bust, the players went bust 1st, meaning the dealer is the last player standing when their turn comes.
Something unmentioned is that casinos always attack the deck in their favor – figuratively, not literally. They play the odds. The first is there for a quick win, the casino is there for the long haul, so if the casino even has 55% chance of winning, they won’t win every time, but more often then not, they’re going to take a profit.
In games that require skill or where “odds” can’t really be played, the casino has an automatic pull – a rake, I think it’s called.
The casino doesn’t need to actually cheat. They will statistically always make more money as long as they can keep people in the casino.
These odds are also how they catch cheaters. If the odds of the house winning is 65% and you stay consistently above them, they’re going to pay very close attention to you. They won’t beat the fuck out of you anymore; they’re much smarter. They’re going to see if they can figure out how you’re cheating. If they can’t, they will literally pay you to teach them so they can determine the next course of action on addressing the problem.
If you both bust the dealer still wins.
It’s like rock paper scissor but you lose on the tie.
It’s because the player plays first.
Lets imagine a player who plays with the exact same rules that a dealer does (when to hit, when to pass, ect). Lets create a situation where the dealer and player get basically the same cards.
Dealer deals K and 7 to the player. Dealer deals Q and 7 to dealer. (both have 17)
Player plays first, knows they have a 17 so they hit. Get a J, so bust.
The game is now over, the dealer does not draw a card, player has lost and dealer has won.
Honestly just look at the odds, if the dealer and the player play perfect hands ie take a card or not the dealer is very slightly ahead.
The dealer will play all night following these rules, the player may try get lucky and try for a good card against the odds and loose.
When both the player and the dealer busts the house take the money. So even though the score is the same the house end up with the cash. That gives them the advantage.
That about the optimal strategy given no knowledge of the deck. If you were to “hit” on 17, you have the options of getting ace-4 and not busting. 5/13 cards is less than a 40% chance of not busting. It is too risky to hit, it’s less risky to stay.
Because the players play first, the dealer wins every time the players bust, while the players always have to be lucky to win (excluding card counting).
Plus, giving the dealer express instructions for every value they have keeps the dealer from being an unknown variable.
Latest Answers