Sports aficionados take great delight in explaining the esoteric rules of their favorite sport, so much so that those rules are no longer esoteric. Sunday couch potatoes know the difference between “the call stands” and “the call is confirmed.” Olympic hockey fans know why T.J. Oshie became the Russian nemesis. And those who watch regular-season baseball games know about the Infield Fly Rule, probably the most famous “esoteric” rule in sports.
Without getting into the details or the horribly written letter of the law, the idea is this. Let’s say there’s no one out, runners on first and second. The batter hits a short pop-up to the third baseman. Under the IFR, the batter is called out (the umpire will raise his arm even before the ball has dropped from the sky), even if the third baseman drops the ball. Without the IFR, the runners on base would have to wait, assuming the easy fly ball would be caught, but then the third baseman could intentionally let the ball fall to the ground, pick it up, tag third for the force out, throw to second base for the force out (double play), and then the throw to first base could potentially complete the triple play. The IFR prevents the defense from intentionally dropping the ball to turn a double/triple play.
It makes no sense to me why a new rule would be created to protect the offense here. The pitcher succeeded in getting the batter to pop up the ball. To hit into a double/triple play is a bad mistake for the offense—too bad for you! Introducing a rule introduces arguments. People don’t understand the rule. The rule has some conditions that are discretionary for the umpire (whether the ball could have been caught with “ordinary effort”). The wording varies in different leagues (Little League, softball, MLB).
Perhaps the baseball “purists” felt that intentionally dropping the ball would be a crime against nature, and that “bad play” should never be encouraged/allowed. But it isn’t bad play. It’s situational baseball. In football, it would often be correct for the team that is ahead very late in the game to intentionally down the ball on the 1-yard line, instead of scoring the easy touchdown, in order to maintain possession to run out the clock. Or in basketball, a player might intentionally miss a free throw, in the hopes of rebounding the live ball to shoot a 2-pointer or 3-pointer. Fouling the opponent intentionally (which would probably be considered “bad basketball” in some sense) is the norm for the trailing team in the last couple minutes.
These situational plays sometimes add intrigue, and give the smart team another way to separate itself from the donks. Wouldn’t the simple pop-ups in baseball become more exciting if the fielder has to choose whether to let the ball drop, and then attempt to pick it up quickly and go for the double play? If he succeeds, the double or triple play would become a SportsCenter Top 10 play, and sometimes he’ll fail, possibly even throwing the ball away if his teammate isn’t ready for the throw to the base. Sometimes, the fielder would catch the ball, and all the commentators would then chime in about how the smart play would have been to intentionally let the ball drop!
The defense is allowed to intentionally walk the batter, allowing the pitcher to face a weaker batter with a chance for a double play. There is no rule to disallow intentional walks.
For those who live in casinos, their “sport” is gambling, and they, too, take pride in knowing the esoteric rules and procedures pertaining to casino life. Longtime gamblers explain with a hint of pride (!) that you must use only one hand on the cards in handheld blackjack or carny games. On a game like Ultimate Texas Holdem, the grizzled veteran will instantly jump on the newbie to correct the placement of the cards after the Play bet has been made, as if the newbie is an idiot for not knowing the local style (as if there were some standard).
And so it is with taking “even money” in a 6:5 blackjack game. The grizzled “veteran” dealers and pit bosses will triumphantly explain, “You can’t take even money in 6:5 blackjack” as if that’s some deep mathematical truism that only they can understand. They might even say the quiet part out loud: “You can’t take even money in 6:5 blackjack—duh!”
But the real reason you can’t take even money in 6:5 blackjack is because the Table Games Manager is an idiot.
