“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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Latest Answers