Blackjack side bets in Nicaragua
Dealer Total. This is a set of five bets on the dealer's eventual total. It may be made after seeing the dealer's first card.
20 Bet. This is a simple bet that the dealer's first two cards will total 20.
Roulette. These are ten bets on the value of the dealer's next card.
Dealer Bust. This bet wins if the dealer busts. May be made after seeing the dealer's first card. Wins depend on what that card is.
Streak Bet. This is a set of three bets on going 3 to 5 consecutive wins. I've seen this bet 13 years ago in Atlantic City, so just added a table to the end of this section to address the Nicaragua pay table.
Here are the blackjack rules there:
six decks,
dealer stands on soft 17,
double after split,
re-doubling allowed on first two cards,
early surrender (except against an ace),
re-split to four hands, except no re-splitting aces,
lose original wager only against a dealer blackjack
The penetration is 75% to 80%. However, I'm told they know their side bets are extremely countable, and keep a sharp eye out for counters.
If any of my explanations of these bets were unclear, please let me know.
I will look at the others soon.
Quote: cclub79Wow Dealer Total 17 with an upcard 6 has to be the lowest edge of a side bet I've ever seen! Also one of the lowest edges of a 5 to 1 payoff in a casino. I'm assuming all bets lose if the dealer breaks, and it's not a push?
I noticed that, as well. It seems that it would be really easy to play that with an advantage simply by keeping a true count of Aces and knowing whether or not there were more Aces in the deck than there should be. I'd suggest that one additional Ace would be enough to swing the advantage to the player. I did notice that The Wizard said that they tend to watch the side bets pretty closely, but I should imagine this is still a side bet that the AP would play pretty rarely, so maybe you'd get away with it.
Quote: teliotThe "20" bet is one part of the "Slingo Bonus Bet 21" assemblage. In the Slingo bet, "Any 20" pays 8-to-1. Using the "Ten Count" against the 8-to-1 Slingo version returns 3.37 units per 100 hands (6 decks, cut card at 260). I'll probably forgo analysis of this 7-to-1 version, not to say that you couldn't live a good life playing against it alone.
I will look at the others soon.
You are likely referring to a Ten Count such as the JSTAT Count (2-9=+1, 10-K=-2) where the aces are not counted as low cards such as the Archer/Noir/Roberts Counts to beat the Slingo Bonus Bet 21 side bet or "20 Bet" as the Wizard describes.
One opportunity in this bet pays 2-to-1 if the dealer's next card is ten-valued. This is just insurance on any hand as a side bet. This bet already exists in the U.S. It is called "Picture in the Hole." Its inventor, Barry Fairhurst, later modified it to pay 3-to-2 for any ten-valued card or Ace.Quote: Wizard
What's interesting in the version you posted is that this bet can be made on any card. Other than slowing down the game to a crawl if squares are playing it on every card, "roulette" can be crushed by counting.
Quote: teliotOne opportunity in this bet pays 2-to-1 if the dealer's next card is ten-valued.
I tend to think of all the countable opportunities, this one is the strongest. As you mentioned, it is like insurance on every single dealer card. The dealer will actually hold up the game before taking each card to give the players the opportunities to make prop bets.
I thought of a Q&D way to do the AP analysis for this bet. Normally, one out of 13 hands, a player can take insurance. Given that there are 2.7 dealer cards (on average) per round, there will be 1.7 opportunities per hand to take this bet. So, in 13 hands, there will be 13*1.7 =22 opportunities. It follows that this wager will return about 22 times as much as insurance to the card counter. On the downside, the size of this side bet is probably severely limited, whereas insurance can be made up to half the original wager.Quote: WizardI tend to think of all the countable opportunities, this one is the strongest. As you mentioned, it is like insurance on every single dealer card. The dealer will actually hold up the game before taking each card to give the players the opportunities to make prop bets.
For the Nicaraguan AP who cares, in a six deck game (one deck cut off), the insurance bet returns 0.735 units per 100 hands (my analysis is on A.P. Heat!, so the 2-to-1 roulette bet will return about 22*0.735 = 16.2 units per 100 hands. Even at a modest wager of $25 on this bet, the return is over $400 per 100 hands. At least, if my kitchen sink analysis holds water.
