What casino game has the best odds of the player winning? I was told it is blackjack.

Comments

Comments

Comments

• You ar saying that playing Baccarat(don't know i, will try it someday) gives you 3 options, that would give 33,3 % chance of winning. But if you play the roulette, and only bet black/red it will give you 50 % chance of winning..

  • Report
  

  by munken on October 28th, 2007

• You don't lose in the situation of a tie - it's basically 50-50 - the house does have a small edge in baccarat, about 4%. On some roulette wheels it can be as high as 10%! Roulette is an awful game to play if your looking for the best odds. The top three games are 1.Baccarat 2.Blackjack 3.Craps - Roulette would be near the bottom, ahead of Red Dog and the money wheel :)

  • Report
  

  by MrBLT needs to be contained on October 28th, 2007

• You're forgetting about the zero and double zero on the roulette wheel - 2 slots out of 38 = a 5.26% house edge :)

  • Report
  

  by MrBLT needs to be contained on October 28th, 2007

• The casino charges commission on winning "bank" hands though in baccarat, otherwise the player would have the edge. There is no commission at any point in blackjack. Blackjack played with good strategy but w/o card-counting gives the house less than a 1% edge on the game (exact figure varies depending on number of decks being used), whereas baccarat gives the house an edge of 1.17% on bank bets (assuming 5 cents commission in the $) and 1.36% edge on player bets, both of which are higher than blackjack. So you might want to rethink your "everybody is wrong!" statement. You may work at the casino, but you don't know the odds. You don't even seem aware that player/bank bets aren't actually 50-50.

  • Report
  

  by TheKnife V2.1 - Grandiose and Obnoxious on October 30th, 2007

• show me where you get your less than 1% hold in blackjack statement - 1.17% in baccarat is lower than any other game for the fact that you stated! the game never changes, there are no variations in Baccarat. I deal blackjack, and I know perfect strategy, and if I play, I will lose way more than 1%, the game you speak of with less than 1% edge is non-existant! Blackjack has a 5% hold, period. There is NO WAY a casino would waste space on their gaming floor with a game that couldn't even keep 5%. Casinos are worried about $ per square foot, Blackjack wouldn't be viable if it had a less than 1% hold.

  • Report
  

  by MrBLT needs to be contained on October 30th, 2007

• and I never said 50-50, I said basically 50-50, there is a small edge, and yes I do know about the 4 or 5% commision on winning bank bets. Baccarat is the best game, hands down.

  • Report
  

  by MrBLT needs to be contained on October 30th, 2007

• The reason blackjack is so lucrative to casinos is because 98% of players (probably more) don't play with perfect strategy. If you play blackjack badly the house edge can be enormous (5% and above), that is why the dollars roll in and it gets so many sq feet. With perfect strategy however house edges range from as little as .1% in a single deck game to .6% edge in an 8-deck game. Card-counting can even give the player an edge, but we'll leave that aside.

  • Report
  

  by TheKnife V2.1 - Grandiose and Obnoxious on October 30th, 2007

• These figures come from a book I just pulled off my shelf called "Guerrilla Gambling" by Frank Scoblete... however they are not his figures, they are referenced from Stanford Wong's book "Professional Blackjack" if you want to check them out. Obviously, as well as number of decks the local house rules for the game affect the specific edge... under player-unfriendly rules the house edge may well become more than the edge for baccarat - perhaps your casino has unfriendly rules which is why you overestimate the size of the house edge.

  • Report
  

  by TheKnife V2.1 - Grandiose and Obnoxious on October 30th, 2007

• As for the 50-50 player-bank bet thing, your initial post suggested that it made no difference which bet you make... however you did indeed qualify that to "basically" 50-50 in a later comment, so I accept you do understand what you are on about and just over-simplified.

  • Report
  

  by TheKnife V2.1 - Grandiose and Obnoxious on October 30th, 2007

• I have both of those books on my bookshelf in the next room - Frank Scoblete is kind of a moron in my opinion, that book is absoultely awful. Oh, well, it seems there is no convincing you - ok you win blackjack is glorious - the best game ever - I concede grand blackjack champion - you are the wisest gambler to ever live :)

  • Report
  

  by MrBLT needs to be contained on October 30th, 2007

• No need for sarcasm, we are doing a better job than most folk on AB of having a civilised debate here! Scoblete's book isn't great, I agree, he tries to cover too much in too little a time, and it is really designed for people who don't have a clue I think. But I am assuming he has at least referenced his sources correctly... I confess I didn't check though, he might not have done, in which case my whole argument might fall through. If you want to check the Wong book and dig out the maths from there, I will accept whatever that says as being correct.

  • Report
  

  by TheKnife V2.1 - Grandiose and Obnoxious on October 30th, 2007

• I still believe you are letting the idiot blackjack players who have no grasp of strategy and create 5-10% house edges artificially inflate your concept of what the "true" edge (if such a thing exists) for the game is when played with perfect basic strategy. (PS - I'm getting errors when I try and post more than about 500 characters at a time, which is why my comments are multi-part... don't think that later comments are after-thoughts, they are meant to be in the original)

  • Report
  

  by TheKnife V2.1 - Grandiose and Obnoxious on October 30th, 2007

• Here's my point about the casino deciding to have blackjack or not - it doesn't matter if 99% of the players don't know perfect strategy - the casino would alwats assume that 100% do - so if the house edge is .1% there would be NO CHANCE that they would keep/install that game - none. because it "costs" too much. The cost here being the opportunity cost of not having slot machines.
  I'm looking now for that stupid book ----

  • Report
  

  by MrBLT needs to be contained on October 30th, 2007

Comments

Comments

Comments