Let’s look into “even money.” In a traditional 3:2 game, if you have a blackjack and the dealer has an Ace up, you can just say “even money” and the dealer will pay you 1:1 on your natural, before she checks whether she has blackjack herself. This “even money” turns out to be equivalent to buying insurance on your blackjack. Let’s see why. Suppose you bet $100, and you get a snapper, and you put up a $50 insurance bet against the dealer’s Ace up. If the dealer has no blackjack, you will win $150 (3:2) on your main bet, minus the losing $50 insurance bet, for a net gain of $100. If the dealer does have blackjack, you will push your main bet, but get paid $100 (2:1 on insurance) on your $50 insurance bet, for a net gain of $100. So regardless of whether the dealer has blackjack, your net gain is $100. To streamline the process, we let the gambler simply say “even money” to collect that $100. [Ken Smith will point out that in a tournament where your $100 bet put you all-in, saying “even money” is effectively allowing you to buy insurance on your natural even though you have no remaining chips to buy insurance. So there is a liquidity difference between saying “even money” and insuring a natural!]
In a 6:5 game, what does insurance look like? If the dealer has no blackjack, you win $120 (6:5) on your main bet, minus the losing $50 insurance bet, for a net gain of $70. If the dealer does have blackjack, you will push your main bet, but get paid $100 on your $50 insurance bet, for a net gain of $100. (An insurance wager of 40% of your main bet would result in a zero-variance net gain of 80% of your original bet, which would be $80 in this example. So, next time you have a natural against an Ace in 6:5, you could ask the dealer for “80% money” and then when she looks at you like you’re crazy, just put out a 40% insurance wager. The confusion might hold up the game for five minutes.)
So we can see that in the 6:5 game, insuring a natural would result in a net payoff of either $70 or $100, and thus is not the same as the sure-thing net profit of $100 that would come from saying “even money”—if they allowed that latter option. In the traditional 3:2 1-deck game, taking even money has an EV of 1, which is lower than the EV of “gambling” on the natural, which is EV = (34/49)x1.5 + (15/49)x0 = 1.0408. Reducing the variance on the hand to zero via “even money” comes at a price of 4.08%, enough for the half-sharps to call even money a “sucker bet”!
In the 6:5 1-deck game, let’s consider four options:
[1] 50% insurance: EV = (34/49)x0.7 + (15/49)x1 = 0.7918
[2] 40% insurance: EV = (34/49)x0.8 + (15/49)x0.8 = 0.8 (no variance, outcome always +0.80)
[3] No insurance: EV = (34/49)x1.2 + (15/49)x0 = 0.8327
[4] “Even money” (if allowed): EV = 1
In the eyes of an idiot Table Games Manager, those EVs create a problem, because it would be correct for the player to take “even money” if it were available, raising the EV from 0.8327 to 1, when holding a natural against a dealer’s Ace up.
When asked to explain why even money isn’t offered, an “astute” boss will state the “logic” that it would be correct to take even money if offered. Yes, that’s true, but how is that a problem? It’s situational blackjack.
Changes to rules and payoffs can change the basic strategy in the game. So what? In a 6-deck shoe, you would not double down on hard 9 v. 2 up. But in a 1-deck game, that hand becomes advantageous to double down. So what? In a 6-deck shoe game, doubling 11 v Ace becomes the correct basic-strategy play once we introduce H17. Does the Table Games Manager suddenly say that players aren’t allowed to double down on 11? Or not against an Ace up? I wonder if they had a meeting where the Table Games Manager lamented that players are now going to be correctly doubling on 11 v Ace. It’s not like the good ol’ days when Benny Binion stood on soft 17 with an iron fist!
Perhaps the No-Even-Money rule is based not on stupidity, but on greed. Maybe casinos feel that offering even money would be giving up too much, but do they even know the numbers on this? Paying 6:5 instead of 3:2 gives the casino a massive boost of 1.3948% in a single-deck game. What would it cost for the casino to “give back” even money when the scenario arises? The scenario occurs with probability 2 x (4/52) x (16/51) x (3/50) = 0.0028959 (1 in 345 hands), because you would have to hold a natural against a dealer’s Ace up. When it occurs, the player would get 1 unit instead of the 0.8327 units we computed above from sitting on the natural without insuring, for an improvement of 0.167347 units. So offering even money when the player holds a natural against a dealer’s Ace up would cost the casino only 0.0485%, after they just scammed the player out of 1.3948% by short-paying 6:5 instead of the traditional 3:2.
