Casino gambling fall in here!!!

[aurvandil]

Now my question will be how is the 0.06% derived? :o

If you read the article in wizard of odds, the house edge if you use Simplified Basic on standard blackjack rules is 0.94%. This means for every $100 you bet, you can expect to lose $0.94.

If you buy junket nn chips, they will usually give you 1%. This means for every $100 you buy, you get $101.

Hence if you play perfect Simplified Basic using nn chips, you earn $0.06 for every $100 you bet.

 

[aurvandil]

I never mention that playing 1000hands and formulating a strategy out of it. I only said playing 1000hands with perfect basic strategy and recording the results and the order of the cards that come out of it. :o:p If you are having difficulty winning after that 1000hands, you will not win even if you simulate a million hands.

The house edge if you play PERFECT BASIC with standard BJ rules 0.80%. Hence unless you supplement it with something else (e.g. nn chips), you will never win even if you play millions of hands.

Using the same logic as before, you earn $0.20 per $100 you bet if you use play PERFECT BASIC (full 250 cell table) using junket nn chips. Your positive expection is higher but you also have to put in more work to memorise those 250 cells as compared to 21 cells for PERFECT SIMPLIFIED BASIC.

For those interested to know more about junket nn chips, check out this website

http://www.soonsoon.com/index.php?page=services

It is for a junket operator to Long Jie.


Also using the logic above, you will never know if that system you read about in a gambling book is actually working unless you are able to write a simulation yourself. If you go to the casino, play for 2 hours and win, it could just be luck. That's actually the scam behind many of these books as it is beyond the ability of most people to do empirical work to statistically verify whether it actually works. I suppose if you had the knowledge to do the verification, you would probably not be buying the book. This leaves a segmented market of those who do not have the skill and have to rely on faith that the writer is not just out to make a fast buck.

 

[silverfox@]

If you read the article in wizard of odds, the house edge if you use Simplified Basic on standard blackjack rules is 0.94%. This means for every $100 you bet, you can expect to lose $0.94.

If you buy junket nn chips, they will usually give you 1%. This means for every $100 you buy, you get $101.

Hence if you play perfect Simplified Basic using nn chips, you earn $0.06 for every $100 you bet.

If you read back what I have posted so far, when I mention dealer has an ACE, the probability of them getting blackjack is 16/52 which relates to 30.76%.

The part where you said junket chips is 1%, this one is buy $100 get $101. understandable.

The part where you said simplified basic strategy on standard blackjack rules is 0.94% which comes up a question now how is this 0.94% being derived?

And if its 0.94%, then every $100 betted using nn chips will get returns of $0.06 cents if using simplified basic.

But I am always curious why is it percentages listed by sites and other authors, no one actually think how is it derived like for this instance this 0.94%.
When we present stats, probabilities, and we as readers must read and understand how such stats logic are derived and not take it out of context that if its that percentage we take it as it is.

And of course percentages eventually are just numbers. the common player will still need to get his ass off the computer chair and step into the casino to play.

 

[silverfox@]

Also using the logic above, you will never know if that system you read about in a gambling book is actually working unless you are able to write a simulation yourself. If you go to the casino, play for 2 hours and win, it could just be luck. That's actually the scam behind many of these books as it is beyond the ability of most people to do empirical work to statistically verify whether it actually works. I suppose if you had the knowledge to do the verification, you would probably not be buying the book. This leaves a segmented market of those who do not have the skill and have to rely on faith that the writer is not just out to make a fast buck.

It is your due diligence to verify the percentages if one believe the percentages are real and factual. That is why I am very curious when all the percentages are being presented across the board here, why are there no calculations to show how it is derived?

If there is no knowledge to do verification, what makes you think the stats presented are factual among the many articles you quoted?

 

[aurvandil]

If you read back what I have posted so far, when I mention dealer has an ACE, the probability of them getting blackjack is 16/52 which relates to 30.76%.

You seem to be only considering the scenario where you get two 21's and the dealer beats you with a blackjack. What about the other scenarios where

1) you draw a 10 -> 12 vs dealer's ace. You draw 1 more card and then bust before the dealer does anything.
2) you draw a 6,7 -> 15 vs dealer's ace. You draw 1 more card and bust before the dealer does anything.

You faith in the strategy of not splitting Ace's is very strong. It will take a string of sucessive failures to shake this faith.

The large number of scenarios in blackjack make it next to impossible to use conditional probability techniques to analyse the outcomes. You would need to use Monte Carlo simulation where you program in the rules to run the simulation to derive numbers like 0.94% for the house edge.

