Pinkjack??

Just wondering if anyone has heard of a Blackjack variant called "Pinkjack"? It is to be launced soon at The Star casino in Sydney, Australia. Would be interesting to know what everyone thinks and, if someone knows, who developed it?

I'm obviously missing something. This game appears to take blackjack, add some majorly player friendly rules and not do anything to move the advantage back to the house.

Things I noticed are you must hit a hand 11 or lower and also ties lose if not BJ.

If you have a point total equal to or less than the point total of
the dealer’s hand and the dealer’s hand does not exceed 21, you
lose.

I think the game has potential to become popular if they can get the pink felt approved.

http://www.star.com.au/sydney-casino/Documents/guides/STARGAMEGUIDE_Pinkjack.pdf

When ties lose, the game generally sucks. BUT there are quite a few rules that try to counterbalance this. But not enough to overcome the horrible dealer wins ties rule, which costs 8.86%.

Using the aid of this:
https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/rule-variations/

I am estimating the house edge of this game is roughly 4.2%.

And fyi, the $1000 bonus that is given when the player and dealer both have AJ of diamonds is so unlikely, its effect on the house edge is negligible. The odds of it happening are over 1 in 2 million in an 8 deck game...lol

Quote: semaj

I'm obviously missing something. This game appears to take blackjack, add some majorly player friendly rules and not do anything to move the advantage back to the house.

Yeah I had to reread it like three times before I found the key rule. Ties LOSE.

Ties lose is an awful experience for the player. I had a game where players lost 1/2 on most ties....it may have been the most hated part of the game as commented on by the players. It is much better psychologically to take away a win (and make it a push) than to have a tie lose (i.e. Switch's Push 22 rule).

Ties happen about 8.5% of hands so at a full table of 6 players, every other round someone at the table is going to tie and lose....and all the other players will see it happen every other round!

7 player spots and 3 players to a spot if you want. LOL Picture 21 people playing at one pinkjack table !

Thoughts on the side bet? Predict the suit for your first card, if correct, get 2-1. Get 10-1 if it is a Jack in your suit.

Quote: Ayecarumba

Thoughts on the side bet? Predict the suit for your first card, if correct, get 2-1. Get 10-1 if it is a Jack in your suit.

9.62% HE. Countable of course. How countable, ask Eliot.

All a Bulletball gamble.

Dan, Marc Griffin says thanks for the plug.

https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Bulletball

Side Bet Counting - 6 decks : Only Counting Jack of Specific suits played
Player Edge (aproximate)

0 Jacks of Specific Suit left (ie 6 remaining) after x number of decks played
2 decks: 0%
2.5 decks: 4%
3 decks: 9%

1 Jack left
3 decks: 3%
3.5 decks: 9%

2 Jacks left
3.5 decks: 2%
4 decks: 9%

3 Jacks left
4 decks: 0%
4.5 decks: 9%

4 Jacks left
5 decks: 9%

So basically you keep count on Jacks of each suit (4 separate counts) and play as above.
How often do the above counts occur is another question which needs more work.
Although my above calculations show Player Edge of 9% (and it would be more when no Jacks appear after 4 decks etc), the sidebet also has big variance.


A different approach would be to count a specific suit against the other suits. The probability of a specific suit is obviously 25% (1/4). The breakeven point comes when the Suit probability becomes 27.7%.
A count system could be devised puting a tag of +2 to a specific suit (except for Jack), for Jack it would be probably +10 (as it pays 5 times more), and a -1 for the other suits. That is not a balance count (all the tags add up to -30). The breakeven for a Running Count will be when the RC becomes +30.

To be honest I think the count will be negated by the use of shuffling machines. Most, if not all, of the casinos in Australia and New Zealand use them on their main gaming floors. Personally, I don't find the colour of the layout that bad. Would make it stand out from the usual green or red. My you, an entire pit might be a different story.

Anyone have an idea of who developed the game?

I see women flocking to this game for obvious reasons loving the pink and they will enjoy the big hits it offers giving them excitement to cheer about. I will like it because I imagine a table full of young blonds will be there to join. If it hit US shores, I would guess the 5 card rule would go or it would be changed to 6.

Quote: tringlomane

http://www.star.com.au/sydney-casino/Documents/guides/STARGAMEGUIDE_Pinkjack.pdf

When ties lose, the game generally sucks. BUT there are quite a few rules that try to counterbalance this. But not enough to overcome the horrible dealer wins ties rule, which costs 8.86%.

Using the aid of this:

I am estimating the house edge of this game is roughly 4.2%.

I don't think the house edge is that high. For one thing, the player wins all ties at 21 points. So the base edge for the "ties win" rule is 8.38%, not 8.86% (about .48%). Then you have to subtract for the player wins ties at 21 points rule (including on dealer blackjacks, even on doubling), which should add at least another .48%, more or less. So, after factoring in the "ties" rules, you get a house edge of 7.9%. Then there would be the small number of 5 card 17s, 18s, 19s, and 20s - all of which are automatic winners under the rules.

It's still quite a high house edge. But it's probably less than 4%.

Shoot,

I can't slip anything by anyone over here. Steel jaws abound....it's an aligator pit.

So be forewarned, - and this includes Mr. Griffin, whom I have respect for, and was disappointed in this latest.

