You are correct that the house gets it's edge in "War" on ties.
The player has the option of "surrender" which loses half the bet just like
BJ
or to "go to war" like the kid's game, however the player has to put up
another full bet while the casino does not.
In other words if the casino wins the war it costs the player two units but
when the player wins the war he only wins one unit.
War occurs 31 out of 415 times in an eight deck game (7.47%) and the house
edge is half a unit per war or 3.735%.
Note: If the casino was to deal a one deck game, war would only occur 1/17
of the time for a house edge of 2.941%
I have seen writers indicate that it is better to "go to war" than to
"surrender" because the percentage of total action lost is smaller. That
seems like poor reasoning.
Similar to doubling down in BJ, the house edge should be measured against
the original bet which means at "war" if you make the same original bet
every time your "EV" is exactly the same whether you "surrender" or "go to
war".
Obviously, this game proves that "suckers" will bet on anything.
ยทยทยท
[Original Message]
From: Elliot Frome <compuflyers@prodigy.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Date: 4/5/2004 11:21:11 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: vp Double Dependency & ERI wouldn't say WAR is threatening Blackjack or Three Card Poker, but
it's still out there. The table was pretty crowded at Mohegan last
month when I was there.I'm familiar with the kids game, but not 100% familiar with exactly
how the Casinos get their edge (I think it's on the 'ties'), but I'm
sure the game would get even MORE play if it were 100% EV. It gets
more than it deserves at its sub 100% EV.