Blackjack brain teasers
Answers
Puzzle 1
A high stakes blackjack player is playing at a $500
minimum table in an Australian casino, just one box
on his own.
His only information is from a simple plus - minus
count.
During one hand he places an insurance bet on a negative
count.
He is not playing for disguise.
Question: What circumstances could justify
this play?
Answer:
Nearly at the end of the shoe the player might have,
say, a 3% disadvantage.
He has 16 vs Ace.
He places a $1 insurance bet.
His chance of busting on 16 is over 50%; so is the
chance of 'eating' an extra card (to be drawn by the
dealer because of the insurance bet.)
Since a 3% disadvantage would mean a negative expectation
of $15 per $500 bet (table minimum) each card 'eaten'
would save over $2 in negative expectation, hence
the $1 insurance bet would be justified.
Puzzle 2
A gambler walks into an Australian casino (no hole
card, no surrender option) and plays one hand in one
box, on his own.
He never bets less than $25 or more than $100.
Every play he makes is in units of $25, ie he might
bet $50 but not $40.
Should there be a split, full or partial double and/or
an insurance bet they would all be in $25 units or
multiples.
He walked away after his one bet and rang a friend
who knew exactly how he stakes his bets and advised
him of the monetary result (how much he won or lost)
of the hand.
From just that information the friend worked out
the number of cards used in the hand.
Question: What was the monetary result
of the hand and how many cards were used?
Answer:
He won $87.50 and 4 cards were used.
He bet $75 and got a blackjack versus dealer's Ace.
He insured for $25, an unconventional but legal play.
The dealer did not get blackjack, so he lost the
$25 insurance bet but won $112.50, net result a win
of $87.50.
Home|FAQs|Disclaimer|Contact
us
©2008 Ozmium Pty Ltd. All rights reserved