By allowing even money, the casino would make things simpler for their own dealers, who probably switch from 6:5 to 3:2 tables during the day. Also, there would be no arguments with the players. The fact of the matter is that players feel ripped off when they can’t take even money. Incredibly, many of these players consider the scam of 6:5 the fact that even money has been taken away from them, not the massive shortening of the payoff itself. You tell them blackjack pays 6:5, and they don’t care much, because they believe that single deck is juicy for the player; but then you tell them they can’t take even money, and NOW they feel ripped off!
Tossing the players a really tiny 0.0485% bone has an additional benefit to the casino: By creating a version of blackjack where it is now correct to take even money, the casinos could spread the bogus narrative that a “smart” player takes even money. This notion would then be cemented as THE basic strategy, even in 3:2 games where taking even money costs the player 4%.
Never miss another post
Well done/written. About as clear and concise as possible.
Re: Infield fly rule…
There is no infield fly rule with only a man on first for the simple reason the batter should make first base before the ball is dropped and the ball is thrown for the force out at second base.
Allowing a defensive team to gain 2 outs – never 3 assuming the batter runs to first base – would be an unfair advantage since there is a ‘tag up” rule on all fly ball outs.
Regardless of the rules, how would there ever be an “unfair” advantage? If a batter hits a short pop-up (or a grounder to the shortstop), that’s a really bad outcome for his at-bat when there are runners on board, and a successful way for the pitcher to get out of a jam. But the same scenario could occur to the other team when they’re batting! The game is symmetric.
The infield fly rule protects the offensive team, if you have a fast runner at second base and a slow one at first, the infielder would 100% let the ball drop and get the fast runner off the base path… Baseball has to make rules to prevent manipulation…
Yes, I understand the intent of the rule, and the moronic “logic” behind it, but how is intentionally dropping the ball “manipulation”?????? It’s a TACTIC! Just like intentionally missing a free throw in the hopes of grabbing the rebound. Just like pulling the goalie when trailing late in hockey. JUST LIKE INTENTIONALLY WALKING A BATTER!!!!! (Cuz why would you intentionally give a batter a base?) Just like subbing in a lefty pitcher! Just like putting in a designated hitter who is better than the other guy. Just like bunting. Just like “the shift.” If the defense thinks the move is to intentionally let the ball fall to the ground, then let them try exactly that. It’s the same as if the batter had grounded into a double play. Maybe next time the hitter should hit a homer or a hit to the outfield instead of a short pop-up!
But why prevent that particular “manipulation” and not others such as the ones James mentioned? Why does the intentional walk not qualify as a “manipulation”? Heck, MLB recently made that particular play entirely risk free by no longer requiring the pitcher to actually throw four balls. If you’re somehow worried about the “purity” of the game then what about defensive shifts like four outfielders and three infielders? If you’re worried about one team being helpless against the situation then, while you’re at it, why not eliminate the home run? After all, there is no defense against it.
I believe that James’ point is that hitting a pop up to a spot of the field which makes a double (or triple) play possible is no different than hitting a one-hopper to short. In both cases the batter hit a ball to a bad spot allowing the defense the *possibility* to make a skilled play for additional outs. Too bad for the batter, but the skill of the pitcher comes into play in engineering both situations. How many times have you heard the commentators talk about the pitcher pitching in a certain way in order to increase the chance of a ground ball or a pop up? The outcome is not guaranteed in either case and one might argue that intentionally letting the ball drop comes with considerable risk.
Bottom line: if you don’t want to hit into a double play then don’t hit a grounder to short *or* a pop up on the infield!
Looks like James and I were typing at the same time. ;-p~
So you’re hearing me 100% on the existence of the Infield Fly Rule. Now is the link to “No-Even-Money” in 6:5 clear? 🙂
I don’t know if casinos are too stupid or too smart to have “NO EVEN MONEY ALLOWED” printed on the felt along with the 6:5 rule.
If you killed the infield fly rule, then, logically, all runners should be able to advance on any fly ball, without the need to tag up. And any runs that scored before the ball came down would count, even if the ball was eventually caught for the third out.
