Blackjack Variant - Blackjack Players' Choice

Hi - I'm new to the forum, and I'm reaching out to Blackjack players (that's you!) for their opinion on a new Blackjack variant.

The key innovations in its Players’ Choice format offer players the opportunity to apply tactical thinking to choose a good hand from one of five possible options, and possibly valuable intelligence as to the exact dealer’s hand they will have to beat.

To celebrate the launch of our brand new Blackjack Players’ Choice online table game, we're inviting online players to a special, international tournament offering a cash bounty of $2,500 to the ultimate victor.

The site URL is www.blackjackplayerschoicegame.com, and I'd be very interested in your feedback if you’ve got time to trial the game for yourselves.

All the best, David

House edge, David?

Be aware that the name for Blackjack: "Player's choice," is already in use for a Blackjack game that is at the Palazzo.

Isn't there also a game called Player's Choice 21? I guess there's only so many names to choose from.

Quote: 1BB

House edge, David?

Very good question.

First impressions:
Rules feel very weird. Especially the instant-win if they have a number higher than yours. Might want to reword the banner on the table... I personally thought it was confusing until I checked the more detailed rules, but that's probably because I'm used to regular BJ.
Play is very slow, but that's an interface thing.
If these rules are made to be most hostile than regular BJ (assumption), then why on earth can't I have even half as much success with real money? I've won something like 80% of the hands so far, barring stupid mistakes. (Like standing to a 6... which doesn't work here.)
...Ah. This is more like it. After doubling up, I'm back where I was half an hour ago. Feels oddly realistic at this point.

I kind of really hope that a BJ against another BJ is a push, instead of a half-stake because that'd be just plain awful (psychologically) if it wasn't.

Woo! Top the leaderboards!... I can't help but feel that it must be bugged or something though.

I don't think ploppies will like the fact that you can't split or double. Also, if the house edge for optimal play is somehow 0%, the real house edge for ploppies will be so much higher I think they will lose their money too fast in this game. I thought it was fun though.
and by fun I mean kind of agonizing because the decisions are pretty complex you would need a computer, nay, a wizard to figure them out.

Hi, the theoretical return to player for this game when played perfectly is 98.37% - so house edge is 1.63%. This was tested and certified by NMi Metrology.

Thanks for your interest, and comments so far Venthus and OzzyOsbourne. I'm really keen to get this type of feedback from players - keep it coming. All the best, David

I can see some thought is required, deciding on probabilities of which hand you have based on the card to get to see and similarly on what hands the dealer can have. For instance where 20 is one of the options and you're shown a ten is interesting.

Sorry but where the dealer doesn't hit 16 - it's not "Blackjack". I had a 15 and dealer's starting hands were something like 12, 14 or 20. My logic was as follows, I'm unlikely to beat 20 and stand a reasonable chance to win against 12 or 14, so stood. When the dealer got a 2 on his 14, he stood and claimed a victory. (In theory the dealer should not know what my cards are, and while it might be technically correct to stand 16, using the same logic based on the hands I might have, my view is the dealer should hit until reaching 17).

While it was in your long rules, I think there are too many differences between the basic game and players will not have remembered all the variances that apply. If you recall some NoBust 22 variants only have one additional rule change (free doubles, switch cards, burn 20 etc.). I think players at a table will not be happy when the dealer stands and wins on 16. Also I'm not sure how your game caters for multiple players which it would need to do to be in a real casino.

Interesting idea - there's a game there somewhere.

Pretty interesting and busy, always clicking (I'm playing a positive progressive system, so not rebetting that much). I've played 202 deals, currently in 2nd place.

Things I like: picking or discarding my hand. The animation that happens when you forfeit 1/2 on ties; it takes your bet off the right side as it compensates you from above, makes it very clear what happens. Clear announcements on the result of the hand.

Things I'd like to see diffferently (assuming you want detailed feedback, not criticizing): The instructions imply that you'll see an asterisk before you click on a hand; I had to play the game to find out for sure that wasn't true. (No, I didn't think so, but....). The instructions (maybe I didn't read them closely enough) also implied to me that I would have more than one opportunity to discard before keeping a hand. The way the screen came up (Windows Vista, IE10) it centered on the play area, masking the "How to play" on the banner above. I went looking for paytables or rules all over the bottom buttons before realizing I had to scroll up (my browser is set to open at the top of a page, and I didn't realize there was a menu bar above where I entered the game). I'd love a double last bet button at the end of a hand, for those playing either positive or negative progressions with one click, but since you're not allowing doubling, it's probably more confusing than it's worth to do it. I would like to simply click on my selected chip directly and have it put increments in the playing field; I keep doing that every so often because so many other video betting games work that way, and have to stop and think, "now why isn't my bet displayed?"

