## Poll

2 votes (15.38%) | |||

1 vote (7.69%) | |||

2 votes (15.38%) | |||

2 votes (15.38%) | |||

7 votes (53.84%) | |||

No votes (0%) | |||

1 vote (7.69%) | |||

2 votes (15.38%) | |||

No votes (0%) | |||

1 vote (7.69%) |

**13 members have voted**

So, please visit my new page on Open 21. As always, I welcome questions, comments, and especially corrections.

The question for the poll is would you play Open 21, assuming the house edge was the same as regular blackjack? Which other statements do you agree with?

Quote:BozMy first thought is there is too much going on. With the changes in strategy based on the side bet, I don't see too many people taking the time to learn near perfect play. So it comes down to will the average player find this more "fun" than basic BJ and fall into Carnival game territory. I don't see that either. Maybe some will try it based on the thought that they have an advantage seeing both cards, like Stupak did 30 years ago. Just my thoughts.

Way too many things going on. Likely the dealers will kill this.

P.S. I'd play it if I can find a sucker, err someone to make the odds win bet for me :-D

The other thing is that the new features (in the odds bet) are very non-blackjack-like, in the sense that they're alien add-ons to the game: the odds bet wins if you win the hand with an odd total in your first two cards, but lose if you win the hand with [an even total in your first two cards. Dealer and player alike now have to think: "your odd 19 final hand had started with an even 12, so your winning 19 loses the odds bet in this case...." and the like.

I liked Deal and Reveal, as it helped strategy by knowing what the dealer has with a stiff upcard without adding an odd-or-even strategy wrench into the mix. A good humdinger adds game juice without adding game complexity or additional work.

Quote:PaigowdanI can't see dealers supporting this game, as dealers either quietly support a game, or quietly sabotage a game. If dealers don't have fun dealing a game, the gamblers won't have fun playing it with the dealers.

The other thing is that the new features (in the odds bet) are very non-blackjack-like, in the sense that they're alien add-ons to the game: the odds bet wins if you win the hand with an odd total in your first two cards, but lose if you win the hand with [an even total in your first two cards. Dealer and player alike now have to think: "your odd 19 final hand had started with an even 12, so your winning 19 loses the odds bet in this case...." and the like.

I liked Deal and Reveal, as it helped strategy by knowing what the dealer has with a stiff upcard without adding an odd-or-even strategy wrench into the mix. A good humdinger adds game juice without adding game complexity or additional work.

I agree. The concept of winning and losing the odds bet base on starting with an odd or even hand total is silly.

Quote:PaigowdanI can't see dealers supporting this game, as dealers either quietly support a game, or quietly sabotage a game. If dealers don't have fun dealing a game, the gamblers won't have fun playing it with the dealers.

The other thing is that the new features (in the odds bet) are very non-blackjack-like, in the sense that they're alien add-ons to the game: the odds bet wins if you win the hand with an odd total in your first two cards, but lose if you win the hand with [an even total in your first two cards. Dealer and player alike now have to think: "your odd 19 final hand had started with an even 12, so your winning 19 loses the odds bet in this case...." and the like.

I liked Deal and Reveal, as it helped strategy by knowing what the dealer has with a stiff upcard without adding an odd-or-even strategy wrench into the mix. A good humdinger adds game juice without adding game complexity or additional work.

The odds bet is resolved before the player starts taking hits,so I don't think it will be that confusing.

While this makes dealing it easier, if it were done later at the take-and-pay stage, the losing "even-start" odds bet would be masked a bit on a hand result win: win the main bet, and sneak-away the odds bet loss. You'd skip this "lose only" action at the start of the round. If a player starts with an even hand and loses the odds bet to the dealer, and later loses his hand to the dealer, he now gets two losing actions in one round of play. Combining the even-start odds bet loss into one final take-and-pay action may hide it somewhat, since a main bet win covers the odds bet loss in these cases. I'm just looking at the mechanism in a "juice look" view over here, in which game designers should try to conceal the house's edge: promote the player-friendly gimmick while concealing he house's taking hand as much as possible.

Either way, the odds bet house edge is hard to conceal, whether the odds is taken upfront at the hit-or-stand point, or at the take-and-pay point, because it is not based on the win/loss result of the hand.

In Double Exposure Blackjack, which has the same open dealer hand mechanism, you also lose on ties, but this happens in one step during take-and-pay with no forced (and frequently losing) prop bet.

In looking at BJ house edge mechanisms, Geoff Hall's Push-22 is as soft as they come, if you look at the installs. An iron fist should be cloaked in a velvet glove when it comes to house edge mechanisms.

P(odd hand) = P(getting 1 odd and 1 even card) = P(odd) * P(even) = (5/13) * (8/13) = .3846 * .6154 = .2367 = 23.67% chance of getting an odd hand.

THEN

You have to win the BJ hand. Assuming "similar" figures to regular BJ (the auto 21 win would change the numbers 'barely' perhaps) but the player is going to win 42%, push 9%, and lose 49%... So the player needs to also hit one of his "winning" hands (42% of the time). Then again, I don't know the odds on double exposure win rate off the top of my head, so actually this is probably a bit higher.*

So in order to not lose half the value of your main bet (aka win the side bet) you need to P(odd hand) * P(Winning Blackjack Hand) = .2367 * .42 = .0994.

Am I correct that the player will win the BJ AND the side bet only ~9.94% of the time? That sounds like ZERO fun to always be losing something 90% of the time.

*Edit: Numbers will change a bit for double exposure win rate, but I'd still think it comes out to quite a low number (<20%) to actually win both bets.