Royal 20's side bet
Thread Rating:
1. Number of decks (I think six).
2. Does a soft 20 count as a win (I think so).
3. Penetration (this would be highly countable, so it is an important question).
All I have to go on is the rule card below.
My initial analysis of Royal 20's shows a house edge of 18.06%, assuming six decks and soft 20's win. This is a lot higher than most BJ side bets. Maybe they had to have a big cushion to protect themselves from card counters, as Lucky Ladies did.
Can anyone confirm or deny my math, or answer the three questions above?
Thanks.
This bet was burnt out in 2003 when it was at the Plaza and a few other casinos. It is more vulnerable than Lucky Ladies and has much lower variance. Yes, A-9 counts as 20. It doesn't take much to beat it. A friend camped out at the Plaza and played it for weeks. He bet $50 on Royal 20's (that was the table max) whenever the count indicated.
Here is the original article on the game, from 2003:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Sep-21-Sun-2003/business/22168135.html
I actually still have the simulator I wrote way back then. I checked the code, same game.
Any Ten-based count will work (e.g. 2-9 = +1, T,J,Q,K = -2, A = 0).
Simulating that count with 6 decks dealt to 260 cards (5 of 6), 100M hands:
Wager frequency: 7.67%
Average edge: 8.66%
Units won per 100 hands: 0.664
Trigger true count: +6
Simulating that count with 2 decks dealt to 75 cards:
Wager frequency: 6.54%
Average edge: 10.58%
Units won per 100 hands: 0.692
Trigger true count: +8
The numbers above are based on very old software. I'll re-do it in the next few days. My recommendation is that the side bet be carefully watched by any casino hosting it. Of course, APs have a good thing going until then.
Also, the (one and only Royal 20's) table Mike refers to in his analysis (at the Gold Coast) had a CSM. They have since replaced it with a DD pitch. The CSM now replaces the only shoe game they used to have (near the cashier).
Question: Did you have an expert figure out the expected house edge for the side bets, so that you could sell casinos on the game's profitability?
Answer: Yes, we hired Michael Shackleford, the "Wizard of Odds."
Quote: MrCasinoGamesInventer of the game BOBBY FLORENCE .
Question: Did you have an expert figure out the expected house edge for the side bets, so that you could sell casinos on the game's profitability?
Answer: Yes, we hired Michael Shackleford, the "Wizard of Odds."
Hmmmm...
Quote: Review JournalQuestion: Did you have an expert figure out the expected house edge for the side bets, so that you could sell casinos on the game's profitability?
Answer: Yes, we hired Michael Shackleford, the "Wizard of Odds."
Three of us keyed in on that same snippet!
LOL!
Quote: MrCasinoGamesAnswer: Yes, we hired Michael Shackleford, the "Wizard of Odds."
I'm sure I warned him to put it on a CSM.
You should probably check your archives to make sure you actually did that work to make sure that the inventor wasn't pulling a name out of a hat!!!
Quote: WizardI'm sure I warned him to put it on a CSM.
Either he ignored and/or forgot your adivce, or BoyMimbo's right.
Quote: Review JournalQuestion: It seems like this game would be susceptible to card counting.
Answer: As far as counting goes, the casino executives say that people who count cards don't waste their money on side bets.
Quote: boymimboYou should probably check your archives to make sure you actually did that work to make sure that the inventor wasn't pulling a name out of a hat!!!
Quote: MrCasinoGamesInventer of the game BOBBY FLORENCE .
Question: Did you have an expert figure out the expected house edge for the side bets, so that you could sell casinos on the game's profitability?
Answer: Yes, we hired Michael Shackleford, the "Wizard of Odds."
Guess I was not fully awake. I read this as Mr. Casino Games, Inventor of the game Bobby Florence. Used to reading, Mr.Casino Games, inventor of 100+ casino games. Actually was googling to find Bobby Florence game. Talk about DUMB !
Bobby Florence is the creator of a new casino game called Royal 20’s which is a variant of the game of blackjack. Florence is a casino employee as well as a former UNLV Hall of Fame Basketball player and is hoping to be remembered for the creation of the new blackjack game.
Quote: WizardI'm sure I warned him to put it on a CSM.
For whatever reason Gold Coast decided, after a few weeks, to make it a DD, and use the CSM to replace their shoe game.
Quote: Wizard
Can anyone confirm or deny my math, or answer the three questions above?
Math part is right. google doc
and the movie just starting. CASINO Sometimes life is nice.
Quote: teliotSurprise!
This bet was burnt out in 2003 when it was at the Plaza and a few other casinos. It is more vulnerable than Lucky Ladies and has much lower variance. Yes, A-9 counts as 20. It doesn't take much to beat it. A friend camped out at the Plaza and played it for weeks. He bet $50 on Royal 20's (that was the table max) whenever the count indicated.
....