But I am always curious why is it percentages listed by sites and other authors, no one actually think how is it derived like for this instance this 0.94%.
When we present stats, probabilities, and we as readers must read and understand how such stats logic are derived and not take it out of context that if its that percentage we take it as it is.

And of course percentages eventually are just numbers. the common player will still need to get his ass off the computer chair and step into the casino to play.

Some results (e.g. standard blackjack rules with prob 0.80) are very well documented as there are peer reviewed academic journals (i.e. 1 professor writes it and another professor independently checks to confirm the result is accurate).

For more obscure results (e.g. edge for Simplified Blackjack), you have to rely on the person who published it. If you don't believe him, then you of course write your own simulation to confirm his results. The wizard of odds site is one of the more credile gambling stats sites but he does occasionally mistakes. When these are spotted by others, he usually posts the correction up.

 

[Steve111]

So far, my understanding of your posts only chose to depict paper talk. You keep talking about probability and paper statistics but no real life examples to depict situations.

What I am giving is an example of the situation of player having 2As and dealer has an ACE. The end result of what happen when Aces are splitted and dealer gets blackjack.

If you love splitting 2ACES when dealer has an ACE, you can go ahead. To each their own.
Likewise when you have a pair of 8. Since you are very good in saying that splitting 8s against dealer's ACE can get you the best outcome in long run, would you mind doing up all the different scenarios to show everyone here how good it is to split such cards and make a profit? Just by making a statement that splitting As n 8s is the best outcome, doesn't prove that it is the best outcome if no examples are shown. Btw, be a bit more original, don't keep copying links from websites or those gurus and said they said so. You need to be more original by proving with examples and different scenarios to prove that their theory is right. Not just by saying this who and who say so. Playing in the casino is not just about talking and talking. If talking can win,

I don't play 20hours in a row. I spend at most 2 hours in a session because I don't need to be so hardcore sitting there playing blackjack. So within that 2 hours the objective is to win as much as possible.

If you said splitting A-A and 8-8 against dealer's ACE is scary and painful, I do not understand why would anyone be in the right frame of mind to put their bets into double bets, if they are afraid.
What is your purpose of splitting 8? to get 18 or 21?

No one is talking about laser guns or ESP, you are thinking too much into it. Just plain playing blackjack will do.

Is impossible to show you all the different scenarios because unlike roulette, BJ has just too many possible combinations. Basic rules were devised by simulation.

Since you have invested so much in books, I sincerely suggest that you invest in a good blackjack engine or simulator (I couldn't find a free one from the Internet). Do your homework and find a good one which you can feed in house rules of RWS or MBS and run millions of hands to test out different scenarios like 8-8 and A-A. I believe this little investment will be more beneficial than all your books combined.

 

[silverfox@]

You seem to be only considering the scenario where you get two 21's and the dealer beats you with a blackjack. What about the other scenarios where

1) you draw a 10 -> 12 vs dealer's ace. You draw 1 more card and then bust before the dealer does anything.
2) you draw a 6,7 -> 15 vs dealer's ace. You draw 1 more card and bust before the dealer does anything.

You faith in the strategy of not splitting Ace's is very strong. It will take a string of sucessive failures to shake this faith.

My faith in not splitting ACE only applies when Dealer has an ACE. Because When Dealer has an ACE, he has 10,J,Q,K he gets blackjack. When you split your AAs and have 10,J,Q,K, you exposed 1 bet into 2 bets, and dealer can still makan your bets because you do not have blackjack, you only have 21.

Dealer having ACE as 1st card is the strongest card he can get. He seldom bust.
Dealer draw
A,2=3/13
A,3=4/14
A,4=5/15
A,5=6/16
A,6=17
A,7=18
A,8=19
A,9=20
A,10=21 Blackjack
A,J=21 Blackjack
A,Q=21 Blackjack
A,K=21 Blackjack

Only 4 scenarios allow Dealer to bust when he has A2, A3, A4, A5 and the only most dangerous scenario is A5. He will not even bust if he gets

A2+A,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,J,Q,K
A3+A,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,J,Q,K
A4+A,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,J,Q,K
A5+A,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,J,Q,K

Next thing is when you split your AAs

Player can only draw one more card for their split AAs. No resplitting is allowed if the 1st AAs is splitted.
Player draw
A,A=12
A,2=13
A,3=14
A,4=15
A,5=16
A,6=17
A,7=18
A,8=19
A,9=20
A,10=21 non Blackjack
A,J=21 non Blackjack
A,Q=21 non Blackjack
A,K=21 non Blackjack

WEAKNESS OF SPLITTING ACES
-Player can only draw 1 card for each ACE.
-Having 21 is not considered blackjack
-Dealer has 30.76% of getting blackjack

The large number of scenarios in blackjack make it next to impossible to use conditional probability techniques to analyse the outcomes. You would need to use Monte Carlo simulation where you program in the rules to run the simulation to derive numbers like 0.94% for the house edge.

