Carnival games in Australia

Hi all,

I am a blackjack dealer at Crown Casino in Melbourne, Australia. In recent years their blackjack rules have become very poor, and currently the only available game below a $30 minimum is a variant called Blackjack Plus, the rules of which I will explain below.

If I were not employed by this casino, I would avoid spending any time in or around these tables, as I am not aware of any way to play this game with an advantage. However, as a dealer I am often asked to assist with Basic Strategy decisions for the game, and always embarrassed to say that I don't know. To date I have been unable to come up with a reliable way of determining the game's edge (other than reading this article which I know to contain some factual errors), let alone a correct playing strategy. The ruleset is not supported by MGP's Combinatorial Analyzer. I don't know if it is supported by CVData, which I do not own, but would be interested to know if it is. It is not supported by any online calculators I know of, which would be of little use in any case because of significant interaction between non-standard rules which I imagine would require a combinatorial approach.

I was disappointed to find "Ask the Wizard" is no longer taking questions due to submissions being either repetitious or obscure. I had hoped Mike would be able to sim this game. It's definitely not a question that has been addressed before, and it is relevant information for the large number of people who play this game every day in the Southern hemisphere's largest casino.

Without further ado, here are the complete rules:



If anyone has advice on how I can get a reliable analysis of this game, please let me know.

It won't be quite exact, but you can use the Wizard's list of rule changes to get a close estimate on the house edge.

https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/rule-variations/

Relative to these rules: 8 decks, S17, DA2, DAS, split up to 4 hands, NS, nRSA, nHSA: Player's Edge: -0.43096%

Effect of Rule Changes with respect to Player:

6 decks: +0.02%
BB+1: -0.01%
DA3: +0.20% (roughly, he doesn't have DA3 listed; double any number of cards is +0.23%...this is an estimate by me)
Split only to 3 hands: -0.01%
BJ automatically wins (aka BJ ties pay 3:2): +0.32%
21 automatically wins: +0.54%
5 card charlie: +1.46%

Push on 22: -6.91%

Geoff Hall ("Switch" on this forum), unfortunately did not patent this in Australia like he did in the US and UK, so many carny games in Australia are using this rule so they can offer other liberal rules and increase the house edge of course.

Net changes: -4.39%

Total Player edge: -4.82% (House edge of 4.82%.)

I hate to do a lot of work for a game that has one placement half way around the world from here. Let me say that my initial instinct is the house edge has got to be high, perhaps the highest of any known blackjack variant. The push 22 rule costs the player 6.91% (source). The things they give back are not worth nearly as much. The five-card Charlie is the best, but that is still worth only 1.46%, and I bet recreational players will not get anywhere close to the full benefit of that.

Somebody should tell Switch that another game is using his push 22 rule.

Finally, for the benefit of the American readers, BB+1 means that if the player splits, and the dealer ends up getting blackjack, the player will lose his original wager PLUS any other wagers that already busted. It is a term coined, I think, by the great Kararina Walker of Spanish 21/Pontoon fame.

Thanks for the very quick replies.

Wizard, I understand your reluctance to jump right in and run a sim. My best hope, I guess, is that someone can point me towards a free or reasonably priced CA that I can use to sim the game myself, which supports all of the rules in question. I do note, however, that you have presented playing strategies in the past for games that include a 5- or 6-card charlie rule. Is any version of the software you use to generate these strategy charts publicly available, or do you code it as needed?

As far as the overall edge goes, I suspect the newspaper article I linked is accurate (-2.86%) - although they got some other numbers wrong in the article. I know that the game's edge must have been calculated accurately by someone at some point in order for it to be approved by the VCGLR (local gaming commission).

Common sense says that there would definitely be at least some interaction between the push 22 rule and the instant pay rules - and that that interaction would cause the HE to be lower than if they didn't interact.

As a side note, the definition of BB+1 I got from your other site says that one unit is taken, if present, in addition to busted bets. It needn't be the player's original bet (although if it's part of a double it will be the original bet of that double, by convention.) This is the definition I was using.

tringlomane, thanks for pointing out that the push on 22 rule is not being used with permission. I always assumed Switch was getting royalties for it.

Quote: Sealock

tringlomane, thanks for pointing out that the push on 22 rule is not being used with permission. I always assumed Switch was getting royalties for it.

Unfortunately not - the patent process is expensive, especially when first starting out, so the 'Push 22' was never patented in Australia.

However, it would have been nice to have been contacted or have permission asked as a matter of acknowledgement and courtesy.

It goes without saying that I hope that 'Blackjack Plus', with it's extremely high edge, fails miserably and I also hope that it doesn't deter players from playing 'Push 22' games in the future, which is my biggest concern. Free Bet Blackjack is gaining momentum daily and it would be a shame if the game received a negative reaction (if ever it reached Australia) due to players being burnt on 'Blackjack Plus'.

Quote: Switch

Unfortunately not - the patent process is expensive, especially when first starting out, so the 'Push 22' was never patented in Australia.

However, it would have been nice to have been contacted or have permission asked as a matter of acknowledgement and courtesy.

It goes without saying that I hope that 'Blackjack Plus', with it's extremely high edge, fails miserably and I also hope that it doesn't deter players from playing 'Push 22' games in the future, which is my biggest concern. Free Bet Blackjack is gaining momentum daily and it would be a shame if the game received a negative reaction (if ever it reached Australia) due to players being burnt on 'Blackjack Plus'.

I saw it on another AU casino`s website being called PinkJack.

Quote: Switch

and I also hope that it doesn't deter players from playing 'Push 22' games in the future, which is my biggest concern.

Agreed. If the topic comes up, I usually try to explain to players that it's not the push on 22 which makes the game terrible, it's the fact that that rule is not sufficiently offset by others which makes the game terrible. Needless to say, this distinction is lost on approximately 100% of Blackjack Plus players.

Quote: Hunterhill

I saw it on another AU casino`s website being called PinkJack.

What a silly name. reminded me that we discussed PinkJack here a couple months ago: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/13251-pinkjack/

Quote: rdw4potus

What a silly name. reminded me that we discussed PinkJack here a couple months ago: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/13251-pinkjack/

At least PinkJack isn't using Geoff's rule though. They are using 17-20 ties lose instead.

Quote: Sealock

Agreed. If the topic comes up, I usually try to explain to players that it's not the push on 22 which makes the game terrible, it's the fact that that rule is not sufficiently offset by others which makes the game terrible. Needless to say, this distinction is lost on approximately 100% of Blackjack Plus players.

You're absolutely correct Sealock - it's the other rules that make the game so bad. Unfortunately it will have a knock-on effect by giving players a bad experience on a 'Push 22' game.

At least they can't market Blackjack Plus in the US.

Quote: Switch

You're absolutely correct Sealock - it's the other rules that make the game so bad. Unfortunately it will have a knock-on effect by giving players a bad experience on a 'Push 22' game.

At least they can't market Blackjack Plus in the US.

The lack of other rules to be more specific, imo. "Push 22" can make blackjack games horrible without significant changes to the game that are favorable to the player. But with Blackjack Switch and Free Bet Blackjack, you do give enough player favorable rules to make up for this, imo. Unfortunately, games like Blackjack Plus in Australia definitely won't help your cause. Question is...how much will "ploppies" notice while playing "Blackjack Plus"?

Quote: Switch

I also hope that it doesn't deter players from playing 'Push 22' games in the future, which is my biggest concern.

I think it really does come down to the player's perception of what they are getting in compensating rules to offset the Push 22 rule. While there may be some tainting of Push 22 when combined with a bad game like Blackjack Plus, when you combine Push 22 with Switch or, IMO, the even better Free Bet BJ, I think players will are willing to accept the rule.

That being said, Push 22 has had some push back in WA in that I haven't seen Switch be as successful there as it has in Nevada. When I asked why I had two dealers tell me the player's didn't like the Push 22 rule of Switch.

You have to keep in mind that WA is a very regional market and what works or doesn't work in WA is not necessarily an indication of what will work in other markets (e.g. Switch is doing just fine in Vegas!). As another example, Spanish 21 is an absolutely huge game in WA......imagine a 48 table property that contains 6 "Spanish 21" tables and 6 UTH tables on the same floor......Spanish 21 is as big as UTH for that large scale property!

I believe there are currently two Free Bet BJ tables in WA and have visited one of the property's on two separate visits 6 months apart. Both visits showed really good action on the Free Bet BJ table, so Push 22 in the Free Bet BJ seems to be doing well. Dealers at the property have told me there is a player following on Free Bet and that they get regulars that now come in to specifically play Free Bet at their location as it isn't available at other properties nearby....yet!

You are right Geoff, Free Bet continues to build momentum!

Quote: Paradigm

I think it really does come down to the player's perception of what they are getting in compensating rules to offset the Push 22 rule. While there may be some tainting of Push 22 when combined with a bad game like Blackjack Plus, when you combine Push 22 with Switch or, IMO, the even better Free Bet BJ, I think players will are willing to accept the rule.

That being said, Push 22 has had some push back in WA in that I haven't seen Switch be as successful there as it has in Nevada. When I asked why I had two dealers tell me the player's didn't like the Push 22 rule of Switch.

You have to keep in mind that WA is a very regional market and what works or doesn't work in WA is not necessarily an indication of what will work in other markets (e.g. Switch is doing just fine in Vegas!). As another example, Spanish 21 is an absolutely huge game in WA......imagine a 48 table property that contains 6 "Spanish 21" tables and 6 UTH tables on the same floor......Spanish 21 is as big as UTH for that large scale property!

I believe there are currently two Free Bet BJ tables in WA and have visited one of the property's on two separate visits 6 months apart. Both visits showed really good action on the Free Bet BJ table, so Push 22 in the Free Bet BJ seems to be doing well. Dealers at the property have told me there is a player following on Free Bet and that they get regulars that now come in to specifically play Free Bet at their location as it isn't available at other properties nearby....yet!

You are right Geoff, Free Bet continues to build momentum!

I don't get what makes WA such a weird market.

I was always flabbergasted at how many Spanish 21 tables Snoqualmie has.