Hot Action Blackjack

Hi Wizard

I live in the San Francisco Bay area and I have a few question about a local Blackjack game. I wanted to know if you could tell me the house edge on a game called Hot Action Blackjack offered at California Grand Casino. The reason I did not use the Blackjack house edge calculator is because it has some extra factors. It is also not listed on the Blackjack Variants page.

The rules of the game are as follows:
6 Decks in a continuous shuffler with an additional 18 jokers with a face value of 2
Dealer hits soft 17
Double on any first 2 cards
Split up to 4 hands
Can't resplit aces, Can't hit split aces
No surrender
Blackjack pays 6 to 5
The player must also pay a commission of $0.50 per had at the $10 bet level (commission increases as the bet size increases)

As a long time Blackjack player I realized immediately that this is a terrable game for players. However because this is a card room, every 2 hands the players have a chance to bank the game, meaning you can play the dealers hand, collect the losses from the other players/pay the winners. The table limits are $5-$2000. My second question is how much of a bankroll would you need to consistently bank this game like the third party proposition player services player does to make the EV? Also there is a Buster Bet the players can make. If I have left anything out let me know. Thanks

Wow. Not the Wizard, not a card counter, but geez. Skewed -TC with 3 extra 2's per deck, 6:5 and other crap rules, AND 5% commission on ALL hands, not just a win? Damn.

They have a nerve calling that blackjack.

The 2's would skew the buster bet, too. So many more ways for the dealer to not bust. Criminal.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Wow. Criminal.

Agreed, though I'm not able to figure out the exact degree of criminality. Owning the card room or occasional banking of the game would be profitable but hardly an honorable income. I'd steer clear. And sleep better at nights.

There's no question on how bad the game is from the player's side. But that makes banking it even better! Can you play minimum with bigger bettors at the table and then bank their plays? Could be some +EV. And I wouldn't feel bad as anybody who is playing this game and betting big obviously hates having money...

Before considering the 5% fee to play, I get a house edge of 2.99%. Here is the basic strategy:



After the 5% commission, the house edge is 7.61%, counting the commission as part of the total bet.

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I did learn a few other things about the game. If your first 2 cards are Jokers you get paid 4 to 1 and if your first 2 cards are suited aces then you get paid 5 to 1. As this dosen't happen very often I'm sure it dosen't change the edge that much.

Why is this game so bad? I believe it is by design so the players can bank when given the chance and can have a firm advantage over the rest of the table. Sadly people rarely do. When I have seen others bank they go all in with a bout $100 or so with a full table and can get wiped out in one hand if the dealer looses then they just go back to playing and don't take the opportunity again.

Quote: JPClav

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I did learn a few other things about the game. If your first 2 cards are Jokers you get paid 4 to 1 and if your first 2 cards are suited aces then you get paid 5 to 1. As this dosen't happen very often I'm sure it dosen't change the edge that much.

Well, there's 6 decks (312 cards) then add 18 joker cards for a total of 330 cards. The odds of getting Joker-Joker on a fresh shoe will be: (18/330)*(17/329) = .054545 * .051672 = .002818, or about 1 in 350 hands. Given it's a CSM let's be generous and say you play 100 hands per hour... this will take 3.5 hours to get the bonus 4-1 pay (let's assume the $10 bet you mentioned above). Thus, in about 3.5 hours you'll earn $40 from this rule, making it worth about $11.43/hour.

Next, let's look at the suited aces... on a fresh shoe (with the jokers) the odds of getting suited aces are (any ace * ace of that suit) : (24/330)*(5/329) = .0727 * .0152 = .0011, or about 1 in 900 hands. Again, assuming you're playing 100 hands per hour, this would take 9 hours to get the $50 bonus (assuming $10 base bet). So then this would be worth $5.56/hour.

At $10/hand, 100 hands per hour, and the 7.61% HE (including the commission) the Wizard came up with as the HE... EV(100 hands) = (100*10)*(-.0761) = -$76.10/hour... but with your bonuses, worth a total of $17/hour, that brings this game down to -$59.10/hour.

With some reverse engineering (100*10)*(x) = 59.10... solve for x... I'm showing a house edge (with your bonuses above) of 5.91%.

Quote: JPClav

Why is this game so bad? I believe it is by design so the players can bank when given the chance and can have a firm advantage over the rest of the table. Sadly people rarely do. When I have seen others bank they go all in with a bout $100 or so with a full table and can get wiped out in one hand if the dealer looses then they just go back to playing and don't take the opportunity again.

This game is AWFUL for the players because it's a "blackjack" game, which typically carries UNDER 1% HE, and yet the HE on this game is nearly 6%, including the bonuses. It's LITERALLY 100x worse than what most would consider a "crappy" game of regular blackjack. That is an abomination of a game and should not even be called blackjack. ADDING IN extra "2's" to the game is LITERALLY stacking the deck in the dealers favor. Ever ask yourself why the jokers aren't added "aces" to the game??? Because that would help the player. Look up blackjack Effect of Removal values ( https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/appendix/7/ )...

As far as banking... I assume the house collects the commission and not the banker? Assuming that's the case this game wouldn't be as good as you think to bank either. That would mean the house edge of the game as relative to the players and YOU, the banker, would be about 3%, since you're not getting the commission. Thus, their negative EV would be EV(100 hands @ 3%) = (100*10)*(-.03) = -$30/hour, but with the $17 in bonuses be about -$13 hour for a $10 bettor. So they're really only playing with a -1.3% HE against just you, assuming you're not collecting the commission. Also, in order to bank a game where the players could bet $5-$2,000, you'd need to have a massive bankroll to a) cover all live bets you could receive, and b) cover the swings of natural variance in the game.