Simulating that count with 2 decks dealt to 75 cards:
Wager frequency: 6.54%
Average edge: 10.58%
Units won per 100 hands: 0.692
Trigger true count: +8
The numbers above are based on very old software. I'll re-do it in the next few days. My recommendation is that the side bet be carefully watched by any casino hosting it. Of course, APs have a good thing going until then.
+8 TC aren't that common, that is assuming you are Hi-Lo
The true count +8 is for the tens-count indicated in the post. This true count or higher will happen on 6.54% of the hands.Quote: Ardent1+8 TC aren't that common, that is assuming you are Hi-Lo
Quote: teliotThe true count +8 is for the tens-count indicated in the post. This true count or higher will happen on 6.54% of the hands.
This is approximately once in every 15 hands, which is frequent on a fast game like Blackjack. And you can double up by betting both the dealer's hand and the player's hand for a 20 on a high count.
I don't see this game offering much over Lucky Ladies.
Quote: teliotThe true count +8 is for the tens-count indicated in the post. This true count or higher will happen on 6.54% of the hands.
Supplementing the Ten Count with a red/black side count can really score the bucks in this Royal 20's side bet.
My personal opinion is that a r/b side count is a waste of time. The value of a r/b count can be seen, for example, by my work on the Royal Match side bet. In addition, the r/b count is very tough to carry on simultaneously with a normal count, it is not just a matter of keeping track of aces or a fixed card. The strongest count against suits is the "difference count" which is very tough to use in practice and gives very little back for the effort required.Quote: JSTATSupplementing the Ten Count with a red/black side count can really score the bucks in this Royal 20's side bet.
If you have specific numbers to quantify "score the bucks," please share some details of your analysis. For example, what combinations of r/b-true vs. Ten-count true are triggers?
It offers much lower variance, which is critically important to many APs. Getting paid 5 units for an unsuited 20 in Royal 20s vs. 4 units in Lucky Ladies is the key to lowering the variance.Quote: PaigowdanI don't see this game offering much over Lucky Ladies
Royal 20's is (inadvertently) more AP-friendly in frequency. You get an extra unit win on the unsuited 20 and the suited 20 on the low end of the pay table.
Quote: Buzzard" Royal 20's is (inadvertently) more AP-friendly." Paigowdan giving AP advice. Never thought I'd see the day !
Whoa! Hold on a second!! Yikes, out damn spot!
I wasn't doing that.....I was noting its characteristics. Warning to operators.....
Quote: teliotMy personal opinion is that a r/b side count is a waste of time. The value of a r/b count can be seen, for example, by my work on the Royal Match side bet. In addition, the r/b count is very tough to carry on simultaneously with a normal count, it is not just a matter of keeping track of aces or a fixed card. The strongest count against suits is the "difference count" which is very tough to use in practice and gives very little back for the effort required.
If you have specific numbers to quantify "score the bucks," please share some details of your analysis. For example, what combinations of r/b-true vs. Ten-count true are triggers?
Since the Royal 20's side bet isn't offered at many casinos, I haven't fully evaluated it. Can't give you an exact number using the Ten Count with the red/black (R/B) side count. I'd count the R/B's with the right and left feet. Red cards with the right foot and black cards with the left. It can be safely estimated that a Ten Count true count of +4 and a R/B count of four (either color), will bring home the bacon.
Based on what information did you make the comment "score the bucks"? It appears to be unfounded to me.Quote: JSTATSince the Royal 20's side bet isn't offered at many casinos, I haven't fully evaluated it. Can't give you an exact number using the Ten Count with the red/black (R/B) side count.
I don't understand. The r/b count requires you count the value "r-b" -- this value may exceed 10 in either direction. How do feet help here?Quote:I'd count the R/B's with the right and left feet. Red cards with the right foot and black cards with the left.
Have you done this simulation? If not, why would you say such a thing? And, what does "bring home the bacon" mean?Quote:It can be safely estimated that a Ten Count true count of +4 and a R/B count of four (either color), will bring home the bacon.
I would say, at best, that your statements are reckless.
For 2 decks, using the ten count, based on a simulation of 10M shuffles, with the cut card at 75 cards:
Baseline house edge: 21.96%
Target true count: +8
Percent of hands with edge: 8.89%
Average edge: 17.06%
Units won per 100 hands: 1.52.
By comparison, in the same circumstances (2 decks, cut card at 75, Ten count), the units won per 100 hands for Lucky Ladies is 1.27.
Since you can wager separately on both the Dealer 20 and Player 20, the AP can earn 3.04 units per 100 hands. Playing heads-up against a fast dealer, getting 200 rounds per hour, and making a $100 bet on the Dealer and Player wagers whenever the count indicates, the AP can earn over $600 per hour playing against this bet.
