Poll

5 votes (31.25%)
5 votes (31.25%)
No votes (0%)
6 votes (37.5%)

16 members have voted

beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 99
  • Posts: 14229
April 12th, 2015 at 5:16:49 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

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. 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.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
Paradigm
Paradigm
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2225
April 12th, 2015 at 6:06:25 PM permalink
Quote: bigfoot66

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.


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.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1338
  • Posts: 22088
April 12th, 2015 at 6:20:36 PM permalink
I 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 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.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Avincow
Avincow
Joined: Oct 17, 2014
  • Threads: 24
  • Posts: 395
April 12th, 2015 at 7:18:59 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

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%.



Ah ok, that's much better than I thought. The game ain't so bad, everyone please ignore my complaining earlier in the thread.
Paradigm
Paradigm
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2225
April 12th, 2015 at 8:32:27 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I 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.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1338
  • Posts: 22088
April 12th, 2015 at 8:49:56 PM permalink
Good comments! I don't disagree with any of them.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
MrCasinoGames
MrCasinoGames
Joined: Sep 13, 2010
  • Threads: 196
  • Posts: 2356
April 12th, 2015 at 9:36:55 PM permalink
Hi Wizard,

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).
Stephen Au-Yeung (Legend of New Table Games®) NewTableGames.com
TriathlonTodd
TriathlonTodd
Joined: Jan 23, 2015
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 43
April 13th, 2015 at 2:14:03 AM permalink
This game sounds like it has the potential to make it as an actual floor game in a brick and mortar casino. I personally wouldn't play it since I don't gamble (I see enough of it from the other side of the table to satisfy me), but I could see where my players would enjoy it. It seems fairly easy to administer.

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.
miplet
miplet
Joined: Dec 1, 2009
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 1941
April 13th, 2015 at 3:42:05 AM permalink
I 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?
“Man Babes” #AxelFabulous
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1338
  • Posts: 22088
April 13th, 2015 at 8:28:32 AM permalink
Quote: miplet

I 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.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.

  • Jump to: