No they aren’t. You got those from an obscure web calculator (I say obscure because I have the site did not even have a domain URL) that you programmed with a single-deck. Single-deck drastically distorts results, but that wasn’t all. You multiplied by 2. For about the 7th time, the values are expressed in terms of initial bet size, you do not multiply by 2.
They only changed because you misquoted your own article… the one you originally linked to — http://www.casino.com/blackjack/article.asp?id=1720. I immediately realized you switched from 64% to 65%. Yet I chose to use that number anyway for the purpose of explaining how to compute an average. The quote from the article is below:
“In 100 tries I expect to win two dollars 64% of the time and lose two dollars 36% of the time thus be ahead $56 ($128-$72). This is a net expectation of 56 cents per hand.”
If we use 64% and 36%, we get 2x(0.64-0.36) = 0.56
The non-wizard article linked above is 0.70, my hand calc on page 3 is 0.70, wizard is 0.70. I believe you got the 0.667 from your obscure hand calculator, which you incorrectly programmed to a single-deck. I don’t doubt that odds chage slightly with differences in rules, such as num decks or hit/stand on soft 17. Look at my hand calcs on page 3. I did include pushes, and did not count a tie as partial win. My sim results also do not count a tie as a partial win. I only used the basic win or loss simplification for you because you were having so much trouble understanding the math.
You keep bringing up “my formula”. Do you mean the one I showed you on how to compute an average? Do you mean the hand calcs on page 3? Do you mean how my simulation with 200 million hands works?