Possible idea for BJ variant--feedback requested

I've had an idea for a while for a blackjack variant, which admittedly is not very original, but I think it would be simple enough to implement in a casino setting and easy enough for players to understand that they would enjoy it.

The game would be called "Mulligan's Blackjack." The rules would be identical to regular blackjack (in most respects, see the questions below) except that any player can request a "Mulligan" on their initial 2 cards. The hand would then be discarded and the player would receive 2 new cards. The player can then play this new hand just like any other hand, including doubling and splitting, but they have to play it--they cannot switch again.

The main questions I have about this are:
1. What, if any, does this option do to the house edge?
2. What other rules would you suggest changing to counter the positive player advantage (if any) of this rule? I was thinking either a rule change, or perhaps requiring the player to increase his bet in order to switch the hand--though I'm not sure by how much.

I'm also thinking the game would have to be dealt from a CSM--since it would use up a lot more cards than a regular blackjack game. That would lead to lot of shuffling.

Quote: OneAngryDwarf

I'm also thinking the game would have to be dealt from a CSM--since it would use up a lot more cards than a regular blackjack game. That would lead to lot of shuffling.

What a casino would want to know about blackjack is how many hands per minute can a dealer deal? The casino knows the house edge, they just want to know how fast the dealer is.
So in order to sell your game to the casino you would have to know: how much this changed the house edge and how fast it could be dealt with two twits sitting their talking to each other trying to decide if they should play those hands or Mulliganize them.

Well CSM can actually decrease the house edge. I am not sure that it would matter that much if you had a 6 or 8 deck shoe or a CSM machine.

The ultimate answer is fairly difficult to determine. If you propose something like increasing the number of decks that just changes probabilities and you can alter your computer program fairly easy. However, you have introduced as a variable player choice which takes a long time to analyze.

Let me suggest a procedure.

I actually don't think it is that stupid of an idea. If you don't permit splitting, doubling, and bonuses for blackjack it might be enough to offset the mulligan advantage. From the casino's perspective the time spent by the player contemplating taking a mulligan might be offset by the time spent contemplating splits and doubles. It doesn't have to result in fewer hands per hour than regular blackjack.

Mulligan blackjack would probably be appealing to a novice player who doesn't like the idea of splitting or doubling anyway.

I think I would initially try to simulate a given player strategy. The simulation could "prove it doesn't work". In other words you could take away all options and let the player throw in all stiff hands against a dealer pat hand. If you simulate that, and the player ends up with a positive EV then you know your idea sucks. If the casino wins, then change the strategy so that the player throws in all stiff hands (regardless of the dealer hand). After simulating a few hypothesized strategies if the casino is always winning then you might have a functional idea.

At that point you would have to pay the wizard to do a full up analysis of the game so that he could determine an optimal player strategy. No casino would pay for the game unless they know that it can't be beaten.

Here is an example of the Wizard's analysis of a proposed game called Lo-Ball Baccarat™. You then trademark the name Mulligan Blackjack. You also have to patent the rules of the game. As an example of a patent read the patent for a blackjack variant called Casino Surrender . It is difficult to write a patent without hiring a lawyer, as you would probably overlook some language that would allow a competitor to circumvent the patent.

But I would start with the simulation first. If the player advantage is powerful enough to overcome giving up splits, doubles, and blackjack bonus, then I would suggest dropping the idea. I mean you can always come up with enough rules to hobble the player so that the advantage goes back to the casino, but then no one would play the game.

For example the Wizard of Odds site does a short analysis of Casino Surrender and not surprisingly says it's not to play it.

As we all know even though a rule works against you, people will still do it if they feel good about it. Casino surrender is still thriving.

If I could make a humble suggestion, it might be worth the time to try and patent the idea of taking a mulligan where you request a push. You can only take one Mulligan in a row. You don't surrender the hand but you simply take a push. In exchange for taking a mulligan then you are handicapped somehow on the replacement hand (you can't split or double). This would be very different as the dealer may draw as good or better a hand the next time.

In this version, the player would be more reluctant to take a Mulligan on a mediocre hand, but only throw in terrible hands.

If it proves popular, it could be a popular option on electronic versions of blackjack (either online or for the Shufflesmaster table version). There would be less concern about slowing down the game.

If you patent the concept you could collect royalties for the rest of your life.

Quote: FleaStiff

...and how fast it could be dealt with two twits sitting their talking to each other trying to decide if they should play those hands or Mulliganize them.

There are only TWO twits at the tables where you play? The tables where I play, twitiness is contageous.

Quote:

If you patent the concept you could collect royalties for the rest of your life.