So my next question is how does this so called Monte Carlo simulation works to derive 0.94%?
The funny question is why are none of the materials explaining on how they derive the figure?

Some results (e.g. standard blackjack rules with prob 0.80) are very well documented as there are peer reviewed academic journals (i.e. 1 professor writes it and another professor independently checks to confirm the result is accurate).

For more obscure results (e.g. edge for Simplified Blackjack), you have to rely on the person who published it. If you don't believe him, then you of course write your own simulation to confirm his results. The wizard of odds site is one of the more credile gambling stats sites but he does occasionally mistakes. When these are spotted by others, he usually posts the correction up.

You really good, now bring out professor. :p Which are the articles reviewed by these professors and I believe they will explain how they derive at these statistics.

Why do I keep emphasizing on how the figures are derived because I see some of you have a habit of quoting articles and believing in their stats and probabilities without understanding how the figures are being derived.

-The most common one. Professor reviewed verified
-strategy xx%, advantage xx% and then when I asked how this % is being derived, some sort of simulation source is being quoted and said the % comes from there.

To convince a layman, probably such articles can work. Oh so and so article listed 40%, so I must believe its 40%. But to convince everyone here, there must be explanations on how such figures are derived

 

[silverfox@]

Is impossible to show you all the different scenarios because unlike roulette, BJ has just too many possible combinations. Basic rules were devised by simulation.

Since you have invested so much in books, I sincerely suggest that you invest in a good blackjack engine or simulator (I couldn't find a free one from the Internet). Do your homework and find a good one which you can feed in house rules of RWS or MBS and run millions of hands to test out different scenarios like 8-8 and A-A. I believe this little investment will be more beneficial than all your books combined.

I believe you can do better than just telling us it is impossible to show the different scenarios. I am very keen to hear why would splitting 8-8 against dealer's As is a must? Just because 8-8 becomes 16? Sometimes playing blackjack REAL-LIFE is not just about trying to win dealer's strong card or reading on statistics. It's about defensive play when our cards are weak and dealer's card are strong. Losing less units is better than exposing more units to danger when dealer is strong

Do you actually play in the casino at all? Or you just read the links, and odds and think that playing is a waste of your time?

Anyway I think this thread has "become too technical" and "too theory" recently, with loads of statistics yet to be shown how they were being derived. If u are selfless and would like to share with everyone how the figures come up, feel free to do so. Otherwise, we leave it to others to share playing experiences in the casino instead of all these technical stats and jargon:o

 

[thegambler888]

Okay, I don't see a need in arguing. I guess you think that by making a few simple calculations off the top of your head, you have proven all the professors, mathematicians and casinos wrong.

Just an afterthought. Can you tell me how basic strategy is derived?

SilverFox, when I asked you the above question, you gave me the answer below

If you believe in Basic Strategy, you are free to only use Basic Strategy when you are playing Blackjack. There are many people in this world who memorise Basic Strategy like a bible.

Good Luck on the tables

Seems like you conveniently sidestepped my question and now you have found the chance, you are trying to throw it back

Are you finally admitting that you have been denouncing basic strategy all these years without knowing how they were derived?

How many books have you read on blackjack? Before you say I have no experience at the tables, I have been to over 30 casinos. How many have you been to?

The original paper on basic strategy is found here:
http://www.williams.edu/go/math/sjmiller/public_html/341/handouts/Baldwin_OptimalStrategyBlackjack.pdf


This is the last time I am posting any links or giving any 'mathematical proof'. If you think you are better than them, please take it up with the mathematicians.

Sidenote: The basic strategy for AA pair is to hit for ENHC, which is the rule played in and around Singapore. Do your own research, please.

 

[aurvandil]

Why do I keep emphasizing on how the figures are derived because I see some of you have a habit of quoting articles and believing in their stats and probabilities without understanding how the figures are being derived.

-The most common one. Professor reviewed verified
-strategy xx%, advantage xx% and then when I asked how this % is being derived, some sort of simulation source is being quoted and said the % comes from there.