If the game's great, brilliant, it'll be praised here, - as had Freebet Blackjack and a FEW others.

If it is just a re-hashed, re-packaged, warmed over Blackjack leftover, it will certainly be called as such, - and without apology.

If a game is sharp - it gets a shot a life here. If it is not - it just gets shot here. Throwing any new gambling game up here to us wolves is very tricky: if it is chicken, it gets the fangs. If it's Gold, then WE get our teeth broken if we show our fangs.

This is a serious forum, and presenting a game here will get it a serious field trial. Remember, you are here for honest let-loose criticism, not to be patronized.

There is nothing new, novel or compelling in Pinkjack, IMO.

Disagree, and name the fantastic new game items for us. We're all ears, - and we're on a forum to hear of the exciting new stuff.

There WAS this indeed in Superfun-21, which was fully designed to be a no-holes barred "all player option" variant of 21. It was purposefully packaged and thought out as such for the Blackjack Player with that goal in mind. It's purpose was to give the player every option from surrender to double on any, without the drawbacks or givebacks of this game, such as "ties lose." Superfun did well, is still around, and deserves it success - as it had a clear and defined goal for the player! That is, NO restrictions while keeping the game as similar as possible. But adding the color PINK to the game, and re-hashed old bets? If a BASE game of BJ doesn't exceed that design, it may have some predictable problems of acceptance. This is yet to be seen, but we here will place our bets from our opinions AND knowledge. PINKjack came here to a gamblers' forum for opinions, and got some, enough said.

I work as the manager of Table Games Design and Development for a table games distributor here in Las Vegas, and my phone rings off-the-hook with calls from game designers of: "You GOTTA see my game! It's AWESOME, Dude!," from countless game designers. And I always do give it a look-see. If a new game isn't truly new, compelling, well-designed, and completely free of warmed-over done-before crap, with solid math and IP protection, - it cannot even be considered as to its design, and won't, - as a business decision. Many warmed-over games DO get another shot on the casino floor with great hopes, to many people's amazement. Sxxxxa is considered standard craps prop bets as a "new game," and was recognized by dice gamblers as nothing new; perhaps the same here with blackjack players for many new blackjack games, in my opinion. I essentially do "triage," and if you so much as engage me in a discussion of your game design, - you've got something there. We're looking for something that is NOVEL, COMPELLING, not done before, AND has math and IP protection.

To our surprise, and to be honest, a lot of "New Games" are simply re-done "promo features" added onto an existing game, and if they don't offer a better player edge, or faster house dealing, or a compelling new feature that was truly not previously thought of before, the going may be tough, simply because experienced gamblers DO know what they're seeing, and are not impressed.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

I see women flocking to this game for obvious reasons loving the pink and they will enjoy the big hits it offers giving them excitement to cheer about. I will like it because I imagine a table full of young blonds will be there to join. If it hit US shores, I would guess the 5 card rule would go or it would be changed to 6.

"Women like Pink!" - as a serious gambling concept, and a table game design concept....if the color pink really does make a difference in table game design advancement, I hope that 'mixing pink and gambling' has something to it, because I sure have missed this one.

Are we talking:
1. Pink Ultimate Texas Hold 'em?
2. Pink EZ Pai Gow?
3. The Pink panther progressive system.
4. Pink Craps, with a Pink High-Low-Yo bet, and a pink Horn bet. Maybe a "pink three-way 7?" bet can be offered, to compliment the Around the World bet. If a seven is rolled, - it's a push. Nothing beats pushing the pink.........
5. Pink Proposition bets.
6. Pink Sports and Race books...


etc....

A table full of young blonds, because of a pink layout felt.....

Quote: TangledWeb

Anyone have an idea of who developed the game?

PinkJack? - Some may argue Larry Flint; it's certainly a surprising name for a serious gambling game.

We're getting denials from SHFL, MathExtremist, DEQ, Galaxy, and even the estate of Peter Sellers..and the estate of Vladimir Nabokov has a patent on the color Mauve...

Seriously, a gambling game must be reserched and adopted because of its new fundamental gambling merits, and new game play depth; honestly, trialing new games is daunting, and 'new' does not necessarily mean 'good.'

Some party pits in Vegas have pink tables, I think. They generally aren't attracting women though.

Quote: tringlomane

Some party pits in Vegas have pink tables, I think. They generally aren't attracting women though.

Exactly. And it is not new. Half the tables at local casinos go pink on Breast Cancer Awareness day in Las Vegas.

So Please Forgive my harshness and skepticism in this thread, but.......

A game is not a "new game" by virtue of its color scheme, and this is fundamental - or by tweaking old side bets, just as repainting an old car does not make it "of a new model year." BJ Switch was a new concept when it came out, - as is Freebet Blackjack. [Muck cards between your two hands legally, and double down at the house's expense, - now that's truly new in Blackjack.]

Geoff Hall did not borrow, steal, or re-package on any his new game designs, and he came up with winners in the process. THAT is so refreshing to see!!!

And Superfun-21 was truly a new "packaging" of BlackJack, in that is was a thoughtfully designed collection of player-advantaged features, all together in cohesive package for the first time. That I saw: it was a designed offering for the gambler, our customers.