Black Jack question

First, Happy New Year to you all! Hope your New Year's Eve was great!

I will be going to AC and staying at Showboat this coming Saturday, Sunday. I used to play a lot of Black Jack but have gotten away from it for while. So I'm practicing at home and plan on getting back into it a little this trip.

I have question for anyone who plays Black Jack. My borther used to say that the only advantage the house had in Black Jack is that the dealer went last. Is this true??

Just curious . . .

Not true

Visit https://www.wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/calculator/

Sorry, I have to disagree with Tony. The house edge will vary depending on the rules, and of course on the skill of the players, but the house edge does derive from the dealer playing last. All the other rules are advantageous to the players: we can decide for ourselves whether to hit or stand, we can double down a good hand, we can split, we get paid 3:2 for a natural (the house gets 1:1, i.e., only gets our money). The house's only advantage is that it goes last, so if you bust and the dealer busts, you lose.

Thanks for your response. I love that in these forums we can share so many viewpoints.
I do maintain that the statement that the ONLY advantage the house has is to go last - is false.
I also stand by my source - wizardofodds.
I also wish to point out that the wizardofodds has just been appointed as the new LVA blackjack advisor.

To clarify - going last is a very slight advantage - but the odds on a blackjack - 2-1. 3-2. 6-5. and, whether to hit or stand on a soft seventeen, plus the sidegames like Queens, plus the rules on insurance - all combine to determine the dealer v player odds. What are the odds on single deck v 8 deck shufflemaster. There is a lot more to consider than who goes last.

But going last can be preferable to going first

I think we're on the same page, Tony, and I agree that you can't do much better than Michael Shackleford (wizardofodds.com) for gambling math and advice, he generally has the most accurate analyses of any game.

And you're right that there are numerous rule variations that affect the house advantage. BUT, all of them benefit the player more or less. Paying 6:5 on a natural is horrible, but in actuality it still favors the player over the dealer (who gets 1:1 on naturals). The problem is that it doesn't favor the player enough to compensate for the fact that the player loses when both player and dealer bust. Same with the number of decks, whether or not you can double after split (the poor dealer can't even split), double on any two cards, etc. What I'm saying is that the player is at a massive disadvantage (don't remember the number, I think it's around 5%) just by going first and losing even if the dealer ultimately busts; all the other options and advantages for the player offset that. So, a crappy rule like 6:5 technically doesn't benefit the house, it just inadequately benefits the player. But maybe it comes down to semantics.

Thanks for the discussion!