The best thing you could do at this game is protest it with a sign and a clever chant.

And the table is probably packed most of time.

Quote: JPClav

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I did learn a few other things about the game. If your first 2 cards are Jokers you get paid 4 to 1 and if your first 2 cards are suited aces then you get paid 5 to 1. As this dosen't happen very often I'm sure it dosen't change the edge that much.

Assuming those are bonuses, as opposed to blackjack-like immediate wins, I show the value of the bonuses is 1.68% of the original wager. That puts the overall house edge at 6.01%.

Quote: Wizard

Assuming those are bonuses, as opposed to blackjack-like immediate wins, I show the value of the bonuses is 1.68% of the original wager. That puts the overall house edge at 6.01%.

Suppose my rounding of the hand is why I got 5.91% above =P. Close enough?

Hi Wizard

I was thinking about this game in a GTO perspective and there are some misinformation you have here. The specs are 18 added jokers in a 6 deck shuffle machine. Where 2 jokers pay 4-1 and suited aces only pay 2-1. Blackjack is also 6-5. Also it's not quite a 5% house commission. Its dependent on what you bet. To pay the least per bet you would want to bet in increments of 100 where each 100 would be $1 dollar commission. Playing optimally there would only be a 1% commission. Now for banking the game there is a cap at $2 once the amount of bets exceed $100. I have a couple questions. Do the bonuses of double jokers, suited aces and blackjack exceed the amount you pay solely in collection on 1% above you your base wager. What I mean is the gaming corporation covers all bets behind the original base wager. So if you and a friend bet $1,000 and one banked for $1,000 you would pay a combined $12 in commission going straight to the house. You push all bets except when making 2 jokers, 2 suited aces and blackjack. Does playing this way create an edge for the players. Furthermore you can increase players edge by making bets +EV for the players such as splitting aces and 8s where your first bet is covered by your own banker and second bet is non commissioned and covered by the corporate bankers. Splits and doubled in profitable spots and bonuses included, if banking against oneself, this game would be beatable on a consistent basis with a large enough bankroll to both make large bets yourself and have another person cover your bets?

Quote: chris.penfield

Hi Wizard

I was thinking about this game in a GTO perspective and there are some misinformation you have here. The specs are 18 added jokers in a 6 deck shuffle machine. Where 2 jokers pay 4-1 and suited aces only pay 2-1. Blackjack is also 6-5. Also it's not quite a 5% house commission. Its dependent on what you bet. To pay the least per bet you would want to bet in increments of 100 where each 100 would be $1 dollar commission. Playing optimally there would only be a 1% commission. Now for banking the game there is a cap at $2 once the amount of bets exceed $100. I have a couple questions. Do the bonuses of double jokers, suited aces and blackjack exceed the amount you pay solely in collection on 1% above you your base wager. What I mean is the gaming corporation covers all bets behind the original base wager. So if you and a friend bet $1,000 and one banked for $1,000 you would pay a combined $12 in commission going straight to the house. You push all bets except when making 2 jokers, 2 suited aces and blackjack. Does playing this way create an edge for the players. Furthermore you can increase players edge by making bets +EV for the players such as splitting aces and 8s where your first bet is covered by your own banker and second bet is non commissioned and covered by the corporate bankers. Splits and doubled in profitable spots and bonuses included, if banking against oneself, this game would be beatable on a consistent basis with a large enough bankroll to both make large bets yourself and have another person cover your bets?

I think I understand what you are saying, I think it will be positive EV for the player team. Very interesting. If your team is playing both banker and one player, and the house covers all bets behind the original wager then your player (i.e., non-banker) should play a different strategy then what Wizard posted. Make these changes:

Split 22 and 33 vs 4-6 only
Split 66 vs 5,6 only
Split 88 vs 2-7 only
Split 99 vs 2-8 only

because these are all positive EV on the split bet.

Wizard,

One detail of the game I believe other posters left out that might effect the hit chart: 22 by both player and dealer is a push not a loss (but only if both hit to exactly 22). For this reason, when the corporation banking the game is dealt 12, their guide says to hit in all instances except when the dealer is showing a 6. Do you agree with that strategy?

Just FYI the suited aces bonus is not nearly as lucrative as you suggest - it’s just 2-1 not 5-1. Also super important Suited Aces by the dealer beats a player BlackJack. For this reason, you might consider ensuring your BlackJack if dealer has an Ace. ( And for the record Jokers count as 2 for the dealer always, even if they are his first two cards)

I don't recall a game called Hot Action Blackjack.

Other posters have pointed out the "house" edge is really about 1.6%, but I think in general these posts don't fully explain a couple of things.

 

First, you are not playing against the house. You are betting against the other players.  The house is taking a flat fee per wager.  As one poster points out, there isn't a 5% fee (e.g. $.50 on $10) to play because even if you bet $50 the fee is still $.50.  So unless you are min betting, the collection is negligible, and completely worth it because....     

 

Second, unlike Nevada (where I live) or an Indian casino, you can bet on the dealer hand against all the other players  You can act as the house and flip the odds in your favor.  You also can limit your bet on the dealer hand so you don't have to take more action than you want.  Surprisingly, most players pass on this because they are just so used to always playing against the dealer.

 

I was playing blackjack at Planet Hollywood once when the guy next to me from Ohio said he had just come from California.  When the cardroom first gave him the option to bet on the dealer hand against everyone else he was mystified but it took him all of about three seconds to realize how great it is.  If the Vegas casinos allowed it, I'd gladly pay a small fee to be able to take the dealer hand against everyone else.  When you are getting a few hundred in action the house fee is a lot less than the 1.6% edge you get by betting on the dealer hand.  That is why these organized companies send employees in to California casinos with stacks of money to take the dealer position as often as they can.