Zero Margin Blackjack randomness test

Zero Margin Blackjack randomness test

September 14, 2012

I decided to review the Betfair zero margin blackjack game a few days ago; having heard bad reports about the game from time to time over the last few years, I thought it was time to gather some fresh statistics and see how they matched up to theoretical expectation.


I had originally planned to run ten thousand hands, but I ultimately gave up after just short of three thousand. I may pick up the test at a later date and struggle through to the original target. Of the total 2989 hands played, this is the breakdown of the numbers:



I have to admit at this point that my accounting skills were found a little wanting over the course of manually recording these hands - the overall tally from the above figures comes to -19.5, whereas my actual result was -25. So there is a 5.5 unit discrepancy between my records and the actual total. This shouldn't really have too much of a material impact. I think what may have caused the discrepancy is pressing the "redeal" button after a loss, looking down at my pad to record the result, with the dealer in the meantime taking a blackjack for another automatic loss which I then failed to recognise as a subsequent hand.


To start with, a 25-unit loss over 2989 hands represents a total -0.84% house edge. The standard deviation is 62.9, so my results lie comfortably within the boundaries of probability.


The percentages for the above figures are as follows:




The theoretical percentages for win, lose and tie are:

Win: 43.3%
Lose: 47.8%
Tie: 8.9%

(See the Wong "streak" test table.)

My wins are a fraction above expectation, and the losses are a bit more again. The pushes are under. All the figures are close enough to the theoretical to not be of any concern.


Expectation for blackjacks in eight-deck is 4.74% compared to my overall 4.45%. This is a tad under, but if you look at the first table you'll see that 40 of the 124 total blackjacks were suited, which is a fraction over the theoretical. So, swings and roundabouts on that one. These figures all match up comfortably to expectation.

Of the doubles, you'd expect approximately 59% wins and 41% losses. My actual figures are a little outside this, but nothing to cause alarm.


After playing 2000 hands, I was worried on two counts: that the dealer was receiving more two-card 20s than me, and that I was busting with a ten card more than I should. In fact, on the latter I was absolutely certain that something was wrong. I decided therefore to record both these outcomes for the remainder of the test, which was a little short of 1000 more hands.


For the bust test, I recorded all cards received on totals greater than 12. As such, if I hit a 13 against 10 and received a 2, I recorded that card and then the next card also, as basic strategy requires a hit on the resulting 15. I recorded the four ten value cards together, without distinguishing between the ranks. The results are listed below:




There's a total of 331 bust cards, giving an average of 25.5 per card. The average for ace through 9, excluding the ten cards, is 24.5. For the tens, the average is 27.75. There are slightly more tens than the mean, but the same in fact goes for 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9. Ace, 3 and 6 come in below average. As such, it does not appear from this test that my casual observation of excessive tens on bust hands was justified.

As to my concern about the two-card 20s: I recived 110, while the dealer received just 86, so again my observation doesn't seem justified.


Lastly, I looked at the pairs. With only 119 hands there really isn't enough data to draw any conclusions, but the results were quite bad:




If and when I pick up the test again, I'm going to look at doubles - towards the end of the run, I'd developed another hunch that I was constantly receiving small cards. It bears remembering that the two earlier hunchese I tested - two-card 20s and bust cards - did no show any anomalies upon examination, so I'd guess that the same would be true of a doubles test, though it remains to be verified.


I draw two conclusions from the above:

• The numbers do not suggest that the game is unfair.

• It's a very good idea to not invest too much certainty in "hunches"; I tested both mine, and they turned out to be unfounded.


Page top

Post a Comment

May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | August 2006 | October 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | December 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | March 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009 | August 2009 | September 2009 | October 2009 | November 2009 | December 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010 | March 2010 | April 2010 | May 2010 | June 2010 | July 2010 | August 2010 | October 2010 | November 2010 | December 2010 | January 2011 | February 2011 | March 2011 | April 2011 | May 2011 | June 2011 | July 2011 | August 2011 | September 2011 | December 2011 | February 2012 | May 2012 | July 2012 | August 2012 | March 2016 | April 2016 | June 2016 | November 2016 | December 2016 | March 2017 | May 2017 | June 2017 | August 2017 | August 2021 | October 2021 | May 2022 | December 2023 | May 2024 | Atom feed