To convince a layman, probably such articles can work. Oh so and so article listed 40%, so I must believe its 40%. But to convince everyone here, there must be explanations on how such figures are derived

The following is a url to monte carlo simulation of blackjack.

http://masamiki.com/project/excel_montecarlo_blackjack.htm

Since you are looking for transparency, I have directed you to a simulator written using Excel VBA. It is not to difficult to use the ideas in the program to extend it to simulate just about any gambling game.

If you want to go beyond this, then you really need to go take a graduate level course in statistical computing. It is not reasonble to expect anyone to explain and teach this in a discussion forum like this.

 

[Heart Break Kid]

Sometimes any decision make is also depending on situation. Last night I brought a oversea co-worker to MBS.
He love to play BlackJack and ended up he lost $1,200 in High Limit section.

The dealer luck on the BlackJack table (min $100) was very bright and it was my first time to see a gambler getting a BlackJack A-Q first
and the dealer had an JACK then draw an ACE to stand off that gambler's BlackJack.

Imagine an $100 bet should get a payout of $150 ended up with nothing.

Another times the dealer held an ACE that gambler had a BlackJack A-K, this time that gambler decison is to ask for EVEN MONEY.
True enough the dealer did draw a PICTURE to achieve a BlackJack

 

[silverfox@]

SilverFox, when I asked you the above question, you gave me the answer below

Seems like you conveniently sidestepped my question and now you have found the chance, you are trying to throw it back

Are you finally admitting that you have been denouncing basic strategy all these years without knowing how they were derived?

How many books have you read on blackjack? Before you say I have no experience at the tables, I have been to over 30 casinos. How many have you been to?

The original paper on basic strategy is found here:
http://www.williams.edu/go/math/sjmiller/public_html/341/handouts/Baldwin_OptimalStrategyBlackjack.pdf


This is the last time I am posting any links or giving any 'mathematical proof'. If you think you are better than them, please take it up with the mathematicians.

Sidenote: The basic strategy for AA pair is to hit for ENHC, which is the rule played in and around Singapore. Do your own research, please.

I have just read the article you provided and I want to point out a few things to you.

Firstly, Baldwin's optimal strategy is based on using 1 DECK. The calculations and permutations he is using is based on 1 DECK.

Read page 3/11, 5/11 and understand that the calculations are based on 1 deck of cards and using probability. He is not wrong. But this article was written in the year 1956. Now is year 2010. 54 years later, the casinos no longer use 1 deck to play blackjack with everyone. Neither do they use a shoe to put in 6-8 deck of cards. They use machine shufflers.

Baldwin's calculation is not wrong, its how people comprehend it and think of it as past days theories have already been offset by new ways of adding decks and shuffling machine to eliminate card counting. So some of the strategies mentioned in basic strategy written years ago have to be modified to suit modern play.

In this case, I will not be taking up with the mathematician because he is basing his calculations using only 1 deck. With the player having a pair of AAs and in a deck with only 4As, the probability of dealer getting an A is not mentioned.(not difficult to count. only left 2) Let's say with a 6 deck shoe, total number of As in deck is 24pcs, not 4pcs of As.

Overall, I would say there is nothing wrong in his article but different people are comprehending it in a different way. Modern blackjack using 6 decks and shuffling machine has override past day blackjack with using 1 deck and card counting. If we are staying in the past era, of course you can comprehend it that way, but now is 2010, the gameplay has changed.

 

[silverfox@]

The following is a url to monte carlo simulation of blackjack.

http://masamiki.com/project/excel_montecarlo_blackjack.htm

Since you are looking for transparency, I have directed you to a simulator written using Excel VBA. It is not to difficult to use the ideas in the program to extend it to simulate just about any gambling game.

If you want to go beyond this, then you really need to go take a graduate level course in statistical computing. It is not reasonble to expect anyone to explain and teach this in a discussion forum like this.

Thanks for the simulation

1 thing to mention in the spreadsheet. (last paragraph)
This spreadsheet is useful not only to demonstrate the principles of monte-carlo simulation, or to show you how to program with VBA or even to determine what the odds are of a dealer ending up with a certain hand if they have a particular card showing, but to also show what the odds are if the deck changes. For example it is said that a deck which has more than the usual number of 5's and 10's remaining is generally not in the dealer's favor. Using this, you can adjust the deck and quantify what the odds really are. Of course, if you want to put this into practice you need to count the cards that come up while you are playing and modify your betting. This is frowned on by casinos.