Or to put it another way, the “tag up” rule is designed so that you can’t score a run by merely hitting a towering fly ball/pop-up. The only way to ensure that, and do so fairly, is to essentially “freeze” the action until the ball is caught.
What I think you might not understand is that if not for that fundamental rule, baseball offense would be focused on hitting the ball as high in the air as possible. Batters would use uppercut swings to produce fly balls at all costs. The game would look like a clown exhibition.
Why did casinos even bother with 6:5? The bimbette dealers in some party pits (eg., Caesars) proved they were incapable of doing the math for correct payouts, so they simply made it 1:1. Degen gamblers will play anything.
“Reducing the variance on the hand to zero via “even money” comes at a price of 4.08%, enough for the half-sharps to call even money a “sucker bet”!“
Dean of APs
I believe MathProf stated (on bj21.com) the optimal insurance on player BJ is to buy 1/3rd of the wager amount from a variance reduction perspective.
I understand fractional insurance isn’t congruent to the case of even money. But MathProf’s point is you don’t have to buy the full insurance WITH THE HIDDEN ASSUMPTION that you do this at high true counts where you got a big bet out there.
“So you’re hearing me 100% on the existence of the Infield Fly Rule. Now is the link to “No-Even-Money” in 6:5 clear? 🙂”
Sure. According to you, most Table Games Managers managers use the logic that, if offered, it would be correct to take it. By that logic, they shouldn’t offer doubling down, splitting or surrender because it’s sometimes correct to do it.
Of course the real reason is that they don’t want to give up any of the (truly) ill-gotten gain from the 6:5 rule.
“Pulling the goalie” and “missing a free throw on purpose” are acts of desperation, not manipulation. You have to hit the rim on a missed free throw, that rule was added to make that desperate play harder to pull off. An intentional walk is not manipulation because it puts a runner on base, you are giving one base to a hitter instead of risking more bases. The shift annoys the heck out of me, I wish I was a kid again, I was taught to hit to all fields and bunt, I would poke a shot to right and beat the shift if they stupidly tried it on me. Nobody in baseball is suggesting getting rid of the infield fly rule, but thank you for the discourse. If they tried the shift on Pete Rose he would have hit over .450 every year…
Ok, explain to me what “manipulation” is, then. If I walk a batter, I do so to face an easier batter, and also to increase the chance of a double play. How are the unusual tactics employed while desperate not “manipulation”? (Is doubling down on a hard 19 in a blackjack tournament “manipulation”?) If I allow a ball to drop in the absence of the IFR, I do so in the HOPE (not a guarantee) of turning a double or triple play, and in the situation (probably two men on with no outs), there’s a tinge of desperation. I really don’t understand what you mean by the word “manipulation” in a sports strategy decision under the rules of a game (assuming no IFR), or even “desperation”! At any given moment, I make the play that maximizes my chance of winning the game (or the championship). I like when they let the shortstop pitch! What about bluffing or check-raising in poker? But if you are 1st-and-10 on the 1-yard line, how would kneeling on every play, clearly trying not to score a TOUCHDOWN (the most desirable outcome in the “subgame”), not be “manipulation”? And, the beauty of it is that the supposed way in which the players are ASSUMED to employ manipulation ends up often not happening! That is, football players often DO score the touchdown, when running out the clock would be a better move (which gives something for the commentators on First Take to discuss). It all still begs the question: IFR is installed to protect the offense in a particular rare scenario … Why?? If the batter makes a short pop-up, he just gifted the defense a probable double play, just as if he had grounded to the shortstop. But the defense still has to execute the double play, and I for one would consider an intentional drop and pick up to be a much more entertaining double play than a typical grounder-to-shortstop double play. The larger point is: Why do you install a rule to try to level the playing field in a particular SUBGAME, or eliminate options that happen to be optimal in THAT subgame (like eliminating even money in a 6:5 game when the player with a natural is facing an Ace up)?