Things I don't like: the tote board to the right doesn't seem to update, even after a refresh and re-signin. The game on refresh doesn't remember me, and doesn't offer the retention option on the signin page.

I'm a serious but far from perfect blackjack player, so it's definitely taken some major re-adjustment to strategy, forcing myself not to assume the dealer will hit a bad upcard. The adjustment has been to ensure that I have at least enough count to force the dealer to take a card (not counting aces, assuming there's a face card underneath. ie I have 13, dealer has a 5, I take one or more hits to get at least 16, then stand. Most of my talking back to the game has concerned losing 1/2 my stake on ties. grumble....

Overall, I think it's an interesting variation. Best of luck to you!

Quote: beachbumbabs

Pretty interesting and busy, always clicking (I'm playing a positive progressive system, so not rebetting that much). I've played 202 deals, currently in 2nd place.

Ah, for a brief, glorious day, I was in first. And alone.

Quote: newstd100

Hi, the theoretical return to player for this game when played perfectly is 98.37% - so house edge is 1.63%. This was tested and certified by NMi Metrology.

Ugh. :( Player errors probably will make this an over 3% average HA game guaranteed, maybe even over 5%. However, a higher house edge could be important because play speed will likely be a lot slower because from my initial impressions, there are a lot of non-obvious decisions. I really think the concept is unique and very thought provoking, and I really like the game. Not sure what the "ploppies" will think though, and their opinion is wayyyyyyyy more important than mine.

Quote: charliepatrick

Sorry but where the dealer doesn't hit 16 - it's not "Blackjack". I had a 15 and dealer's starting hands were something like 12, 14 or 20. My logic was as follows, I'm unlikely to beat 20 and stand a reasonable chance to win against 12 or 14, so stood. When the dealer got a 2 on his 14, he stood and claimed a victory. (In theory the dealer should not know what my cards are, and while it might be technically correct to stand 16, using the same logic based on the hands I might have, my view is the dealer should hit until reaching 17).

Geoff legally protected the "Push 22" rule, so that's out. However, given the current house edge, I wonder what removing the "play to win or tie under 17" rule would do. I feel like the house edge is currently too high. Hell, removing that rule and having dealer win all ties could be better, and I think would also likely make the strategy easier for players.

I wasn't going to admit to this, but now I have to. The first time through, I was just looking at the cards. I totally missed that they were telling you the value of the various hands in aggregate on the top border after they were dealt. This made a HUGE difference in everything, and now I understand why the dealer is allowed to stand low. You can tell, usually, either exactly what the dealer's down card is, or narrow it down to 2 possibilities, if you've discarded the first hand and taken the second. That has totally changed my betting strategy; when I know I've got a losing 17, I'll hit it. When I know I've got a 16 and the dealer has 12-15, I'll stand, even though I'm looking at a face card. Especially helpful is knowing whether the hand is hard or soft. What an interesting game....

Quote: newstd100

Hi, the theoretical return to player for this game when played perfectly is 98.37% - so house edge is 1.63%. This was tested and certified by NMi Metrology.

Then I must be really lucky. Current balance after 200 hands at 200 per hand, is 9000 for a gain of 20 per hand.

Quote: miplet

Then I must be really lucky. Current balance after 200 hands at 200 per hand, is 9000 for a gain of 20 per hand.

I must be off the far edge right now then. I averaged +34.5 per hand. 200 hands, 199@200, 1@100.

Thanks for the feedback beachbumbabs - very encouraging. I like how it's being recognised by some players how different and interesting it is - how the game requires the player to adopt new, strategic thinking. A fresh challenge!

Hi tringlomane - re house edge; you're right - this is because it is a slightly longer game so we wanted the edge to reflect that. Am very grateful for both your feedback and suggestions, and hope you continue to enjoy the game.

Quote: Venthus

I must be off the far edge right now then. I averaged +34.5 per hand. 200 hands, 199@200, 1@100.

Hi Venthus - think you may be sitting pretty in the leader-board. 3 more weeks of qualifying to go.