The casino's aid
-6 Decks of cards
-1 card shuffling machine

The simulation is based on card counting and has already been override by 1 card shuffling machine. You can no longer count and each and every round, the number of cards for each number is the same. Every card has equal chance of coming out.

This simulation works only if you are in a casino that does not use a card shuffling machine.

 

[silverfox@]

Sometimes any decision make is also depending on situation. Last night I brought a oversea co-worker to MBS.
He love to play BlackJack and ended up he lost $1,200 in High Limit section.

The dealer luck on the BlackJack table (min $100) was very bright and it was my first time to see a gambler getting a BlackJack A-Q first
and the dealer had an JACK then draw an ACE to stand off that gambler's BlackJack.

Imagine an $100 bet should get a payout of $150 ended up with nothing.

Another times the dealer held an ACE that gambler had a BlackJack A-K, this time that gambler decison is to ask for EVEN MONEY.
True enough the dealer did draw a PICTURE to achieve a BlackJack

If your friend has blackjack 13 times each time
the dealer has AA,A2,A3,A4,A5,A6,A7,A8,A9,A10,AJ,AQ,AK

Among this 13 times, let's say he choose to stand and wait for dealer result.
From AA-A9, he will get a payout of $150 for 9 times and 4 times he get $0
Dividing $150x9 and divided by 13 times, he will get approx $104.

$4 more than $100 for taking EVEN money.

It depends on individual which disappointment is higher.
1.When he gets a blackjack chose to stay and get nothing when dealer has BJ. $0

2. Or chose to stay on and dealer doesn't get BJ. player get $150.

For those who sat on the table playing these, what would you feel when a hard earned blackjack gets $0.

When getting $150, a person feels esctatic.
When get $0, he feels disappointed.
When get EVEN money and dealer gets Blackjack, you tell yourself you are lucky, got $100 first.
When get EVEN money and dealer doesn't get Blackjack, do you curse your luck saying why should I take EVEN money or be contented you already got $100 in your pocket. :o


However there is nothing much your friend can do if dealer has a picture card first then followed by an ACE. That is why sometimes when player has a blackjack, they would feel better that dealer gets an ACE so that they have the opportunity to take EVEN money.

 

[jw5]

I have not been reading the long posts on the technical and probability aspects of casino games.
My reason is very simple.
If there are people who gamble for a living or play only for the sole purpose of winning, they should not be gambling at casinos, since we all know that most gamblers eventually lose. Of course, there will be some who win, but these are the minority.
People who should be gambling at casinos are those who can afford to lose and gamble not only to win, but also for the entertainment and the thrill.
Reading books and studying all the statistics may help to win more, but it takes some of the fun out of gambling.
People who can't afford to lose should not visit casinos too often, like me.

 

[silverfox@]

I have not been reading the long posts on the technical and probability aspects of casino games.
My reason is very simple.
If there are people who gamble for a living or play only for the sole purpose of winning, they should not be gambling at casinos, since we all know that most gamblers eventually lose. Of course, there will be some who win, but these are the minority.
People who should be gambling at casinos are those who can afford to lose and gamble not only to win, but also for the entertainment and the thrill.
Reading books and studying all the statistics may help to win more, but it takes some of the fun out of gambling.
People who can't afford to lose should not visit casinos too often, like me.

Actually I like to read all kinds of books except books like Eclipse, New Moon:p
But reading books also requires some form of analysing and understanding.

Like you read some books on stocks finance and they teach you how to read and understand candlestick charting. Candlestick charting is true but they forgot to mention that in real life if there is a financial tsunami, no amount of candlestick predicting can help.

Sometimes it depends on the person who read and they may think or not think beyond what they have read.

 

[silverfox@]

Sometimes any decision make is also depending on situation. Last night I brought a oversea co-worker to MBS.
He love to play BlackJack and ended up he lost $1,200 in High Limit section.

The dealer luck on the BlackJack table (min $100) was very bright and it was my first time to see a gambler getting a BlackJack A-Q first
and the dealer had an JACK then draw an ACE to stand off that gambler's BlackJack.

Imagine an $100 bet should get a payout of $150 ended up with nothing.

Another times the dealer held an ACE that gambler had a BlackJack A-K, this time that gambler decison is to ask for EVEN MONEY.
True enough the dealer did draw a PICTURE to achieve a BlackJack

There is this funny incident which I would like to share with you.

