Why are single deck games better than multi-deck games?
Is single deck games better than multi-deck games?
Why multi-deck games are not better than single deck games?
Dec 26th, 2007 22:53
Marc Twin, David Sill, Joseph Martin, World Casino, http://horsebettingsite.blogspot.com http://soccertournament.blogspot.com http://www.marchmadnessUSA.com
There are some surface differences, such as single and double deck
usualli being hand-held, while four or more decks are dealt from a shoe,
but there are fundamental mathematical differences too.
Single deck blackjack is usually better than multiple deck blackjack for
card counters, basic strategists, and the clueless. Additional decks
make busts less likely, since one can draw to hands like
2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2 (for 18) which are improbable/impossible in single
deck. Busting less often helps the dealer's hand more than yours, since
the dealer is forced by the rigid rules to hit more often than you.
Blackjacks are also less frequent, which is bad since you get paid 3 to
2 for those. All in all, multiple decks will cost a basic strategist
nearly 0.5% in advantage, which is more than all but the very best
package of favorable extra rules will give you. This was an intuitive
explanation; a complete mathematically sound (albeit huge) proof can be
generated by a combinatorial analysis program.
Card counters face the additional problem that the count is less
volatile with multiple decks and hence offers less frequent
opportunities for large favorable bets. Consider the difference between
an urn with 1 black and 1 white marble versus an urn with 100 black and
100 white marbles. Draw half the marbles: what is the probability that
all the remaining marbles are white? In the 1 and 1 case, there is a 1
in 2 chance. In the 100 and 100 case, there is only a 1 in
For more detail visit the following links: