new game Double Blackjack goes live GVR
November 17th, 2015 at 9:24:04 PM
permalink
The new game Double Blackjack went live at Green Valley Ranch today in the Vegas area.
The game is played as follows:
1. Players make a Blackjack two-card bet and a three card BJ bet of the same size. Player and dealer then get a packet of 5 cards. The goal is to make two blackjack hands, one a two-card side, and one a three-card side, both best as possible. Any hand that isn't between 17 to 21 is a fouled hand, and is an auto loss for both player and dealer, although player fouls first. The majority of hands can be made with either one or both hands valid.
2. The player may set his hand any way he sees fit, as there are no high hand/low hand requirements (like in Pai Gow Poker).
3. The dealer must follow a house way. The dealer must try to set:
a) The dealer will set the highest 3-card 17-21 hand that maintains a 2-card 17-21 hand, else:
b) The dealer will set the highest 3-card 17-21 hand with a fouled 2-card hand, else:
c) The dealer will set the highest 2-card 17-21 hand with a fouled 3-card hand, else:
d) The dealer will set any two fouled hands.
4. If a player can set two 21-valued hands on both sides, the player wins an additional one-half unit on the two-card side regardless of the dealer's hand. (This means that if the player's two-card 21 wins, he gets paid 3:2 on it, else if it ties to a dealer's two-card 21, he pushes but picks up a half-unit bonus.)
There is a bonus bet that pays if the player can form two 20-valued or better hands. The field trial is not listed online at the NGCB yet, but the game is live in its field trial.
The game is played as follows:
1. Players make a Blackjack two-card bet and a three card BJ bet of the same size. Player and dealer then get a packet of 5 cards. The goal is to make two blackjack hands, one a two-card side, and one a three-card side, both best as possible. Any hand that isn't between 17 to 21 is a fouled hand, and is an auto loss for both player and dealer, although player fouls first. The majority of hands can be made with either one or both hands valid.
2. The player may set his hand any way he sees fit, as there are no high hand/low hand requirements (like in Pai Gow Poker).
3. The dealer must follow a house way. The dealer must try to set:
a) The dealer will set the highest 3-card 17-21 hand that maintains a 2-card 17-21 hand, else:
b) The dealer will set the highest 3-card 17-21 hand with a fouled 2-card hand, else:
c) The dealer will set the highest 2-card 17-21 hand with a fouled 3-card hand, else:
d) The dealer will set any two fouled hands.
4. If a player can set two 21-valued hands on both sides, the player wins an additional one-half unit on the two-card side regardless of the dealer's hand. (This means that if the player's two-card 21 wins, he gets paid 3:2 on it, else if it ties to a dealer's two-card 21, he pushes but picks up a half-unit bonus.)
There is a bonus bet that pays if the player can form two 20-valued or better hands. The field trial is not listed online at the NGCB yet, but the game is live in its field trial.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 17th, 2015 at 9:29:10 PM
permalink
I will be back in Vegas in January and now have to get out to GVR for both this game and Poker With A Joker to try them out.
PGD is there a website or any place to play the game for free electronically?
Also is this a shoe dealt game or does it use fresh 52 card deck used each hand?
PGD is there a website or any place to play the game for free electronically?
Also is this a shoe dealt game or does it use fresh 52 card deck used each hand?
November 17th, 2015 at 9:40:46 PM
permalink
1. We didn't set up a Web site to provide game demos, etc., nor did we display the game at Cutting Edge. On this game we simply got the GLI math and field trial directly, for the least development cost, to see how the game performs. If the game does well (is not a dog), then there are options to expand locally in the Las Vegas by direct sales, or set up a Web site and get demos done, that is if we do not sign it up with a distributor, where the distributor would do the sales & marketing.
2. The game uses an I-Deal shuffler, dispensing packets of five cards per round, instead of a shoe. Dealer puts the prior deck into the machine and deals out packets from the shuffled deck that's ready to go.
2. The game uses an I-Deal shuffler, dispensing packets of five cards per round, instead of a shoe. Dealer puts the prior deck into the machine and deals out packets from the shuffled deck that's ready to go.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 18th, 2015 at 1:02:25 AM
permalink
Interesting to compare it with Pai Jack ( http://www.scoregamingnv.com/portfolio/pai-jack/ ) where hands less than 17 are acceptable but you cannot set the low hand if the high hand busts.Quote: PaigowdanThe new game Double Blackjack ...
November 18th, 2015 at 1:43:26 AM
permalink
Yes, we became familiar with Pai jack, but they are two separate games. The similarity is using Blackjack scoring in the games, but the game type and player restrictions are very different.
1. Pai Jack requires the player to make only one primary bet as a single Pai Gow type game; Double Blackjack requires the player to make two equal Blackjack bets, and form two separate Blackjack hands or games. Pai Jack is played as a single Pai Gow game; Double Blackjack is played as two separate Blackjack games played concurrently.
2. In Pai Jack, the player is required to set their 3-card side equal to or higher than the 2-card hand; In Double Blackjack game, the player may set two separate hands any way they want, and without any comparison restrictions between the two hands that create a high hand side and low hand side. In other words, the Pai Jack game has restrictive Pai Gow type hand set rules while Double Blackjack has no such player hand set rules as a Double Blackjack game.
3. In Pai Jack, if the player or dealers three card hand is over 21, the full hand is busted and the entire player position is a loss; in Double Blackjack, if the three card hand is bad, the two-card hand remains in action as a separate game to win, and vice versa.
4. In Pai Jack, players and dealer may have hand side values less than 17 to remain in action without fouling. In Double Blackjack, any hand that is not a "pat" Blackjack hand is bad, with only that hand or game sides wager losing.
Also, the bonus bet in Double Blackjack is Blackjack hand-value based (for example, a 20 with a 20, or two 21's, or a 21 with a soft hand side, no matter how formed, etc.) There are No Mini Royals or hand composition restrictions in getting two 20's or better, and what have you. I also have Pai Gow type games to release (with a single bet, and hand side comparison rules, etc.), but we wanted no Pai Gow basis or rules in this game.
1. Pai Jack requires the player to make only one primary bet as a single Pai Gow type game; Double Blackjack requires the player to make two equal Blackjack bets, and form two separate Blackjack hands or games. Pai Jack is played as a single Pai Gow game; Double Blackjack is played as two separate Blackjack games played concurrently.
2. In Pai Jack, the player is required to set their 3-card side equal to or higher than the 2-card hand; In Double Blackjack game, the player may set two separate hands any way they want, and without any comparison restrictions between the two hands that create a high hand side and low hand side. In other words, the Pai Jack game has restrictive Pai Gow type hand set rules while Double Blackjack has no such player hand set rules as a Double Blackjack game.
3. In Pai Jack, if the player or dealers three card hand is over 21, the full hand is busted and the entire player position is a loss; in Double Blackjack, if the three card hand is bad, the two-card hand remains in action as a separate game to win, and vice versa.
4. In Pai Jack, players and dealer may have hand side values less than 17 to remain in action without fouling. In Double Blackjack, any hand that is not a "pat" Blackjack hand is bad, with only that hand or game sides wager losing.
Also, the bonus bet in Double Blackjack is Blackjack hand-value based (for example, a 20 with a 20, or two 21's, or a 21 with a soft hand side, no matter how formed, etc.) There are No Mini Royals or hand composition restrictions in getting two 20's or better, and what have you. I also have Pai Gow type games to release (with a single bet, and hand side comparison rules, etc.), but we wanted no Pai Gow basis or rules in this game.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 18th, 2015 at 5:42:27 AM
permalink
I've played Pai Jack (see https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gaming-business/game-inventors/18111-ricoh-coventry-showcase/5/#post497180 ) so was interested in the similarities. One problem with Pai Jack is how often you bust, and so don't get a game. I know the dealer makes Hi of 17-21 87% of the time (and busts about 10%). Thus I'm guessing one advantage with your game is players will make at least one hand, for instance many of the Pai Jack busts are with high cards where a 2-card 20 could be made.Quote: PaigowdanYes, we became familiar with Pai jack, but they are two separate games...
November 18th, 2015 at 6:12:15 AM
permalink
Thanks for posting this. Now I have two reasons to go out to the GVR. Can you tell me what hours both this game and Poker with a Joker are open?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
November 18th, 2015 at 7:34:39 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardThanks for posting this. Now I have two reasons to go out to the GVR. Can you tell me what hours both this game and Poker with a Joker are open?
Mike, thank you. The games are generally open 2PM to midnight, 7 days a week. Double Blackjack must be open 2PM to midnight during the field trial as posted hours. I am happy Poker with a Joker is busy long after the field trial. Know that when you have a field trial, there are actually two field trials happening, with the second field trial being the "casino keeping the game after the official NV field trial ends."
Quote: charliepatrickI've played Pai Jack (see https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gaming-business/game-inventors/18111-ricoh-coventry-showcase/5/#post497180 ) so was interested in the similarities. One problem with Pai Jack is how often you bust, and so don't get a game. I know the dealer makes Hi of 17-21 87% of the time (and busts about 10%). Thus I'm guessing one advantage with your game is players will make at least one hand, for instance many of the Pai Jack busts are with high cards where a 2-card 20 could be made.
Charlie, yes, that is a key point. In designing a game, I look for playing characteristics that are "more good, less bad," - and fouling both hands is less than 1% in Double Blackjack. When we did the math, we got the following stats on fouling neither, either, or both hands. It is a fairly pushy game (which we felt is good), as many games are too streaky. The germ of the game idea was from my business partner on this, Al, but a lot of the detail work was from myself. A good team here.
Hand Setting Outcomes
Two Pat Hands 38.52%
Three Card Pat Hand Only 23.05%
Two Card Pat Hand Only 37.45%
Two Fouled Hands 0.97%
Let me add that ties (copies) push, and are NOT won by the house. Also very Blackjack-y in spirit and in game play.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 18th, 2015 at 9:50:35 AM
permalink
Best of luck with the field trial.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
November 18th, 2015 at 10:32:55 AM
permalink
Dan, I'm very happy for your new game and many more installs in the future.
Mike
Mike
Reno Mike
November 18th, 2015 at 12:03:21 PM
permalink
Can I safely assume this game was first conceived and/or thought of, after you left Galaxy ?
November 18th, 2015 at 12:17:03 PM
permalink
I'll have to look over the numbers some more, but I am getting some strange plays in developing a strategy.
KK773 can be split as 773/KK and K73/K7, both of which are a 20 and a 17, and I get 773/KK (make the 2-card hand higher) as the play.
On the other hand, K9963 can be split into K9/963 and 99/K63, both of which are an 18 and a 19, and I get K63/99 (make the 3-card hand higher) as the play.
Also, with K7764, I get K74/76 over 764/K7 (21/fold over 17/17), but with K8865, I get 865/K8 over K65/88 (19/18 over 21/fold), which means "always keep a 21" is not always the correct play.
Here's another one, although I think I understand this one; with KK655, play 655/KK over K65/K5 (as well as K55/66) - this is a 20/fold over a 21/fold. However, with the house's "make two valid hands if possible" rule, this makes a little sense - if the house has AK977, the only way to make two valid hands is A97/K7, which is 17/17, rather then 977/AK, which is fold/21. Two-card dealer hands will tend to be weaker because of it.
KK773 can be split as 773/KK and K73/K7, both of which are a 20 and a 17, and I get 773/KK (make the 2-card hand higher) as the play.
On the other hand, K9963 can be split into K9/963 and 99/K63, both of which are an 18 and a 19, and I get K63/99 (make the 3-card hand higher) as the play.
Also, with K7764, I get K74/76 over 764/K7 (21/fold over 17/17), but with K8865, I get 865/K8 over K65/88 (19/18 over 21/fold), which means "always keep a 21" is not always the correct play.
Here's another one, although I think I understand this one; with KK655, play 655/KK over K65/K5 (as well as K55/66) - this is a 20/fold over a 21/fold. However, with the house's "make two valid hands if possible" rule, this makes a little sense - if the house has AK977, the only way to make two valid hands is A97/K7, which is 17/17, rather then 977/AK, which is fold/21. Two-card dealer hands will tend to be weaker because of it.
November 18th, 2015 at 3:36:47 PM
permalink
Don,
This is about right. As a very simple basic strategy, we have the following:
Since the house favors both making two pat hands at all costs as well as favoring the three-card side, it is better for the player to:
* favor the two-card side if a 20 or 21, and
* Balance towards the three card side with 19's and less, except
* foul one side to avoid having two 17s, if the two-card side can be made a 20 or 21, unless the three-card side can be made a full 21.
Interestingly, at the start of the project, (at the "develop the initial house way" point), we didn't know which side to favor or if to favor two weak pat hands versus one monster 21 hand with a foul side, etc., so we requested an initial EV simulation of optimal dealer play to help develop a solid but easy house way. But the mathematician initially decided to assume "favor the two-card side and add rules if needed" because it looked at that time that this was okay, eye-balling it. So, instead of spending extra time and money to perform an initial sim run of the EVs, front-end corners were cut when he calculated the initial game with this assumption. The initial version had such a weak house edge with the "dealer favors two-card" assumption that the initial version of the game had player Pai Gow-like restrictions, and played awkwardly. Players were forced to foul great make-able hands like 776AJ if adding any sort of high-side/low-side rule. When we insisted again on an EV simulation, we found that favoring the dealer's three-card side improved the house edge enough to eliminate all player hand setting restrictions, which was an initial game spec requirement. Game Design Lesson #1-A: do not cut corners on the front end to save math expenses or a little time. Your new game is up against UTH and Freebet and other great games, so it has to be as fine as possible.
While it is better to make one monster hand than two 17's, because of the extra house way clauses and conditions involved, this then would have made the house way tougher to deal for the dealer, and rougher for the player to play against. With re-done initial math, we could shorten the house way to "make two pat hands first, favoring the three-card side when possible [even if two 17's]" - with the math indicating that this was still strong. So....Game Design Lessons #17-C and #17-D: make the house way easy enough to deal by trimming out hand-setting clauses that are tougher to deal, but cost little to remove by knowing how much, and Make the player feels like he has a shot to win by NOT using a tournament player level type of house way.
This is about right. As a very simple basic strategy, we have the following:
Since the house favors both making two pat hands at all costs as well as favoring the three-card side, it is better for the player to:
* favor the two-card side if a 20 or 21, and
* Balance towards the three card side with 19's and less, except
* foul one side to avoid having two 17s, if the two-card side can be made a 20 or 21, unless the three-card side can be made a full 21.
Interestingly, at the start of the project, (at the "develop the initial house way" point), we didn't know which side to favor or if to favor two weak pat hands versus one monster 21 hand with a foul side, etc., so we requested an initial EV simulation of optimal dealer play to help develop a solid but easy house way. But the mathematician initially decided to assume "favor the two-card side and add rules if needed" because it looked at that time that this was okay, eye-balling it. So, instead of spending extra time and money to perform an initial sim run of the EVs, front-end corners were cut when he calculated the initial game with this assumption. The initial version had such a weak house edge with the "dealer favors two-card" assumption that the initial version of the game had player Pai Gow-like restrictions, and played awkwardly. Players were forced to foul great make-able hands like 776AJ if adding any sort of high-side/low-side rule. When we insisted again on an EV simulation, we found that favoring the dealer's three-card side improved the house edge enough to eliminate all player hand setting restrictions, which was an initial game spec requirement. Game Design Lesson #1-A: do not cut corners on the front end to save math expenses or a little time. Your new game is up against UTH and Freebet and other great games, so it has to be as fine as possible.
While it is better to make one monster hand than two 17's, because of the extra house way clauses and conditions involved, this then would have made the house way tougher to deal for the dealer, and rougher for the player to play against. With re-done initial math, we could shorten the house way to "make two pat hands first, favoring the three-card side when possible [even if two 17's]" - with the math indicating that this was still strong. So....Game Design Lessons #17-C and #17-D: make the house way easy enough to deal by trimming out hand-setting clauses that are tougher to deal, but cost little to remove by knowing how much, and Make the player feels like he has a shot to win by NOT using a tournament player level type of house way.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 18th, 2015 at 3:41:51 PM
permalink
Quote: muleyvoiceCan I safely assume this game was first conceived and/or thought of, after you left Galaxy ?
Yes, it was after galaxy, and was thought up by my partner, not me, who a) never worked for Galaxy and, b) is a retired anesthesiologist (and pretty much a life-long recreational casino patron).
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 18th, 2015 at 5:11:23 PM
permalink
I had absolutely no doubts about your integrity. Just thought I would ask the questions others might not.
GOOD LUCK, looks like a WINNER
GOOD LUCK, looks like a WINNER
November 19th, 2015 at 7:37:09 AM
permalink
Here is the strategy I have worked out (so far):
Corrected - this works better if you remember to include hands of two pairs where the fifth card is a 10-value
The house advantage when using "perfect" strategy appears to be 3.036%
Note that when two numbers (or "Fold") are separated by a slash, the first is the 3-card hand, and the second is the 2-card hand
If you can make two valid hands:
1. Make a 3-card 21
2. Make a 3-card 20, except that 18/21 comes before 20/19
3. Make a 2-card 21
4. Make a 2-card 20
5. Make a 3-card 19
6. Make a 3-card 18
7. Make a 2-card 19 (although I am not sure this is possible without having a 3-card 18 or a 2-card 20)
8. Make a 2-card 18
9. Make a 17/17 (but see the exceptions)
Exceptions:
Make a 21/Fold over 18/17 or 17/18 (or 17/17)
Make a Fold/20 over 18/17 or 17/18 (or 17/17)
Make a Fold/21 over 19/17, 18/18, or 17/19 (or 18/17, 17/18, or 17/17)
17/20 or 19/18 depends on the hand
19/17 or 18/18 depends on the hand
20/17 or 17/20 depends on the hand
20/18 or 17/21 depends on the hand
20/18 or 18/20 depends on the hand
20/19 or 19/20 depends on the hand
If you cannot make two valid hands:
Make the best single hand (if you have a choice, make the 2-card hand better than the 3-card hand)
Exceptions:
Make Fold/N over (N+1)/Fold (for example Fold/20 is better than 21/Fold - split KQ655 into 655/KQ rather than K65/Q5)
Fold/17 or 19/Fold depends on the hand
Fold/18 or 20/Fold depends on the hand
Corrected - this works better if you remember to include hands of two pairs where the fifth card is a 10-value
The house advantage when using "perfect" strategy appears to be 3.036%
Note that when two numbers (or "Fold") are separated by a slash, the first is the 3-card hand, and the second is the 2-card hand
If you can make two valid hands:
1. Make a 3-card 21
2. Make a 3-card 20, except that 18/21 comes before 20/19
3. Make a 2-card 21
4. Make a 2-card 20
5. Make a 3-card 19
6. Make a 3-card 18
7. Make a 2-card 19 (although I am not sure this is possible without having a 3-card 18 or a 2-card 20)
8. Make a 2-card 18
9. Make a 17/17 (but see the exceptions)
Exceptions:
Make a 21/Fold over 18/17 or 17/18 (or 17/17)
Make a Fold/20 over 18/17 or 17/18 (or 17/17)
Make a Fold/21 over 19/17, 18/18, or 17/19 (or 18/17, 17/18, or 17/17)
17/20 or 19/18 depends on the hand
19/17 or 18/18 depends on the hand
20/17 or 17/20 depends on the hand
20/18 or 17/21 depends on the hand
20/18 or 18/20 depends on the hand
20/19 or 19/20 depends on the hand
If you cannot make two valid hands:
Make the best single hand (if you have a choice, make the 2-card hand better than the 3-card hand)
Exceptions:
Make Fold/N over (N+1)/Fold (for example Fold/20 is better than 21/Fold - split KQ655 into 655/KQ rather than K65/Q5)
Fold/17 or 19/Fold depends on the hand
Fold/18 or 20/Fold depends on the hand
November 19th, 2015 at 1:34:46 PM
permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy...
The house advantage when using "perfect" strategy appears to be 3.036%
Don, correct at 3% when offering no "BJ-like" bonuses on a player's double 21.
We have three house edge options, which were checked by both Steve How and GLI lab math:
1. It is actually 3.12% (or 1.56% of the two main bets) with no bonus payout; very close, Don.
2. It is 2.03% (or 1% on the two main bets) with the extra half-unit bonus on the two-card bet when holding a double-21 hand. This pays 3:2 if the player's two-card side 21 wins, and pays 1:2 on a two-card side tie.
3. It is 0.94% (or 0.47%) with an extra full unit payout on the two-card bet when holding a double-21 hand. This pays 2:1 on the two-card side win, and 1:1 on a two-card side push.
The double-21 hand occurs 2.1806% of the time, or once in every 47 hands.
We launched the game with a 2% HE (or 1% EoR), with the half-unit bonus.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 19th, 2015 at 1:47:55 PM
permalink
But what are the player's reactions? Are they liking it?
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
November 19th, 2015 at 2:10:50 PM
permalink
The players sit at the table, play their hands, order a glass of wine, and chit-chat on how to set the hands. It seems to be a very leisurely game, not very volatile like the poker-based carnival games. Both the three-card Blackjack hands and the two-card blackjack hands are easy to see, just move the cards around and find the best hands....
One guy looked at it and did a suspicious "Mr. BOOKMAN" take on it, straight out of a Seinfeld episode: "I know what you guys are trying to do here with these new games, I tell ya....you're trying to HOODWINK us, you fancy-pants gangsters, I tell ya...snooker us in, aren't cha, aren't cha, aren't cha... ah-HA, I knew it...!" I'm not kidding you, there was this guy was just standing near the table looking at it like it was from Mars....there's always at least one of these conspiracy guys, just no talking to them. Tell them the Element of Return is only 1%, and they say "don't try to snooker me you fancy-pants hoodlum, I know what you're up to, you're trying to make money..." (and while we are just trying to create good new games, I will say: yeah, we are, on the other point, too.) Sheesh....I felt like telling him "here's a C-note for you, now go play some craps...." It was a while since I last heard the word Bamboozle.... If he had said "THIS is how you guys make your money," I would have answered honestly "yes it is...." Kind of like an Anti-shill for the game....
But most were like, "this is fun, a little strategy...the bonus pays on having two 20's or better, I got two 20's....what's that, five to one, that's $50, okay...."
We're hoping for steady, friendly action...
One guy looked at it and did a suspicious "Mr. BOOKMAN" take on it, straight out of a Seinfeld episode: "I know what you guys are trying to do here with these new games, I tell ya....you're trying to HOODWINK us, you fancy-pants gangsters, I tell ya...snooker us in, aren't cha, aren't cha, aren't cha... ah-HA, I knew it...!" I'm not kidding you, there was this guy was just standing near the table looking at it like it was from Mars....there's always at least one of these conspiracy guys, just no talking to them. Tell them the Element of Return is only 1%, and they say "don't try to snooker me you fancy-pants hoodlum, I know what you're up to, you're trying to make money..." (and while we are just trying to create good new games, I will say: yeah, we are, on the other point, too.) Sheesh....I felt like telling him "here's a C-note for you, now go play some craps...." It was a while since I last heard the word Bamboozle.... If he had said "THIS is how you guys make your money," I would have answered honestly "yes it is...." Kind of like an Anti-shill for the game....
But most were like, "this is fun, a little strategy...the bonus pays on having two 20's or better, I got two 20's....what's that, five to one, that's $50, okay...."
We're hoping for steady, friendly action...
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 20th, 2015 at 7:04:10 AM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanIt is 2.03% (or 1% on the two main bets) with the extra half-unit bonus on the two-card bet when holding a double-21 hand. This pays 3:2 if the player's two-card side 21 wins, and pays 1:2 on a two-card side tie.
I'll have to go over my code again - the 3.036% I get is supposed to include the half-unit bonus.
I am also assuming that it is a one-deck game - is this correct?
November 20th, 2015 at 7:28:42 AM
permalink
I am beginning to look at this and so far have only managed to work out the chances of the dealer making various totals given a deck missing the 5-player cards. My next bit will be, rather than analysing each player hand, adding up the dealer values, average over all player hands and see how those results compare.Quote: ThatDonGuyI'll have to go over my code again...
However since it's single deck, there will be some hands (e.g. AAAAT Lo21 is winner, AT999 where you have 9's), where the specific hand play might be different (as you have hinted, some plays will be card dependent.)
November 20th, 2015 at 7:33:03 AM
permalink
PGD, what is the push/win/loss percentage breakdown if you count winning one side and losing the other side a push?
From a hands per hour count, are you expecting about the same pace as PGP?
From a hands per hour count, are you expecting about the same pace as PGP?
November 20th, 2015 at 8:10:37 AM
permalink
Here's my first stab at a simple strategy - I have a few differences (e.g. 17/21 over 20/18) but I haven't yet checked my code. Some of the numbers are close so I can visualise some of the decisions flipping based on cards you hold. Note I have not added the bonus for 21-21 since this doesn't affect the strategy.
HLnn - means make two valid hands with firstly a High nn, if not a Low nn (e.g. HL21 means make H21/L19 before L21/H19 or 20/20.)
Lownn or Highnn - means make one valid hand and sacrifice the other.
Note my idea if you can make two valid hands, is to make either hand 21 before anything else, and just Low 21 only if you can't make a 20+-17+ or 19-19.
HL21 LH20 (except HL20-18) 19-19 Low 21 18-18 LH19 Low 20 High 21 LH18 Low 19 17-17 Low18 High20 Low17 High19>17
HLnn - means make two valid hands with firstly a High nn, if not a Low nn (e.g. HL21 means make H21/L19 before L21/H19 or 20/20.)
Lownn or Highnn - means make one valid hand and sacrifice the other.
Note my idea if you can make two valid hands, is to make either hand 21 before anything else, and just Low 21 only if you can't make a 20+-17+ or 19-19.
HL21 LH20 (except HL20-18) 19-19 Low 21 18-18 LH19 Low 20 High 21 LH18 Low 19 17-17 Low18 High20 Low17 High19>17
| Hi | Lo | EV (High) | EV (low) | Net EV |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | 21 | 0.625 865 | 0.966 620 | 1.592 485 |
| 21 | 20 | 0.625 865 | 0.668 592 | 1.294 457 |
| 20 | 21 | 0.079 010 | 0.966 620 | 1.045 630 |
| 21 | 19 | 0.625 865 | 0.326 657 | 0.952 522 |
| 19 | 21 | -0.212 066 | 0.966 620 | 0.754 554 |
| 20 | 20 | 0.079 010 | 0.668 592 | 0.747 602 |
| 21 | 18 | 0.625 865 | 0.164 282 | 0.790 147 |
| 18 | 21 | -0.426 753 | 0.966 620 | 0.539 867 |
| 21 | 17 | 0.625 865 | -0.082 425 | 0.543 440 |
| 19 | 20 | -0.212 066 | 0.668 592 | 0.456 526 |
| 20 | 19 | 0.079 010 | 0.326 657 | 0.405 667 |
| 17 | 21 | -0.618 637 | 0.966 620 | 0.347 983 |
| 20 | 18 | 0.079 010 | 0.164 282 | 0.243 291 |
| 18 | 20 | -0.426 753 | 0.668 592 | 0.241 840 |
| 19 | 19 | -0.212 066 | 0.326 657 | 0.114 591 |
| 17 | 20 | -0.618 637 | 0.668 592 | 0.049 955 |
| 20 | 17 | 0.079 010 | -0.082 425 | -0.003 415 |
| 0 | 21 | -1.000 000 | 0.966 620 | -0.033 380 |
| 18 | 18 | -0.426 753 | 0.164 282 | -0.262 471 |
| 17 | 19 | -0.618 637 | 0.326 657 | -0.291 979 |
| 19 | 17 | -0.212 066 | -0.082 425 | -0.294 491 |
| 0 | 20 | -1.000 000 | 0.668 592 | -0.331 408 |
| 21 | 0 | 0.625 865 | -1.000 000 | -0.374 135 |
| 17 | 18 | -0.618 637 | 0.164 282 | -0.454 355 |
| 18 | 17 | -0.426 753 | -0.082 425 | -0.509 177 |
| 0 | 19 | -1.000 000 | 0.326 657 | -0.673 343 |
| 17 | 17 | -0.618 637 | -0.082 425 | -0.701 062 |
| 0 | 18 | -1.000 000 | 0.164 282 | -0.835 718 |
| 20 | 0 | 0.079 010 | -1.000 000 | -0.920 990 |
| 0 | 17 | -1.000 000 | -0.082 425 | -1.082 425 |
| 19 | 0 | -0.212 066 | -1.000 000 | -1.212 066 |
| 18 | 0 | -0.426 753 | -1.000 000 | -1.426 753 |
| 17 | 0 | -0.618 637 | -1.000 000 | -1.618 637 |
| 0 | 0 | -1.000 000 | -1.000 000 | -2.000 000 |
November 20th, 2015 at 10:37:14 AM
permalink
Quote: ParadigmPGD, what is the push/win/loss percentage breakdown if you count winning one side and losing the other side a push?
From a hands per hour count, are you expecting about the same pace as PGP?
Michael, the split decisions occur 57.8% of the time, so it is a pushy game, but the game is considerably faster than PGP. By how much in live play that is still being pinned down, but it is faster. Quicker to set, quicker to deal.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 20th, 2015 at 10:56:03 AM
permalink
Dan, good info to have...sounds like It will provide plenty of time on device for the players, I bet the game ends up being quite popular as players will feel like they aren't getting fleeced quickly.
Yet there are errors to be made, so it may hold OK as well...very interesting, will be fun to watch and I look forward to giving it a spin when I am in towm next.
Yet there are errors to be made, so it may hold OK as well...very interesting, will be fun to watch and I look forward to giving it a spin when I am in towm next.
November 20th, 2015 at 11:07:56 AM
permalink
Quote: Paigowdan...house edge....
1. It is actually 3.12% (or 1.56% of the two main bets) with no bonus payout; very close, Don.
I got 3.122785% although I've yet to analyse what strategy is used. Also I got player busting at 0.974% and 21-21 as yours. Thus I'm happy with my average figures, but will see what exceptions there are.
November 20th, 2015 at 1:36:12 PM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanWe have three house edge options, which were checked by both Steve How and GLI lab math:
1. It is actually 3.12% (or 1.56% of the two main bets) with no bonus payout; very close, Don.
2. It is 2.03% (or 1% on the two main bets) with the extra half-unit bonus on the two-card bet when holding a double-21 hand. This pays 3:2 if the player's two-card side 21 wins, and pays 1:2 on a two-card side tie.
We launched the game with a 2% HE (or 1% EoR), with the half-unit bonus.
I think I see the real problem; I'm apparently using the term "house edge" incorrectly.
When I say 3%, I mean, assuming you bet 50 on the 2-card hand and 50 on the 3-card hand (you have to bet both, right?), for a total bet of 100, you are expected to lose 3 per deal.
My value of 3.03626% most likely translates to 1.51813%.
That's also close to what I get when I run a Monte Carlo simulation on it using this strategy:
These are listed as 3-card hand / 2-card hand
21/21
21/20
21/19
21/18
21/17
20/21
20/20
20/19
20/18
20/17
19/21
18/21
17/21
19/20
18/20
17/20
19/19
19/18
18/19
Fold/21
18/18
19/17
17/19
Fold/20
21/Fold
17/18
18/17
17/17
Fold/19
20/Fold
Fold/18
19/Fold
Fold/17
18/Fold
17/Fold
Fold/Fold
21/21
21/20
21/19
21/18
21/17
20/21
20/20
20/19
20/18
20/17
19/21
18/21
17/21
19/20
18/20
17/20
19/19
19/18
18/19
Fold/21
18/18
19/17
17/19
Fold/20
21/Fold
17/18
18/17
17/17
Fold/19
20/Fold
Fold/18
19/Fold
Fold/17
18/Fold
17/Fold
Fold/Fold
At least, I think I am playing the game right:
1 deck
Dealer must make 2 hands if possible, and make the best possible 3-card hand if there is a choice
Dealer's 3-card hand is compared to the player's 3-card hand; if both are fouled (less than 17 or greater than 21), the player loses
Dealer's 2-card hand is compared to the player's 2-card hand; again, if both are fouled (less than 17), the player loses
If both of the player's hands are 21, the player gets a bonus equal to half of his 2-card bet
November 20th, 2015 at 3:02:14 PM
permalink
Yes. Your description is pretty straightforward (could have said pretty and straightforward)..
I'd have the EV table look like this grid (set your hand to the highest or least negative value):
Three card Two Card ======>
x ---0 17 18 19 20 21
0 2.000 -1.082 -0.835 -0.673 -0.331 -0.033
17 -1.618 -0.701 -0.454 -0.291 0.049 0.347
18 -1.426 -0.509 -0.262 -0.885 0.241 0.539
19 -1.212 -0.294 -0.249 0.114 0.456 0.754
20 -0.920 -0.003 0.243 0.405 0.747 1.045
21 -0.374 0.543 0.790 0.952 1.294 1.592
I'd have the EV table look like this grid (set your hand to the highest or least negative value):
Three card Two Card ======>
x ---0 17 18 19 20 21
0 2.000 -1.082 -0.835 -0.673 -0.331 -0.033
17 -1.618 -0.701 -0.454 -0.291 0.049 0.347
18 -1.426 -0.509 -0.262 -0.885 0.241 0.539
19 -1.212 -0.294 -0.249 0.114 0.456 0.754
20 -0.920 -0.003 0.243 0.405 0.747 1.045
21 -0.374 0.543 0.790 0.952 1.294 1.592
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 20th, 2015 at 3:28:28 PM
permalink
I'm now using this order, this leaves 27 exceptions to this. I think some of the places can be reversed which means your list will have other exceptions (usually more) and also using your original ten-rule strategy changes some of these round.
Sorry I'm using the term Hi and Lo (just habit) for 3-card and 2-card.
My understanding is the dealer makes two hands if possible and within that makes best Hi. Otherwise he makes Best Hi, else makes Best Lo, else busts. Remember if the player busts both hands, it's an immediate total loss for the player.
I can only guess to get a lower House Edge (ignoring the bonus) sometimes you're giving the dealer a worse hand that he should get. Alternatively If you're including a bonus then perhaps the player isn't playing optimally or you're giving the dealer a better option that "House Way" - it's possible you need to factor in some of the exceptions or check the order in your play table.
Obviously when calculating the House Edge in this case one doesn't use any rules, but the computer needs to choose the best of the ten ways to play the hand. I've noted when it's different and listed the exceptions. With your order you'll get a different set of exceptions.
Sorry I'm using the term Hi and Lo (just habit) for 3-card and 2-card.
My understanding is the dealer makes two hands if possible and within that makes best Hi. Otherwise he makes Best Hi, else makes Best Lo, else busts. Remember if the player busts both hands, it's an immediate total loss for the player.
I can only guess to get a lower House Edge (ignoring the bonus) sometimes you're giving the dealer a worse hand that he should get. Alternatively If you're including a bonus then perhaps the player isn't playing optimally or you're giving the dealer a better option that "House Way" - it's possible you need to factor in some of the exceptions or check the order in your play table.
Obviously when calculating the House Edge in this case one doesn't use any rules, but the computer needs to choose the best of the ten ways to play the hand. I've noted when it's different and listed the exceptions. With your order you'll get a different set of exceptions.
| Order | Hi | Lo | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 21 | 21 | |
| 2 | 21 | 20 | |
| 3 | 20 | 21 | |
| 4 | 21 | 19 | |
| 5 | 20 | 20 | |
| 6 | 19 | 21 | |
| 7 | 21 | 18 | |
| 8 | 18 | 21 | |
| 9 | 21 | 17 | |
| 10 | 19 | 20 | |
| 11 | 20 | 19 | |
| 12 | 20 | 18 | A - Flipping these leaves 27 exceptions |
| 13 | 17 | 21 | A |
| 14 | 18 | 20 | |
| 15 | 19 | 19 | |
| 16 | 17 | 20 | B - Technically there are less exceptions leaving these two in this order |
| 17 | 20 | 17 | B |
| 18 | 19 | 18 | |
| 19 | 0 | 21 | |
| 20 | 18 | 19 | |
| 21 | 18 | 18 | C - Technically there are less exceptions leaving these two in this order |
| 22 | 19 | 17 | C |
| 23 | 17 | 19 | |
| 24 | 0 | 20 | |
| 25 | 21 | 0 | |
| 26 | 17 | 18 | D - Technically there are less exceptions leaving these two in this order |
| 27 | 18 | 17 | D |
| 28 | 17 | 17 | |
| 29 | 0 | 19 | |
| 30 | 0 | 18 | E - Technically there are far fewer exceptions leaving these two in this order |
| 31 | 20 | 0 | E |
| 32 | 0 | 17 | F - Technically there are far fewer exceptions leaving these two in this order |
| 33 | 19 | 0 | F |
| 34 | 18 | 0 | |
| 35 | 17 | 0 | |
| 36 | 0 | 0 |
| Exceptions |
|---|
| H(2 6 1) L(2 2) make 19-0 not 0-17 |
| H(9 9 1) L(9 8) make 19-17 not 18-18 |
| H(1 1 7) L(1 6) make 19-17 not 18-18 |
| H(9 8 2) L(9 8) make 19-17 not 18-18 |
| H(9 7 3) L(9 8) make 19-17 not 18-18 |
| H(8 8 3) L(10 7) make 19-17 not 18-18 |
| H(7 8 4) L(7 10) make 19-17 not 18-18 |
| H(1 1 7) L(9 8) make 19-17 not 18-18 |
| H(8 7 4) L(6 1) make 19-17 not 18-18 |
| H(10 8 1) L(10 8) make 19-18 not 17-20 |
| H(2 7 1) L(2 2) make 20-0 not 0-18 |
| H(7 2 1) L(7 2) make 20-0 not 0-18 |
| H(2 1 7) L(2 1) make 20-0 not 0-18 |
| H(2 7 1) L(2 6) make 20-0 not 0-18 |
| H(2 7 1) L(2 5) make 20-0 not 0-18 |
| H(2 7 1) L(2 4) make 20-0 not 0-18 |
| H(8 1 1) L(8 9) make 20-17 not 17-20 |
| H(10 9 1) L(10 7) make 20-17 not 17-20 |
| H(10 8 2) L(10 7) make 20-17 not 17-20 |
| H(9 9 2) L(6 1) make 20-17 not 17-20 |
| H(1 10 9) L(1 6) make 20-17 not 17-20 |
| H(7 2 1) L(9 8) make 20-17 not 17-20 |
| H(8 1 1) L(8 10) make 20-18 not 17-21 |
| H(10 5 5) L(10 9) make 20-19 not 19-20 |
| H(10 7 3) L(10 9) make 20-19 not 19-20 |
| H(10 6 4) L(10 9) make 20-19 not 19-20 |
November 20th, 2015 at 3:52:21 PM
permalink
I started with exactly the same table - so this is a good check. Also this method generated my initial order for the player's action. However when I analysed all the hands (i.e. card dependent) then there were five flips in the order.Quote: Paigowdan...the EV table...
20 20 > 19 21 20 18 >17 21 19 18 > 0 21 19 17 > 17 19 17 17 > 0 19
As I've just said comparing it with Don's list, there are some decisions where it's nearly 50-50 which way round you put them - I played around and listed them in the order which gives the fewest exceptions. However, like Pai Gow Tiles, this might be a perfect strategy, but in practice a simpler one might be easier to play.
November 20th, 2015 at 4:27:08 PM
permalink
In trying to get the simplest strategy, using the EV to switch values between hand sides, I come up with this, which I think closely aligns overall with each EV:
1. set two pat hands as high as possible, favoring the three-card side if 19 or better with 18 or better, or a 21 with 17 (granted 20 + 19 is best flipped favoring the two-card as an exception, but overall this general rule gives best EV; The rule also works best for hands like AK864, a 21+18, 20+19, and 19+19, where 21/18 can be set either two cards high or three cards high, with the three card 21 best as A64/K8. AK863 can be set 21+17 with only the two-card 21. The house dealer will have to set K8/A63, still a very good hand set.)
2. Else favor the two-card side if 18/17 or 19/17 and flip-able.
3. Never set 17+17 if you can set a two-card 19 or better with a fouled three-card side (e.g., K7962 = 762/K9)
4. If you can make only one hand side, set a good two-card side
Remember, I have to fit this on a rack card, and also not scare the players (convincing them the game is very easy to play fairly well).
Note that the entire detailed strategy can fit on a small strategy grid, like Basic strategy, but if four easy rules can do it well for a rack card, we're good. We'll leave the full strategy matrix to the big game writers.
