From: Bill W <>
Subject: Re: Tamron wants to thank you for being a loyal buyer
Full headers:
From: Bill W <>
Subject: Re: Tamron wants to thank you for being a loyal buyer
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:49:26 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <271220171343371451%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <271220171623347269%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info:; posting-host="ca5553d1a8b0946d2d25ac1f13a6e4af";
logging-data="2172"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19AhcNzz2WPU4cPew2sQN9fPAj/VUd5BUM="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iZH1ipjeUNccewa4hjgkJBzcVIg=
Print Article
Forward Article
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 23:29:25 -0500, PeterN
<"peter,newdelete"> wrote:

>I will not play BJ where they have changed the rule so that a dealer 
>must draw on a soft 17. In a six deck game, WITH DOUBLE AFTER SPLITTING 
>ALLOWED, It increases the house edge from about .41% to .63%. If you 
>doubt me, do the math for yourself.

If the house has any edge, why bother playing at all? And no one
actually does the math on this. These days they look it up, but it was
established with simulations, not a calculator.

Anyway, that change to hit soft 17 will cost only another $22 after
$10,000 of betting. Who cares? At a full table, you'd play 3-4 hours
at $100 per hand and lose $63 instead of $41. It's not even worth
thinking about. You're just gambling either way, and if you're betting
that much, $22 means nothing.