21 Burn Blackjack
Poll
 | 5 votes (31.25%) | ||
| | 5 votes (31.25%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 6 votes (37.5%) |
16 members have voted
Please consider my analysis preliminary. I'm trying to talk Miplet into doing a parallel analysis, but I welcome anybody to try.
As usual, I welcome all questions, comments, suggestions, and especially corrections. The question for the poll is would you play this game, assuming the higher house edge were not a factor?
Quote: rudeboyoiI'm assuming you make the burn wager during the course of the hand and not prior to it but maybe make that a bit more clear.
Yes, that is the case.
Quote: rudeboyoiOut of curiosity how close was the decision to burn 88 vs 7 instead of splitting?
Dang. That question made me realize I made an error with the burn or split decision. As you suspected, the correct play is to split. Here are the values:
Split: 0.211530
Burn: -0.182596
I owe you 25 push-ups.
My page has been corrected with the new strategy and lower house edge.
Quote: WizardI'm almost finished with a review of Betsoft, which provides software for Internet casinos. One game they have, which I've never seen before, is 21 Burn Blackjack. It is like Change It, which was at the last Raving show and can be found at the Fremont. The thrust of 21 Burn is the player can exchange his second card with a random card. Instead of a flat fee, the player is forced to make a side bet, which is highly negative, in order to burn his second card. Also, blackjacks pay 1 to 1.
Please consider my analysis preliminary. I'm trying to talk Miplet into doing a parallel analysis, but I welcome anybody to try.
As usual, I welcome all questions, comments, suggestions, and especially corrections. The question for the poll is would you play this game, assuming the higher house edge were not a factor?
Is the Burn bet before or after checking for BJ?
Have you calculated if the game is more or less volatile than regular? One of the biggest problems with BJ for a lot of recreational table game players is the lack of volatility in regular BJ as compared to UTH, High Card Flush or Mississippi Stud that seem to be winning placements recently.
Quote:8. After seeing his initial hand and the dealer up card, the player may burn his second card for a random card, shown face down next to his hand.
Face down? How do you play out your hand?
Quote:11. An ace and 10 after burning a card shall be treated as a blackjack.
If BJ pays even money, why do we care that it's treated as a BJ? What other option is there?
Quote: DJTeddyBear
If BJ pays even money, why do we care that it's treated as a BJ? What other option is there?
Probably because a BJ is an automatic winner and can't be pushed by a dealer 21.
If the house edge for the main game is .73% and the side bet is 67.31% (WOW), then for every $15 bet ($10 on the main game and $5 on the side bet) you are losing $3.43. So a combined house edge of 22.9%? That's not my idea of fun.
And H17, only 1 split, no surrender? How can they pinch pennies when they are already sucking the players dry with a laughable side bet pay table? I give it 0 stars out of 5.
If the house edge wasn't so ridiculous, I would play the game.
Quote: mipletIs the Burn bet before or after checking for BJ?
After.
Quote: ParadigmIf it is handy, on what percentage of hands are you invoking the "game feature" and making the burn wager to get a new card?
19.43% of all hands. 18.51%, assuming you have the free will to do so (no dealer BJ).
Quote: DJTeddyBearFace down? How do you play out your hand?
They flip it face up if the player chooses to burn his second card.
Quote:If BJ pays even money, why do we care that it's treated as a BJ? What other option is there?
You could make the same question about Double Exposure. A blackjack still beats a 21-point hand.
Quote: surrender88sIf the house edge including the sidebet was similar to regular blackjack, the bet without the sidebet would likely be +EV. I don't think you can make this game feasible.
If they wanted to lower the house edge, they could improve the odds on the side bet, perhaps paying more for an ace of spades.
Quote: Wizard19.43% of all hands. 18.51%, assuming you have the free will to do so (no dealer BJ).
That is not bad as far as frequency of the "new game feature"......I think the problem is going to be that a significant percentage of the time, you are not going to improve to a "much better" situation than you had before you paid the burn fee (I could be wrong). That is to say you pay the burn fee and then still end up with a Stiff hand or you end up with a 17 or 18 which is still likely to lose.
These are the type of statistics that really define the "enjoyment" factor of a new game. In BJ Switch, the amount of times you get to invoke the Switch to produce a better hand or in Free Bet, the number of times you get to make a "Free Bet" are drivers of why those games gained traction.
I think the stats on Free Bet are you get a free bet lammer about 15% of hands, which is always seen as a positive even if you lose the double or split.
For Switch, you would want to count the frequency where switching resulted in at least one of the hands being made significantly better, no idea what that percentage is.....but it is important when understanding how "fun" the new game feature is going to be.
I prefer the idea of taking a Mulligan on the whole hand.
I'm not sure if it would be preferable to Switch or Free Bet, though. I feel like those variants are more interesting than this and provide a greater "feel" of beating the game when invoked.
Also if the only way to adjust HE would be to increase payout of the side bet, I'm not sure I'd go for it. I don't like the super high variance of most bonus bets as it feels like a constant drain of the BR with only the occasional boost. I have fairly limited BR so I dislike the risk of ruin.
Again just from the perspective of a $10-15 rec player looking for a "reasonable" HE while having fun.
Quote: ParadigmCyrus, opinions from players such as yourself are the ones that count........recreational players looking for a little more juice/excitement in a BJ game. Unfortunately that additional excitement normally comes with a bit of a higher HE otherwise the casino's would never take the risk to put them on the floor.
A bit of a higher house edge? The house edge on this game is extraordinary. They aren't even trying here. 22% combined house edge for perfect strategy. The rec players probably aren't playing perfect strategy. Yep, no risk here, just a money grab.
Quote: AvincowA bit of a higher house edge? The house edge on this game is extraordinary. They aren't even trying here. 22% combined house edge for perfect strategy. The rec players probably aren't playing perfect strategy. Yep, no risk here, just a money grab.
I don't think that's right since the side bet is only made when you want to invoke the burn option. So it is not right to say you are always making the burn wager and thus have a 22% house edge.
Quote: TwirdmanI don't think that's right since the side bet is only made when you want to invoke the burn option. So it is not right to say you are always making the burn wager and thus have a 22% house edge.
Ok, not sure if I understand the game then. I put $10 down on the main game, and then put $5 on the burn bet. If I don't want to burn a card, then the $5 just pushes?
Quote: AvincowOk, not sure if I understand the game then. I put $10 down on the main game, and then put $5 on the burn bet. If I don't want to burn a card, then the $5 just pushes?
From what I understand you make the burn wager during the hand. So you bet 10. If you want to burn your card you put down another 5.
Quote: TwirdmanFrom what I understand you make the burn wager during the hand. So you bet 10. If you want to burn your card you put down another 5.
Okay, so it looks like you make the side bet 20% of the time. So what is that, 6.78% house edge? It's still lame. If you play the main game without the side bet, you're only at a 3% house edge. (check my math plz)
So basic strategy should be to not play the side bet at all!
But at that point, you have to be asking yourself, 'With the abundance of 6:5 blackjack in Vegas, why am I playing 1:1 blackjack? Oh yeah, same reason I don't play 3:2 blackjack: I just don't care'.
Quote: AvincowOkay, so it looks like you make the side bet 20% of the time. So what is that, 6.78% house edge? It's still lame. If you play the main game without the side bet, you're only at a 3% house edge. (check my math plz)
So basic strategy should be to not play the side bet at all!
But at that point, you have to be asking yourself, 'With the abundance of 6:5 blackjack in Vegas, why am I playing 1:1 blackjack? Oh yeah, same reason I don't play 3:2 blackjack: I just don't care'.
Maybe I am misreading the article but I took it to mean that, with perfect strategy, the total house edge of all money you wager is .73%. The real return on the "side bet" is in fact positive. Yes, the paytable itself is inherently negative, but you only invoke the option to make the side bet when the EV gain on the base game exceeds the expected loss of the side bet.
The burn option is pretty powerful, I don't think that merely going from 3:2 to even money on BJ would be enough to keep the house edge positive.
Quote: bigfoot66Maybe I am misreading the article but I took it to mean that, with perfect strategy, the total house edge of all money you wager is .73%. The real return on the "side bet" is in fact positive. Yes, the paytable itself is inherently negative, but you only invoke the option to make the side bet when the EV gain on the base game exceeds the expected loss of the side bet.
The burn option is pretty powerful, I don't think that merely going from 3:2 to even money on BJ would be enough to keep the house edge positive.
Okay, looks like we need some clarification here, Wizard. If I put $10 on the main bet and $5 on the side bet, how much of my $15 am I losing. What is the cumulative house edge if I invoke the side bet at the right times.
Quote: AvincowOk, not sure if I understand the game then. I put $10 down on the main game, and then put $5 on the burn bet. If I don't want to burn a card, then the $5 just pushes?
You don't make the Burn bet at the same time as the "main game" but after you and the dealer each get your first two cards. Then you MUST burn if you make the side bet. You would be an absolute fool to ask to make the side as an independent bet, not that it is even an option.
Quote: TwirdmanI don't think that's right since the side bet is only made when you want to invoke the burn option. So it is not right to say you are always making the burn wager and thus have a 22% house edge.
That is correct.
Quote: AvincowOkay, looks like we need some clarification here, Wizard. If I put $10 on the main bet and $5 on the side bet, how much of my $15 am I losing. What is the cumulative house edge if I invoke the side bet at the right times.
The overall house edge, as I have it now, is 0.73%. That means that for every $10 you bet on the main bet you can expected to lose 7.3 cents. The house edge is defined as the ratio of the expected loss to the initial wager.
It sounds like what you want to know is the Element of Risk, the ratio of the expected loss to the total amount bet. To answer that, in conventional blackjack the ratio of the final wager to the initial wager is 1.13 on average. It may be more in this game, because players might burn into a hand worth doubling or splitting. However, we'll ignore that. The player will burn 18.5% of hands. Remember, the burn wager is half the amount of the main wager. So, the ratio of the expected loss to the total amount bet is 0.73%/(1 + 0.13 + 0.5*0.185) = 0.60%.
Quote: WizardThe overall house edge, as I have it now, is 0.73%. That means that for every $10 you bet on the main bet you can expected to lose 7.3 cents. The house edge is defined as the ratio of the expected loss to the initial wager.
It sounds like what you want to know is the Element of Risk, the ratio of the expected loss to the total amount bet. To answer that, in conventional blackjack the ratio of the final wager to the initial wager is 1.13 on average. It may be more in this game, because players might burn into a hand worth doubling or splitting. However, we'll ignore that. The player will burn 18.5% of hands. So, the ratio of the expected loss to the total amount bet is 0.73%/(1 + 0.13 + 0.185) = 0.55%.
'
Well, this clarification on the HE changes my answer from "maybe" to "yes", I'd play this. Thanks, Wizard.
Quote: bigfoot66The burn option is pretty powerful, I don't think that merely going from 3:2 to even money on BJ would be enough to keep the house edge positive.
You have to consider that you lose the 1/2 wager burn bet 12/13 times you make it. I think it was mentioned that this comes out to about a 6.36% HE mechanism. That along with even money BJ which is a 2.27% mechanism, means the changes in place add 8.63% to the HE which is offset by the player benefit of optionally receiving a burn card.
So I agree, the burn card is a powerful feature. It has to be because it offsets 8.6%+ of house edge mechanisms in this variant. The key to the game's success will be whether enough players perceive more value in the benefits than negatives associated with the mechanisms in place.
In this game, with some chance of winning on the Burn wager, the effective fee is 33.65% of the blackjack wager. I'm sure somebody might say, "Why not just make the burn wager 1/3 the blackjack wager. The problem there is most wagers aren't evenly divisible by 3. Maybe this would work in an online game, which this is, but a 1/3 fee just wouldn't work in a live game.
Quote: WizardThe overall house edge, as I have it now, is 0.73%. That means that for every $10 you bet on the main bet you can expected to lose 7.3 cents. The house edge is defined as the ratio of the expected loss to the initial wager.
It sounds like what you want to know is the Element of Risk, the ratio of the expected loss to the total amount bet. To answer that, in conventional blackjack the ratio of the final wager to the initial wager is 1.13 on average. It may be more in this game, because players might burn into a hand worth doubling or splitting. However, we'll ignore that. The player will burn 18.5% of hands. Remember, the burn wager is half the amount of the main wager. So, the ratio of the expected loss to the total amount bet is 0.73%/(1 + 0.13 + 0.5*0.185) = 0.60%.
Ah ok, that's much better than I thought. The game ain't so bad, everyone please ignore my complaining earlier in the thread.
Quote: WizardI must say I like the way they did this game compared to Change It. With the latter, the player must pay a flat 50% fee to change. This is expensive and the resulting strategy is to hardly ever change/burn.
In this game, with some chance of winning on the Burn wager, the effective fee is 33.65% of the blackjack wager. I'm sure somebody might say, "Why no just make the burn wager 1/3 the blackjack wager. The problem there is most wagers aren't evenly divisible by 3. Maybe this would work in an online game, which this is, but a 1/3 fee just wouldn't work in a live game.
I agree with what you are saying here Wiz, but I think both games will be seen as inferior by operators vs. Switch Hands Blackjack (for a game with this change your hand feature). Here's what I am thinking:
In both Change-It Blackjack and 21 Burn Blackjack, the game is slowed down as players decide whether to invoke the "change card" option. Then I can see players muddling through their chips and not having the right change to put up the 1/2 bet fee, then selecting a card to burn (although most times it will be obvious), discarding the burnt card, dealing a 2nd card......all of this is going take time and lead to less hands per hour.
Compared with Switch Hands Blackjack, where players make their "Ante" bet up front before the hand is dealt and only if they want the option of switching hands. Dealer deals the two extra cards to their spot if they have made the "Ante" bet and the rest of the hand plays and pays are as in regular blackjack. It is more "elegant", as PaiGowDan would say, and will result in more hands per hour and better game performance.
I am not certain of this, but it also appears as if players can sit at the Switch Hands Blackjack table and just play regular blackjack by never making the Ante bet. The "Ante" bet does seem to be optional and I am not sure of the other BJ rules, but it also appears to be a stand on soft 17 blackjack game.
Despite all of that, I personally prefer Geoff's "Push on Dealer 22" mechanism than having to pay to use a new game feature....for whatever that is worth!
At least in 21 Burn I suppose you can win back the fee and then some once every 13 times you make the bet. But think about how often that is really going to happen? You are only making the burn wager less than one in five hands and will lose 12 of those and win the 13th (on average). So you are going to get to win the burn bet once every 65 hands you play! That isn't going to feel like a high win frequency type proposition when a player typically get 14 - 18 hands per six deck shoe depending on how many players are with them at the table. You are going to win that Burn Bet once every 4th shoe or something like that.
Burn Blackjack and Change It is Similar to one of my old game Top-Draw Blackjack® ©2010 (Patent Pending).
All Blackjack rules remain unchanged other than as set out below.
1. Each Player makes an Enter-bet.
2. Dealer deals two cards face up to each Player one card to himself face down.
3. Each Player has the option of changing his Top-card (second card) if his first two-card make a hard total of 12 or higher by making a Draw-bet which is equal to his Enter-bet.
4. After the changing option the hand is played as normal.
5. After all Players have acted; the Dealer deals a second card to himself and changes that card for a new card if his two-card point total is a hard 12-17.
6. Dealer play out his hand as in normal Blackjack.
· If the Player wins then all his bets wins.
· If the Player lose then all his bets lose.
· If the Player tie with Dealer then all his bets push.
P.S. I have five more better variations with math reports from: Cindy Liu, Stephen How or Charles Mousseau (Look out for my new Blackjack games).
For a live game, I would like to see one major change to make it better: don't deal out the replacement card to the betting spots until it is needed. This will cut down on the number of cards used per hand, and thus reducing time wasted to shuffling. Just give the requesting player the next card out of the shoe. This will still go along with the general BJ sentiments of "aw shucks you took the card I needed" or the "I'll let the dealer have the ___ ".
If all of the replacement cards were face down on the layout in the beginning, marked cards would be a fairly big concern.
The players would also likely have to see the replacement cards after the hand is over and the dealer is sweeping the cards on the layout. The dealer is sweeping cards that are face up, so the replacement cards must be face up as well. This isn't a problem, it just means that the dealer will get many more statements like, "If I just would have switched, this would have happened, and this would have happened, ...". If the cards could somehow not be shown, then that would greatly reduce the number of cards seen, and in the process probably anger the card counting community.
Quote: mipletI finished my analysis. I'm getting a player EV of -0.009475362 based on infinite decks, but only 1 split aloud. I'm getting the same Burn strategy as Wizard. The Basic Strategy chart is for 6 decks but has Stand on soft 18 vs Ace?
Thanks for that strategy correction. I also made a math error, which has caused me to revise my infinite deck house edge to 0.64%, so 0.54% for six decks.