The problem with this concept is that I don't think it's a good idea. The correct strategy for the player for a free mulligan would be to take two new cards whenever you have a negative expected value AND less than average expected value on your hand vs the dealer's up card. The result to the casino would be disastrous unless they took some money from you either in the form of some severe rule changes and/or a monetary penalty, as you would mulligan every single 12 - 16 that you received, which represents about 37% of your hands. When the dealer had a 10 up, you would pretty much mulligan everything except for 10, 11, 19, 20, 21, A-A, and A-2. So I could never see a casino picking this up, though it wouldn't be a bad idea for Monte Carlo night.

Sounds interesting!

to get a mulligan, you should have to double your original wager.

if that adds too much player advantage, you only get paid even money on a blackjack.

if that still adds too much player advantage, you arent allowed to double or split either.

Quote: boymimbo

The problem with this concept is that I don't think it's a good idea.

See, I am not so sure that this is obvious. If you restrict Mulligan's to no more than one time, and you take away the ability to split, double and get bonuses you are taking away a lot as well. You also have the option of forcing a push (for electronic games). The whole concept may only be practical for online gaming, but that is the future.

I mention "casino surrender" above. The inventors basically noticed that some people get very upset when they are dealt a 20 and they still lose. They said we will give them the option of forcing the casino to surrender for half the bet. That's all it is, but they took out the patent so now they get the royalties.

It may be reality that many people thought of "casino surrender" but nobody took out a patent. It may also be that a lot of people considered "mulligan blackjack" but dismissed it as unworkable.

As I mentioned earlier casino surrender does not give you the highest EV, and savvy players won't do it. My counterargument is that taking "even money" when the dealer shows an Ace is not the smartest move either, but something like 95% of the players do it anyway.

It may not be a good idea, but it is worth writing a simple code and doing a simulation to find that out.

I think that the proper strategy would be to take Mulligans on cards that sum to values less than 10 depending on the dealer card. But if you make a rule against it the player may not notice the difference. You may want to make a rule that says you can't Mulligan a hard 17 or higher. Once again the player may not notice this as a severe restriction.

Look at your goal, which is to invent a simplified blackjack that appeals to people who don't play blackjack. That might be a huge market. The online market might be your principal money maker.

People invent side-bets all the time and make money on them.

We discussed the Rock & Roll Dice game being test marketed. A craps player does not understand the point of this game as it is basically "craps light". But it is designed to be appealing to the non-craps player.
http://www.rocknrolldice.com/

Quote: boymimbo

...though it wouldn't be a bad idea for Monte Carlo night.

There's an idea right there.

Contact some companies that do the charity casino night thing, tell them you want to test the game at one of their events. Tell them you'd do it for free, but that they'd have to provide the table, etc.

They might jump at it to save the cost of one dealer. And you'd get some real tests out of it.

I want 10%.

If you look at the basic strategy chart, you would definitely mulligan any hand where you have a 12 - 16. This occurs in 65 of the 169 player combinations, so you'd be mulliganning at least 40% of the hands. In Blackjack Switch, you get the opportunity to switch the top two cards to make a better hand but you only get paid 1:1 on Blackjack and you tie on 22. I think that to allow the Mulligan, you would have to have some very drastic rules changes including dealer wins on ties, no splits, no doubles, etcetera, and then it becomes a carnival game. The only way I could see a mulligan working is that you have to stand on the hand that you have, that the mulligan must be less than 17, and place a separate wager equal to your bet to receive the mulligan.

A separate idea might be a "dragon hand" similar to what you see in a Pai Gow variant at the Bellagio (Emperor's Challange) where players can bet on a single dragon hand (which is an extra hand) BASED on their two cards BEFORE the dealer's up card is shown. The dragon hand would be dealt face down and you wouldn't see the cards until all of the other hands (besides the dealer) are played. There would need to be a "house way" to determine when to hit and stand, or you could assign a player the right to play the hand.

Quote: boymimbo

If you look at the basic strategy chart, you would definitely mulligan any hand where you have a 12 - 16. T

See, I don't think that is true. I'm not sure you should mulligan a 12 against a dealer 6 without doing the calculation.

Also 65 out 169 doesn't mean anything. You would have to go to the underlying probabilities. It is not clear that you would have to go to dealer wins ties. I think you are pre-judging the answer.

I do think you would have to give up the bonuses on blackjack, because a coordinated effort at the table might drive up the count very high. Then large bets with a blackjack payout could push the game firmly to the player's advantage.

Giving up the 3:2 BJ payoff is no problem. People are already settling for 6:5, and at very low limit tables, EVEN MONEY!