Blackjack Math
[DOSSIER // PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATION]

Blackjack payouts 3:2 and 6:5 compared

DATE: AUTHOR: BJM Statistical Advantage Lab EST: 8 min read
[EXECUTIVE SUMMARY // CORE MATHEMATICAL ANSWER]

See what each payout returns on a 10-unit bet and calculate the extra house edge when both tables use the same rules for everything else.

Two differently sized arches with spade symbols
Illustration of the topic; rules and assumptions are explained below.
Profit on one natural blackjack
Worked example: profit on one natural blackjack.

Put 10 units on the main blackjack bet and suppose your first two cards are an ace and a king. If the dealer has no natural, a 3:2 table pays 15 units of profit and returns the original 10. At 6:5 the same cards earn 12 units of profit and return the same 10. The difference is 3 units on that hand. The lower ratio cuts the profit from a paid natural by 20%.

Result on a 10-unit betNet profit at 3:2Total returned at 3:2Net profit at 6:5Total returned at 6:5
Paid natural blackjack+1525+1222
Both player and dealer have a natural010010
Ordinary win paid 1:1+1020+1020

These examples count the main wager only. A natural is an ace plus a ten-value card on the original deal, so a ten drawn onto a split ace is generally treated as a regular 21 under the rules used here. A dealer who reaches 21 with three cards also has a regular 21. Section 1 of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission blackjack rules defines the natural, and section 7 describes payment and the push when both sides have it. Check the rules for a particular game if it offers a bonus or changes the treatment of ties.

Count paid naturals

The tricky part of comparing the ratios is figuring out which rounds change. Ordinary hands that win, lose or push keep the same settlement in this comparison. So does a natural that pushes against a dealer natural. A count of all player naturals includes hands where neither ratio pays a profit, and that overstates the cost of switching to 6:5.

Take a fresh shoe made of D complete 52-card decks. There are N = 52D cards, A = 4D aces and T = 16D ten-value cards. For one specified player seat, the chance of a natural is 2 × A × T / [N × (N − 1)]. The factor of two accounts for the ace coming first or second. Even when the dealer’s cards are interleaved with the player's, a uniformly shuffled shoe gives the same probabilities for those four designated card positions.

Now set aside the player's ace and ten-value card. Conditional on a player natural, the dealer's two cards come from N − 2 cards with A − 1 aces and T − 1 ten-value cards left. The dealer natural probability on this branch is 2 × (A − 1) × (T − 1) / [(N − 2) × (N − 3)]. The player natural and the dealer natural share a shoe. Using a single unconditioned dealer probability for both would miss the two cards already removed.

Multiply the player natural probability by one minus that conditional dealer probability. That gives the chance of a paid natural. For six decks, N = 312, A = 24 and T = 96. The conditional calculation uses 23 aces and 95 tens among 310 cards. On the full deal, the probability of both naturals is 0.2167%, so paid naturals account for 4.5323% of initial bets.

Extra house edge from the payout change alone

The payout difference is 1.50 − 1.20 = 0.30 units per paid natural per unit initially wagered. The player loses that much on the affected branch, so the increase in house edge is 0.30 × P(paid natural). Use probabilities as fractions in the multiplication and convert the result to percentage points. In six decks that adds 1.3597 percentage points to the house edge when all other rules and settlement choices are held fixed.

Decks in a fresh shoePlayer naturalBoth naturals pushPaid player naturalExtra house edge, percentage points
14.8265%0.1773%4.6492%1.3948
24.7797%0.2014%4.5783%1.3735
44.7566%0.2129%4.5437%1.3631
64.7489%0.2167%4.5323%1.3597
84.7451%0.2185%4.5266%1.3580

The columns describe a full randomly shuffled shoe and an initial deal to a specified seat. They are calculated probabilities. If you know that certain cards have already been removed, the counts of aces, tens and remaining cards can differ from these values. A reshuffled teaching model also leaves out practical factors such as rounding a payout to the chip denomination. Read the payout and settlement terms if rounding matters to the bet size.

For the six-deck example, moving 1,000 units through original bets under the fresh-shoe assumptions changes the expected result by about 13.6 units. One way to picture the amount is a set of 100 example deals at 10 units each with the full shoe restored before each deal. Actual results over 100 hands can easily move in either direction. The estimate prices the change in the rule over repeated deals and does not predict a player's next session.

A larger payout and a smaller house edge answer different questions

The 20% reduction is relative to the 15 units of profit a winning natural would have earned on a 10-unit bet. The 1.3597 percentage point figure is an average over all initial bets in the six-deck model. Neither number gives the total house edge on its own. To get that, start with the edge under 3:2 for the full ruleset and add the payout penalty only if the 6:5 game really holds everything else fixed.

Two real tables may differ in deck count, whether the dealer draws on soft 17, what can be doubled, how split hands work and whether surrender is offered. They may also have different minimum bets. A percentage point comparison measures cost per initial unit. To compare expected cost per hand at different stakes, multiply each game's own house edge by its own starting bet. A higher minimum cannot be treated as a change in the payout ratio alone.

A few details can change even when the felt looks familiar. The linked Massachusetts rule example treats the two naturals as a push and makes a separate provision for an even-money option on eligible 3:2 games. The table above assumes ordinary settlement of the main wager with no insurance or even-money choice. Other rule variations can change which hands pay or how side wagers settle. Keep those outside the comparison until you have the actual terms.

At a table, read the natural payout and then the rest of the rule card before comparing games. If all other conditions match, 3:2 pays more on every winning natural and the remaining outcomes are worth the same. For the parts of the house edge that come from other rules, see the house edge guide and the analysis of deck count.

CURRICULUM TRAJECTORY // RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Cross-Referenced Research Dossiers

Quantitative theoretical analyses and algorithmic models correlated with this subject:

Choose a platform

Partner links

Live blackjack: compare the rules of the selected table

Table selection guide → Visit 1win 18+ · Terms on site

Blackjack: check the selected game and its rules

Table selection guide → Visit Stake 18+ · Terms on site

Check local availability and the exact table rules before playing. Offers depend on your country and account. Current terms are on the operator’s site.

[FAQ // METHODOLOGY & INQUIRIES]

Frequently Answered Questions

#01 What does 6:5 pay on a 10-unit blackjack bet? +

A paid natural earns 12 units of profit and returns the 10-unit stake, for 22 units in all.

#02 How much does 6:5 add to the house edge? +

In the fresh six-deck model with a push on two naturals and otherwise identical rules, the change adds 1.3597 percentage points per initial bet.

#03 Does an ordinary 21 receive the 3:2 or 6:5 payout? +

The comparison uses the special payout for a winning natural on the original two cards. An ordinary winning 21 pays even odds in the rules used here.

#04 What if the dealer and player both have blackjack? +

Under the push rule used here, the original wager is returned and the net result is zero. The ratio makes no difference to that hand.

BJM Statistical Advantage Lab

Card Counting Systems & Stochastic Risk Lab

Specialized advantage play research laboratory focusing on Thorp-Griffin card removal models, True Count probability density transformations, continuous Brownian motion Risk of Ruin formulations, and Schlesinger SCORE optimization across institutional betting spreads.

Brownian Motion Risk of Ruin Formulations Proportional Kelly Bet Ramp Optimization Schlesinger SCORE & Variance Benchmarking