The difference between this wager and Lucky Ladies is significant. The house edge is lower, meaning that opportunities for an edge will be more frequent. The variance is lower, meaning that bankroll risk will be less of a concern. You can make two wagers instead of 1 when you have the edge, getting twice the money down. The units won per 100 hands is higher.
I recommend that Gold Coast take immediate and significant steps to protect this game.
Quote: teliotBased on what information did you make the comment "score the bucks"? It appears to be unfounded to me.
I don't understand. The r/b count requires you count the value "r-b" -- this value may exceed 10 in either direction. How do feet help here?
Have you done this simulation? If not, why would you say such a thing? And, what does "bring home the bacon" mean?
I would say, at best, that your statements are reckless.
Maybe I should make a YouTube video on side counting the red and black cards using our feet. It is very easy to implement without much distraction. It is not "reckless" to use the red/black side count at this Royal 20's side bet with the JSTAT Count (Ten Count)! Why the venom Eliot?
You have no proof that (+4,+4) is the right count point with a side count of red/black. You are advising players to make the Royal 20s wager when the house has a significant edge and stating emphatically that the player has an edge. I consider your advice directly harmful to players. It is also harmful to casinos, as it may make identifying APs for them considerably more difficult. Your advice is therefore reckless.Quote: JSTATIt is not "reckless" to use the red/black side count at this Royal 20's side bet with the Ten Count.
It may be a minor error on your part, but with all due respect, when it comes to gaming Math I would put just as much faith in Eliot Jacobson, PH.D. as I put in The Wizard himself. As far as I am concerned, if Teliot says something, then you might as well just carve it in stone. I've been following him on www.apheat.net for quite some time, and the worst mistake I have ever seen him called on was actually a mere typo.
It looks as if counting the Queens of Hearts has a major factor!Quote: http://www.ukcasinotablegames.info/blackjackluckyladies.htmlAny 20 4-1, suited 20 10-1.Matched 20 25-1, Queen of Hearts Pair 200-1, Queen Of Hearts Pair With Dealer Blackjack 1000-1.
For the red/black count, I used the following formula for the true count:
sTC = (int)(ABS(redPlayed - blackPlayed)/nOD),
where nOD is the number of decks remaining in the shoe.
The ordinary true count was computed by this formula:
TC = (int)(rC/nOD),
where rC is the running count for the Ten count.
==============
The first idea tested was JSTAT's (4,4) claim. That is, make the R20 bet whenever both TC >= +4 and sTC >= +4.
The following simulation gives the baseline edge for the AP if he makes the R20 bet whenever TC >= +4. The AP actually has the edge over the house in this situation, though he has given up most of his EV by making the R20 bet in negative EV situations when the TC is 4, 5, 6 or 7. In this case:
Average edge = 3.81%
Wager frequency = 20.40%.
Units per 100 hands = 0.777.
The second simulation adds JSTAT's red/black count to this. Now, suppose the AP makes the R20 bet whenever he has both TC >= +4 and sTC >= +4 or more. In this case:
Average edge = 6.14%
Wager frequency = 8.99%
Units per 100 hands = 0.552.
It follows that the red/black count COSTS the player 0.225 units per 100 hands.
How could the EV possibly go down? Suppose the TC >=+8 but sTC < 4. Then, using JSTAT's rule, the AP does not make the R20 bet. Though the average edge goes up for the player, the AP is missing out on many positive EV situations by also requiring sTC >= 4. The player makes far fewer wagers with a modest increase in average edge.
===================
Another idea is to use this rule (TC + sTC) >= 8 and see if that performs better than TC >= 8 alone. It does not.
The return for TC >= 8 is:
Average edge = 17.07%
Wager frequency = 8.89%
Units per 100 hands = 1.52
The return for (TC + sTC) >= 8 is:
Average edge = 0.93%.
Wager frequency = 19.50%.
Units per 100 hands = 0.18
So in this case, using the red/black count COSTS the player 1.34 units per 100 hands.
The reason for this dramatic decline is simple. Just because there is an abundance of a suit does not mean that there is an abundance of cards that can make a total of 20. For example, if sTC = 9 and TC = -1, then the player would make the R20 wager using this scheme.
=================
In both of these situations, using the r/b count in conjunction with the Ten count lowers the return (units won per 100 hands) to the AP.
I ran a simulation of 10M shoes to determine the approximate house edge in the exact situation where TC = 4 and sTC = 4. This situation corresponds to a house advantage of about 10.90%.Quote: teliotYou have no proof that (+4,+4) is the right count point with a side count of red/black. You are advising players to make the Royal 20s wager when the house has a significant edge and stating emphatically that the player has an edge.
Even in the situation when TC = 7 (the trigger TC is +8) and sTC = 4, the house has the edge (0.80% house edge).
Quote: teliotThe true count +8 is for the tens-count indicated in the post. This true count or higher will happen on 6.54% of the hands.