1. set two pat hands as high as possible, favoring the three-card side if 19 or better with 18 or better, or a 21 with 17 (granted 20 + 19 is best flipped favoring the two-card as an exception, but overall this general rule gives best EV; The rule also works best for hands like AK864, a 21+18, 20+19, and 19+19, where 21/18 can be set either two cards high or three cards high, with the three card 21 best as A64/K8. AK863 can be set 21+17 with only the two-card 21. The house dealer will have to set K8/A63, still a very good hand set.)
2. Else favor the two-card side if 18/17 or 19/17 and flip-able.
3. Never set 17+17 if you can set a two-card 19 or better with a fouled three-card side (e.g., K7962 = 762/K9)
4. If you can make only one hand side, set a good two-card side
Remember, I have to fit this on a rack card, and also not scare the players (convincing them the game is very easy to play fairly well).
Note that the entire detailed strategy can fit on a small strategy grid, like Basic strategy, but if four easy rules can do it well for a rack card, we're good. We'll leave the full strategy matrix to the big game writers.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 20th, 2015 at 6:57:06 PM
permalink
Here is a list of the "either/or" sets that I found (i.e. where A/B is better than C/D in some cases and C/D is better than A/B in other):
I still get that the house is expected to win 3.03626% of the total amount bet, using perfect strategy, and with the "half of the 2-card bet" double-21 bonus.
As usual, I list the 3-card hands first
Also, when "K" appears, it can be any 10-card (so, for example, AKK88 can also be AQJ88)
There are only eight sets:
1. 17/Foul or Foul/19
Always play 17/Foul unless it's A6222
2. Foul/18 or 20/Foul
Play Foul/18 unless it's A722 and any of A,2,4,5,6,7
3. 17/20 or 19/18
Play 17/20 unless it's AKK88
4. 17/20 or 20/17
Play 17/20 with:
KK755
KK773
A9665
KK764
A9863
A9845
Play 20/17 with:
AA988
AAK96
A9962
AKK97
KK872
A9872
5. 17/21 or 20/18
Play 17/21 if it's AK854; play 20/18 if it's AA88K
6. 19/17 or 18/18
Play 18/18 with:
A7666
AA996
99855
A7765
99864
A9763
K9872
K9863
K9854
K8765
Play 19/17 with:
AAA76
A9998
99882
AA987
K8774
K8873
99873
A8764
7. 20/18 or 18/20
Play 20/18 unless it's A9774
8. 20/19 or 19/20
Play 20/19 if the hand has any 10-cards, and 19/20 if it does not
Also, when "K" appears, it can be any 10-card (so, for example, AKK88 can also be AQJ88)
There are only eight sets:
1. 17/Foul or Foul/19
Always play 17/Foul unless it's A6222
2. Foul/18 or 20/Foul
Play Foul/18 unless it's A722 and any of A,2,4,5,6,7
3. 17/20 or 19/18
Play 17/20 unless it's AKK88
4. 17/20 or 20/17
Play 17/20 with:
KK755
KK773
A9665
KK764
A9863
A9845
Play 20/17 with:
AA988
AAK96
A9962
AKK97
KK872
A9872
5. 17/21 or 20/18
Play 17/21 if it's AK854; play 20/18 if it's AA88K
6. 19/17 or 18/18
Play 18/18 with:
A7666
AA996
99855
A7765
99864
A9763
K9872
K9863
K9854
K8765
Play 19/17 with:
AAA76
A9998
99882
AA987
K8774
K8873
99873
A8764
7. 20/18 or 18/20
Play 20/18 unless it's A9774
8. 20/19 or 19/20
Play 20/19 if the hand has any 10-cards, and 19/20 if it does not
I still get that the house is expected to win 3.03626% of the total amount bet, using perfect strategy, and with the "half of the 2-card bet" double-21 bonus.
November 20th, 2015 at 7:18:16 PM
permalink
The house wins 3% of ONE betting unit, or about 1.5% of the total amount bet.
The composition dependent strategy is very interesting.
The composition dependent strategy is very interesting.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 20th, 2015 at 10:22:06 PM
permalink
But is it AP proof?
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
November 20th, 2015 at 10:37:19 PM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfBut is it AP proof?
Some game protection steps were taken, namely using one deal per shuffle (machine shuffle) instead of a shoe dealt version.
As we have seen, there are some composition-dependent plays, but those exceptions are generally on close play decisions, don't effect HE (as HE was calculated against optimal play), and don't necessarily point to collusion vulnerability.
So I also don't think it is particularly vulnerable to collusion. Steve How isn't coming out of retirement to analyze this game I would say. I think in the game protection area it is at least as safe as High Card Flush or Pai Gow Poker, and that AP is a non-issue with this game. So far it looks robust.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 21st, 2015 at 5:58:22 AM
permalink
Here is a fairly simple strategy - House Edge = 3.267%.
(A) Find the value of the highest hand that leaves you with two valid hands;
-- (i) If you have a choice (e.g. 21-19 or 19-21) make the best 3-card hand.
(B) Check whether to play one really good hand, also sometimes instead of playing two average ones;
-- (i) Make 2-card 21 and bust the 3-card hand, also if you cannot better 19+other;
-- (ii) Make 2-card 20, otherwise 3-card 21, also if you cannot better 18+other.
(C) With one valid hand, unless (B) applies, make best 2-card hand rather than a 3-card hand;
-- (i) Exception make 3-card 20 rather than 2-card 17.
This only costs .146% in errors.
You need to add the last exception as this saves .24%.
(A) Find the value of the highest hand that leaves you with two valid hands;
-- (i) If you have a choice (e.g. 21-19 or 19-21) make the best 3-card hand.
(B) Check whether to play one really good hand, also sometimes instead of playing two average ones;
-- (i) Make 2-card 21 and bust the 3-card hand, also if you cannot better 19+other;
-- (ii) Make 2-card 20, otherwise 3-card 21, also if you cannot better 18+other.
(C) With one valid hand, unless (B) applies, make best 2-card hand rather than a 3-card hand;
-- (i) Exception make 3-card 20 rather than 2-card 17.
This only costs .146% in errors.
You need to add the last exception as this saves .24%.
November 21st, 2015 at 2:57:37 PM
permalink
Charlie,
This is excellent, the game has a good "Poker Eye effect," where the hands are easy to see and the strategy very accessible. For a few good rules to get a player within 0.146% of optimal is a good thing.
This is excellent, the game has a good "Poker Eye effect," where the hands are easy to see and the strategy very accessible. For a few good rules to get a player within 0.146% of optimal is a good thing.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 21st, 2015 at 5:05:03 PM
permalink
Okay, the best I can do for a player's strategy:
1. Find the value of the highest hand that leaves you with two valid hands 17 to 21;
If you have a choice and hand is strong (two 19s or better), balance towards highest 3-card side.
If you have a choice and hand is weak (19 with 18 or less), balance towards highest 2-card side.