The Infield Fly Rule was instituted in 1895, modified in 1901, 1904, and 1920. Dropping a ball on purpose was seen in baseball’s infancy as a manipulation, and the fact that it has lasted over a hundred years proves that it is venerable and accepted. Pitchers have advantages over hitters, hitting 300 over a career gets you in The Hall Of Fame. The infield fly rule protects the offense, which sells tickets, one to nothing games are great for baseball purists, but terrible for revenue and participation by young people. Baseball is dying in urban areas, kids are playing soccer, basketball, and even lacrosse. I coached baseball in park leagues, Little League, All Stars, and travel ball, the suburbs are where the better players and programs reside. Nothing is perfect, there is room for debate and opinions, but this rule is never going away… Gambling analogies can be made, but history can not be revised…
I don’t know about the table games manager; but the real idiot is anyone playing six-to-five Blackjack.
Come on, what’s 1.4% among friends?
“lasted over a hundred years proves that it is venerable and accepted.” I wouldn’t say it proves that. The computer-generated strike zone box on TV didn’t exist for 100 years, but it’s standard for broadcasts, and might soon end up being used for actual ball-and-strike calls, and video replay has entered every sport.
Also: you say “was seen in baseball’s infancy as a manipulation” and yet you STILL have not DEFINED what “manipulation” is. Can you give me a dictionary-style definition? I think it would be extremely difficult to come up with any definition that wouldn’t also apply to intentional walks, a trick pickoff where the 1st baseman has the ball after a meeting with the pitcher, the shift, using pitchers for only two innings each, intentionally hitting a batter with the ball, plowing through a catcher, corking bats (a venerable tradition, no?), stealing signals (by a runner on 2nd base, or by cameras and garbage cans), using steroids, etc.
IFR, due to its rarity, does virtually nothing to change overall offensive production, especially compared to numerous other changes that could be made. ESPN coverage of the occasional intentionally dropped ball that turned into a double play, or triple play, or a horrendous gamble gone bad when all runners are safe, would do more for the popularity of the game. People mistake inertia for a sound basis for a practice. Casinos resisted TITO systems initially, and many “experts” argued that the long tradition of coins clinking in the slot machine trays would be missed by the typical customer. But you seem to be missing the point completely. Whether the IFR accomplishes anything isn’t the point. I’m simply questioning the “logic” of trying to level the playing field in a particular rare sub-scenario in the overall game. When you’re under the gun, you’re at a disadvantage. When you’re on the button, you have an advantage. When you get dealt offsuit 72, you’re at a disadvantage. When you get dealt AA, you’re at an advantage. When you get dealt a blackjack, you’ve been dealt a really favorable hand, and if taking even-money happens to be a more advantageous way to play the natural, compared to not taking even-money, that isn’t a “problem” that needs fixing. These are solutions to non-existent problems. And I don’t care what they do in baseball. If you think I’m lobbying for removing the IFR and making a gambling analogy, you got it completely backward. I’m lobbying to offer even money in 6:5 blackjack, and making a sports analogy. But that sports analogy doesn’t work on you, since you think there is merit to the IFR [I don’t].
And here I am thinking that this post would trigger tirades from outraged readers on the evils of 6:5 and the greed of casinos, but instead I triggered nostalgic defenses of the Infield Fly Rule! The Fortnite Generation must be killing you guys.
Missing a ball on purpose is absolutely a manipulation, it’s hard enough to teach a kid to run through first base, teaching them to go halfway whenever there is a pop up on the infield would be ridiculous. And your assertion that this would not hamstring the offense is as silly as comparing the infield fly to steroids and bat corking. No worries, you are the writer, I am just a sports fan who plays poker because I enjoy exercising my intellect… I do not enjoy playing blackjack, too many grumpy people for my taste…
You think it’s easier to teach kids the nuance of the IFR? At this point I’m beginning to suspect that you’re one of those people who makes Baseball Purism an aspect of their personality. Also, you mentioned before that ticket sales are down. Do you know what would speed up the game and increase viewership? Get rid of the IFR.
Also while I’ve got you here: every defensive position should have a DH. Have a great weekend.
Situational! A bit like getting a dealer who has boxed the deck in his hand to turn it back the right way by getting him to make change.