casino ,blackjack

Chance of your first card being an Ace of any suit - 1 in 13 (4 in 52).
Chance of your second card being the matching King - 1 in 51.

Chance of both happening 1 in 13 * 51 = 1 in 663

But it also works the other way around (King first then Ace).

So total odds 2 in 663 = about 0.3%

Sounds like the lad got good value?

What does the "are turned over" part of the OP mean ?

1st time poster28 Jan 25 11:03Joined: 25 Dec 05 | Topic/replies: 56,034 | Blogger: 1st time poster's blog
story in my local paper

99.9% of all gambling/betting related stories are mis-reported by reporters that don't understand the topic.

As longbridge has pointed out - the winning hand (as reported) - would occur about once every few hours at a table with 6 players (assuming they were all stupid enough to place a side-bet on it).

I thought Three 7's (same suit) in a six-deck game is the side-bet of choice for the jackpot chasers. I seem to remember it pays 5,000/1 and causes a bit of a commotion when the player being dealt it hasn't bothered to do the side bet!

Longbridge is not remotely right TM, most Casinos use a 6 deck shoe and some use 8 so it would depend entirely on the number used as you pointed out i.e 6?

@CG

I think I am still remotely right - you could have 100 packs in the shoe and the odds would be very similar - unless you have different calculations to share?

(eg 6 decks/packs chances are 24 in 312 for the first card which is still 1 in 13, second card is 6 is 311, calculation still comes out to about 0.3%)

They wouldn't be stupid playing the side bet if AK suited paid 47K.

Oh, Glen!

I don't think longbridges maths are far out for what the OP describes (being dealt Ace/King suited). And although there are some variables, I'm not sure (in that particular example) that the number of decks make a significant difference?

If there were 6 decks, your first card could be any one of 48 (any of the 24 aces or 24 kings) from 312 cards (6 decks) in the shoe. That would leave you with any 6 cards from the 311 that remain in the shoe to complete the win.

That's about the same ballpark as Longbridge stated imo.

Obviously you wouldn't want to bet on the 3 x suited 7's if playing with only one or two decks imo

Cheers TM, it is the variables I meant, e.g four aces first out or last out etc must skew the percentages but in theory Longbridge would be fairly accurate if multiplying his calculation by the number of decks. Would love to find a game using only one deck tbh!!

I think the first part is 8 in 52. It doesn’t matter if an Ace or King is dealt first.

@s.kenbo - you can do it that way rather than just doubling the probability at the end as I did - it should come out exactly the same, I think?

You are spot on, Longbridge.

Find the story hard to believe - a casino offering 47,000 to 1 on a 330/1 shot ?

No way would it roll up for that long ? - people would be queuing up to play.

6 players say 30 hands each an hour - that's 180 pops at the 330/1 shot in one hour alone.

I’m guessing the casino aren’t losing anything. It’s a sweepstake that keeps rolling over perhaps. If so it’s remarkable the AK was evaded for 47000 hands though.

The den of iniquity……Cagliari you seem to have knowledge regarding these places….thought you were better than to frequent….

Never been to one myself, but a roulette table with one zero is better odds than any bookmakers overrounds.

Quixall, the last time I was in a Casino to play was 1988, the eve of the Scottish Cup, with Dave Bowman and the Dundee Utd lads, they got slaughtered and then lost to Celtic!!!

Pretty sure that the casino wouldn't be putting all of the side bets into the roll up kitty - they would take out a chunk for themselves.

The difference is that one of the bookmakers prices may be wrong, whatever the overround.

But, if you are going to guess, then there are far worse ways to guess than roulette - every bet is only marginally bad.

If you add up all the numbers, the sum total is 666 - which tells you all you need to know imo!