During the last visit with my friend, he has a base which has $100 on it and an old auntie placed $25 chip on his bets. Happened that cards has 16 pts while dealer has 10. My friend request for surrender and the dealer placed 2pcs of $25 chips and $12.50 worth of chips on the side of our bets. Told us to take our bets and after we took it, he did not take our initial chips away. Instead he told us to remove our initial chips on that base. I look at my friend, as auntie is blur. My friend passed $12.50 to auntie, take back $25 give auntie and my friend took the 2pcs of $25 plus $100 off the table. FOr surrendering, my friend "earned" $50.

I realise that this type of mistake happens when the bets per base is not $50, $100 or whole big sums. Those $25 bets on top of existing bets make the dealers see stars. (especially when blackjack and surrender):o

It happens as dealers get tired. MBS dealers stand while dealing cards while RWS sits down. So always be alert for any mistakes from dealers, as sometimes you can benefit from mistakes or the mistake will make you lose more. Couple of occasions, the dealer still keep drawing when they have numerous cards having soft 17. Soft 17 must stand, if let them hit more, they may get 20,21 which may affect the results of table cards

 

[jw5]

Actually I like to read all kinds of books except books like Eclipse, New Moon:p
But reading books also requires some form of analysing and understanding.

Like you read some books on stocks finance and they teach you how to read and understand candlestick charting. Candlestick charting is true but they forgot to mention that in real life if there is a financial tsunami, no amount of candlestick predicting can help.

Sometimes it depends on the person who read and they may think or not think beyond what they have read.

Of course if you find reading books on gambling or any subject matter enjoyable, then that's different. By all means do whatever you think is fun, and if it helps you make money, even better.
But if a person finds reading books on gambling or trying to figure out the probabilities a chore, then he's probably better off not gambling (if he can't afford it) or to gamble and have fun (if he can afford it).
Let's take the example of the 2 aces again. I said that I would split, not only because I hope to get 2 21s and the dealer not to get a blackjack, but also because of the thrill of splitting 2 aces. If I have to think about the probabilities of the dealer getting a blackjack, it would take half the fun out of the gambling. Anyway, the probabilities are only applicable if a person goes to the casino every day and gets 2 aces 100 times. For someone who goes to a casino twice a year, getting 2 aces is really a thrill and not splitting would be a real letdown.

Btw, if the dealer makes a mistake on the payout, will the security cameras pick this up and force the player to pay back? Or is a dealer's mistake considered the casino's loss?

 

[Heart Break Kid]

There is this funny incident which I would like to share with you.

During the last visit with my friend, he has a base which has $100 on it and an old auntie placed $25 chip on his bets. Happened that cards has 16 pts while dealer has 10. My friend request for surrender and the dealer placed 2pcs of $25 chips and $12.50 worth of chips on the side of our bets. Told us to take our bets and after we took it, he did not take our initial chips away. Instead he told us to remove our initial chips on that base. I look at my friend, as auntie is blur. My friend passed $12.50 to auntie, take back $25 give auntie and my friend took the 2pcs of $25 plus $100 off the table. FOr surrendering, my friend "earned" $50.

I realise that this type of mistake happens when the bets per base is not $50, $100 or whole big sums. Those $25 bets on top of existing bets make the dealers see stars. (especially when blackjack and surrender):o

It happens as dealers get tired. MBS dealers stand while dealing cards while RWS sits down. So always be alert for any mistakes from dealers, as sometimes you can benefit from mistakes or the mistake will make you lose more. Couple of occasions, the dealer still keep drawing when they have numerous cards having soft 17. Soft 17 must stand, if let them hit more, they may get 20,21 which may affect the results of table cards

Thank bro silverfox.. for the earlier analysis

You are right ..such things do happen in MBS. One occasion I am playing BlackJack in Level 2. My initial bet was $75 plus another $75 to double down.
The results is I lost but the dealer only took away $75 leaving another initial $75 inside the square box so I just left it for another hand.

The other gamblers in that table witnessed this lucky they kept quiet.

But I like to go MBS much more than RWS.

 

[aurvandil]

This simulation works only if you are in a casino that does not use a card shuffling machine.

I think previously you were asking how to verify if what the professors say is true. If you are interested to do this, then what you need to do is look at the VBA code to see how the simulation works. From then, it is not too difficult to modify the code so that it works for the unique condtions at RWS/MBS.

The journal article on BASIC is obviously outdated since it was published in the 1950s. Since then, there have been of course more recent articles that use more updated rules and circumstances. The basis of the results of the articles is usually based on empirical work derived from simulations similar to the one in the url link.