Before folks start booking flights to Nicaragua, looks like the analysis says 0.0735 return for insurance per 100 hands (assuming 5/6 decks penetration), which means that the side bet can yield a max of 1.62 units per 100 hands with perfect play.
I'd like to emphasize that unknown gringo players will really stand out at that casino, and I'm told they are vigilant for card counters. Making a special trip there, in my opinion, is ill-advised. If you do play, use a lot of cover.
Quote: WizardI think you can even make the "roulette" bet on a 10-point card on the dealer's first card also. The philosophy of the casino is to encourage prop bets as much as possible. The max bet is half the blackjack wager. On the A-9 roulette bets, it is 10% of the wager.
I'd like to emphasize that unknown gringo players will really stand out at that casino, and I'm told they are vigilant for card counters. Making a special trip there, in my opinion, is ill-advised.
Very True, companero Miguel, and I think they've already cut their teeth on their own poco loco locales. It might be a risky endeavor to travel for AP play outside the U.S.
Thanks for the catch, absolutely correct. My apologies to anyone who already booked a flight.Quote: gamblerDougHey teliot,
Before folks start booking flights to Nicaragua, looks like the analysis says 0.0735 return for insurance per 100 hands (assuming 5/6 decks penetration), which means that the side bet can yield a max of 1.62 units per 100 hands with perfect play.
Quote: 21RevolutionWondering if anyone knows the profitability (from a casino perspective) of offering insurance these days. I have wondered if the time it takes to pause and offer it is even paying for that slow down in the game. With all the new side bets, it may just be detracting from the game?
The house edge on the average game is about 0.7%, and is 7.7% on insurance, I think it is worth their time to slow the game for it.
Quote: 21RevolutionWondering if anyone knows the profitability (from a casino perspective) of offering insurance these days. I have wondered if the time it takes to pause and offer it is even paying for that slow down in the game. With all the new side bets, it may just be detracting from the game?
I agree, quite often BJ side bets do just that.
Some are good in the sense that they provide an additional GOOD game (21+3, and some bust-type bets are good, especially if you can bet after the dealer's up card is shown), but many side bets just:
1. bog the game down,
2. introduce AP opportunities and vulnerabilities, adding additional holes for the game, (which in some people's eyes are not good things),
3. or just don't get action, only to take up space on a layout, making waste.
Insurance as a "side bet" isn't 100% a true label for it in some ways, IMO - as it is a basic and historical part of the game, does not add a 'spot' near the player's main bet, AND is offered ONLY under an exception condition, that being the dealer's Ace as up card.
And it is very hard to determine the material worth of a BJ side bet for the operator. The side bet's performance gets masked in the base game's performance, and you don't know if a rule change to the base game or the addition or removal of the side bet is to be blamed - or praised.
Basically this consists of tracking the bet's patronage or player compliance, and the table's hold, drop, and game speed over many installs and a lot of time. Certain side bets have proven their worth, and it took a lot of time and effort to determine this.
I've joked about inventing a game called "Just Freakin' BLACKJACK," the pitch being "Just ONE spot! More hands per hour! Less dealer errors!" And this would be true, aside from a few great side bets that do get action and help the game.
I've often said that there is something to be said for just a pure blackjack game, or a BJ game with one GOOD additional spot, aside from insurance.
When the 6-card bonus was added to Three card poker as a fourth bet above the Pair Plus, I felt that that addition subtracted from the game. Same when I see two or more side bets on a BJ game. It's very hard to keep a table game light, fun and fast, and easy to deal.
Quote: WizardThe house edge on the average game is about 0.7%, and is 7.7% on insurance, I think it is worth their time to slow the game for it.
But what is the house edge for the average player, and what percentage take insurance who shouldn't? They seem to be variables that are tied together, for if everyone was playing at .7% house edge, then 0% would take insurance, and it would indeed cost them money to offer it. But as bad players raise the house edge, it also raises the percent of people that will take insurance! An interesting thought experiment indeed!
Quote: cclub79But what is the house edge for the average player, and what percentage take insurance who shouldn't? They seem to be variables that are tied together, for if everyone was playing at .7% house edge, then 0% would take insurance, and it would indeed cost them money to offer it. But as bad players raise the house edge, it also raises the percent of people that will take insurance! An interesting thought experiment indeed!
yes, very true; taking insurance can be contagious. Compliance (patronage) of that bet is small, but what little it adds, generally helps.
Quote: Paigowdan
I've joked about inventing a game called "Just Freakin' BLACKJACK," the pitch being "Just ONE spot! More hands per hour! Less dealer errors!" And this would be true, aside from a few great side bets that do get action and help the game.
I've often said that there is something to be said for just a pure blackjack game, or a BJ game with one GOOD additional spot, aside from insurance.
Dan- I've been trying to come up with a better name for a Blackjack game, and I think you just nailed it. I assume this fits all the rules of a good name or you wouldn't have mentioned it- trademark is pending! J/K. I am glad to hear there is some school of thought to provide a game with just one spot. Ideally the game delivers entertainment on its own and players can focus on that rather than managing two bets. It can be frustrating to feel like you need to always play it or never play it for fear of bad timing. Are there any tables where the side bet is an expected bet? If the additional bet is proving to make the game more fun to play, why not properly blend the overall expected HE with the main bet and make it required?
Quote: 21RevolutionDan- I've been trying to come up with a better name for a Blackjack game, and I think you just nailed it. I assume this fits all the rules of a good name or you wouldn't have mentioned it- trademark is pending! J/K. I am glad to hear there is some school of thought to provide a game with just one spot.
Thanks!
I've always felt that a strong game concept represented in just one or two bets is superior to several fuzzy game ideas mixed together.
Quote: 21RevolutionIdeally the game delivers entertainment on its own and players can focus on that rather than managing two bets.
Agree. But I will also forgive a good side bet that DOESN'T interfere or conflict in strategy to the other bet.
Some examples:
21+3: the bet is resolved before the hit-or-stand phase, so that it doesn't interfere with the player's basic strategy on the main bet or game. Also, Dealer bust type side bets don't materially affect a player's basic strategy, and they also give the player a chance to win after the player busted and lost on his main hand.
Now, certain other BJ side bets that pay when a player has a 6-7-8 in his hand alone would force him to make bad plays, like hitting a 6/7, 6/8, or 7/8 stiff against a dealer's 6 or less, just to take his shot at the big 6-7-8 payout. A lesser side bet may force the player to make bad basic strategy plays on the base game, under the threat of playing bad strategy for the side bet, and vice-versa. This side bet "strategy interference effect" detracts from the game combination as a whole, IMO.
Quote: 21RevolutionIt can be frustrating to feel like you need to always play it or never play it for fear of bad timing.
Oh, yes, fully agree. The new six-card side bet added to three card poker can be very frustrating in this regard, as you notice some full poker hands hitting whenever you don't play, and missing when you do - all the while driving up your average bet and exposure to be "fully in." It gets to the point where you feel like your playing dodgeball if you don't have everything covered.
Quote: 21RevolutionAre there any tables where the side bet is an expected bet?
Yes, many ANTE=BLIND type poker games have that required BLIND type side bet, and these I don't mind, so as long as I can cap on an early strong hand, or it gives some other player benefit. The Blind bets generally redeem themselves very nicely with both a Raise feature, and huge payouts on very rare hands, like a straight flush or Royal.
Quote: 21RevolutionIf the additional bet is proving to make the game more fun to play, why not properly blend the overall expected HE with the main bet and make it required?
This is indeed done, and is on one of my favorite games, Ultimate Texas Hold 'em, invented by a brilliant casino executive and designer, who sometimes frequents this board.
Quote: WizardI have never in my life seen so many side bets in blackjack as at the Palms casino in Managua, Nicaragua. I just made lots of updates to my blackjack appendix 8 to include them. Here is what they have. I'm using English for the names.
Dealer Total. This is a set of five bets on the dealer's eventual total. It may be made after seeing the dealer's first card...
For, "Dealer Total", I'm curious why the EV on a dealer 17 after a six up is so slim? I assume the most common result would be a dealer 10 in the hole for total of 16, then another card (most likely another 10 value). It is most likely that this third card will be something other than an Ace, (which is the only way to get to 17 from a two card 16.) If this, "smell test" (most common hole = 10; Third card = not an Ace) is solid, why would 17 be the, 'best bet"?