Exception on weak hands: if you can make a 2-card 21, then make a 2-card 21 with a fouled 3-card side. If best hand is 18 and you can make a 2-card 20, then make a 2-card 20 side. (*)
2. If you can make only one hand side, make the best 2-card side, unless the 3-card side is three points higher (20 versus 17, 21 versus 18) or best three-card is a 21 and best 2-card would be 19.
...for the exception, the hand K8765 is best played as two 18's, as the three-card 21 with a foul is weak, when a two-card 21 with a foul is strong, but cannot be made here.
Also, the Positive EV Hand zone starts at two 19's, to include playing it better as a 20 and 18, or 21 and 17. The Negative EV hand zone is 19 with 18 or less, better played as one good two-card 21.
1. Find the value of the highest hand that leaves you with two valid hands 17 to 21;
If you have a choice and hand is strong (two 19s or better), balance towards highest 3-card side.
If you have a choice and hand is weak (19 with 18 or less), balance towards highest 2-card side.
Exception on weak hands: if you can make a 2-card 21, then make a 2-card 21 with a fouled 3-card side. If best hand is 18 and you can make a 2-card 20, then make a 2-card 20 side. (*)
2. If you can make only one hand side, make the best 2-card side, unless the 3-card side is three points higher (20 versus 17, 21 versus 18) or best three-card is a 21 and best 2-card would be 19.
...for the exception, the hand K8765 is best played as two 18's, as the three-card 21 with a foul is weak, when a two-card 21 with a foul is strong, but cannot be made here.
Also, the Positive EV Hand zone starts at two 19's, to include playing it better as a 20 and 18, or 21 and 17. The Negative EV hand zone is 19 with 18 or less, better played as one good two-card 21.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 21st, 2015 at 8:44:18 PM
permalink
Wizard
Dissect this game like a surgeon.
Dissect this game like a surgeon.
Pray for protection from enemies and witchcraft.
November 21st, 2015 at 11:32:52 PM
permalink
+1 on that.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 23rd, 2015 at 12:30:09 PM
permalink
Wait...you mean that 65535 x 65537 doesn't equal -1?
Having finally isolated the problem (I was multiplying two 16-bit integers together to add to a 32-bit integer, not noticing that the compiler was overflowing the product), not only do I get the 1.01625% HA that everybody else seems to be getting, but I get an exact fraction:
10128585959 / 996661525860
As far as I can tell, 10128585959 is prime.
This is using perfect strategy, which includes the eight groups of "sometimes you do it one way, and sometimes the other way" groupings.
Having finally isolated the problem (I was multiplying two 16-bit integers together to add to a 32-bit integer, not noticing that the compiler was overflowing the product), not only do I get the 1.01625% HA that everybody else seems to be getting, but I get an exact fraction:
10128585959 / 996661525860
As far as I can tell, 10128585959 is prime.
This is using perfect strategy, which includes the eight groups of "sometimes you do it one way, and sometimes the other way" groupings.
November 23rd, 2015 at 1:24:57 PM
permalink
Well, Donny, you got to upgrade from those 8-bit and 16-bit Atari machines! ;)
In the 1990's, I worked as a systems programmer on Burroughs large systems (B-series and A-series MCP), in ALGOL with 48 bit words.
Anyway, glad it is resolved. The game looks good, but do not know how it will play out. Fingers crossed.
In the 1990's, I worked as a systems programmer on Burroughs large systems (B-series and A-series MCP), in ALGOL with 48 bit words.
Anyway, glad it is resolved. The game looks good, but do not know how it will play out. Fingers crossed.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 23rd, 2015 at 2:50:39 PM
permalink
Quote: jjjooogggWizard
Dissect this game like a surgeon.
Thanks for the vote of confidence but I think CharliePatrick just did a fine job of it. I'm hoping to pay the game a visit on 12/1.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
November 23rd, 2015 at 3:29:27 PM
permalink
deleted. Minimum total to play is 17, else fouled loss. Perhaps there should be a bonus pay for not being able to make a hand.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
November 23rd, 2015 at 4:21:52 PM
permalink
An idea....
A double-fouled hand where you can't even make one side is one in every 103 hands. It could pay 95:1 alone, or be a part of the double-hand bonus bet.
I originally didn't want to incorporate it because it is so rare, and because it is of a negative nature.
A double-fouled hand where you can't even make one side is one in every 103 hands. It could pay 95:1 alone, or be a part of the double-hand bonus bet.
I originally didn't want to incorporate it because it is so rare, and because it is of a negative nature.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 23rd, 2015 at 6:02:15 PM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanAn idea....
A double-fouled hand where you can't even make one side is one in every 103 hands. It could pay 95:1 alone, or be a part of the double-hand bonus bet.
I originally didn't want to incorporate it because it is so rare, and because it is of a negative nature.
It might be tricky, and would slow the game, since the dealer would have to verify that the player could not legitimately make at least one good hand. However, it would turn the biggest loser into a winner, which isn't such a bad thing.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
November 23rd, 2015 at 6:51:42 PM
permalink
True, but the additional dealer work, any game slow-down, and the conflicting-in-nature betting goals were considered.
I wanted to have it, but thought better of it from experience for a new game field trial, as less is more, and way less is way more - the lighter the game the better, especially for a field trial.
I couldn't let my eyes get big on added gizmo's no matter how good they looked, - only to disobey the dictum : Let nothing get into the way of a clean base game and its straightforward side bet. Especially for a field trail.
I wanted to have it, but thought better of it from experience for a new game field trial, as less is more, and way less is way more - the lighter the game the better, especially for a field trial.
I couldn't let my eyes get big on added gizmo's no matter how good they looked, - only to disobey the dictum : Let nothing get into the way of a clean base game and its straightforward side bet. Especially for a field trail.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 23rd, 2015 at 7:16:07 PM
permalink
Quote: Paigowdan...... for a new game field trial, as less is more, and way less is way more - the lighter the game the better, especially for a field trial....
Lucky & I learned this the hard way with the Mulligan 21 field trial in 2013. There were other problems with that game, specifically the use frequency of the player feature, but having a new side bet concept along with a new main game concept sure didn't help.
As it turns out, that side bet (Lucky Stiff), used with regular blackjack is doing quite well.
November 23rd, 2015 at 11:46:57 PM
permalink
Quote: Paradigmhaving a new side bet concept along with a new main game concept sure didn't help.
As it turns out, that side bet (Lucky Stiff), used with regular blackjack is doing quite well.
I agree.
Good luck with your (Lucky Stiff) Side-bet.
Stephen Au-Yeung (Legend of New Table Games®) NewTableGames.com
November 23rd, 2015 at 11:50:30 PM
permalink
If I recall Switch had a game (picture perfect) where your hand was dead with no picture cards - however, as you say, it's easier to see you don't have a picture card than can't make 17-21.Quote: Paigowdan...A double-fouled hand where you can't even make one side is one in every 103 hands....double-hand bonus bet...