Thanks for the correction -- it's been a while since I played BJ -- the problem with a 10's count is that it is inferior to a standard BJ counts for the main game. Unless the person is wonging in for the side bet or playing with a confederate, that player has to learn a new count and may not be worthwhile given the longevity of the side game.
Quote: teliotI investigated JSTAT's idea to use a combination of the true count and r/b true count. I decided to explore two ways for the AP to play against the Royal 20's (R20) using both counts. Each situation required two simulations. First, some technical information. [Great technical info follows.]
Thanks for all that Eliot. When I read your results and reread the paytable, it definitely made sense. Suited 20s only pay double vs. any 20, and a red/black count doesn't totally track the ability of suited 20s. And suited pairs, which pay quintuple vs. a normal 20, happen much less frequently that their effect is probably even more negligible.
There is a good intuitive argument that a r/b count will always hurt the AP. What is gained by hitting more suited 20's is lost (and more) by not hitting as many unsuited 20's. In every simulation where I tried to include the r/b count, the "units per 100 hands" moved away from the player and towards the house.Quote: tringlomaneThanks for all that Eliot. When I read your results and reread the paytable, it definitely made sense. Suited 20s only pay double vs. any 20, and a red/black count doesn't totally track the ability of suited 20s. And suited pairs, which pay quintuple vs. a normal 20, happen much less frequently that their effect is probably even more negligible.
Lucky Ladies has thrived while being a high-countable side bet. The main reasons, in my opinion, are its high variance, high initial house edge, and the wealth of information about its countability on the Internet. Royal 20's has significantly lower variance, a lower edge to overcome, and its footprint is still very small.
If the Wizard or teliot state something that does not include the words "in my opinion", you can pretty much take it to the bank.
wizardofodds.com, wizzardofvegas.com and apheat.com are MUST reads if you are a gambler or Casino Manament if you want to succeed at either aspect.
You can not get away with putting out untested or false information here. It will NEVER stay false (and un-challenged) or untested for more than a very short period of time.
I suggest eating a little crow and admitting you unknowingly made a falst statement. It happens. Then continue to read every word, in your spare time, on the 3 sites listed above.
Good luck to you and welcome to the site.
ZCore13
ZCore13
Quote: teliotZcore13, you may not know that JSTAT (John Stathis) is a well-known figure on gambling message boards; extraordinary claims about advantage play are not at all unusual for him. You may just want to "Google" him.
I'm not much of a gambling message board grinder, but I am known as JSTAT of Moviemakerjjcasino on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/Moviemakerjjcasino covering casino games and casinos. Games include card counting at EZ Baccarat Dragon 7/Panda 8, baccarat, blackjack, and covering the poker/casino world. I can also be found on Twitter as JSTAT @Casino_Examiner. The Royal 20's side bet fascinated me Eliot Jacobson and my initial approximate figures of beating the side bet probably is wrong because of your mathematical knowledge.
Quote: JSTATI'm not much of a gambling message board grinder, but I am known as JSTAT of Moviemakerjjcasino on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/Moviemakerjjcasino covering casino games and casinos. Games include card counting at EZ Baccarat Dragon 7/Panda 8, baccarat, blackjack, and covering the poker/casino world. I can also be found on Twitter as JSTAT @Casino_Examiner. The Royal 20's side bet fascinated me Eliot Jacobson and my initial approximate figures of beating the side bet probably is wrong because of your mathematical knowledge.
JSTAT, I always thought you were a joke on bj21.com and several other blackjack sites on the web. You have two main traits -- how you constantly self-promoted yourself as this amazing BJ player and your posts told endless conquests at the BJ tables.
Your biggest defect was your inability to provide a third-party, independent verification of your supposedly exploits. When I beat a casino in BJ, I usually get a keepsake such as the casino promo ad listing BJ pays 2:1, etc. You had to be there to get the promo material or ask the floor boss to keep it after the promo.
In case anyone wants to search the internet, it's not hard to find your self-promoting posts littered throughout the public online bj forums.
Quote: teliotI analyzed JSTAT's baccarat claims in baccarat card counting flim flam on my blog. JSTAT's high Google ranking may give the impression that his ideas have merit. For the most part, his advice on advantage play is factually wrong.
Let's see, I used Teliot's EZ Baccarat Dragon 7 findings and incorporated it with the JSTAT Count, with good results. And of course, let's not forget the professor using the JSTAT Count (he called it the "simple Ten Count") for his Lucky Ladies blackjack side bet analysis. Many of my secrets have not been published, since it is more profitable to play. Eliot Jacobson (Teliot) claims I'm "factually wrong" on advantage play which is not true, but this is expected from someone who has sold out to the casinos.
I thought I already had a page for it but I guess now, so just created one. Please visit my new page on Royal 20's. I welcome all questions, comments, and especially corrections.
