Zombie Blackjack

One question I get asked a lot about blackjack is why the house has an advantage at all. If the player just mimicked the dealer strategy, wouldn't the odds be in his favor, because of the 3 to 2 on a blackjack?

The answer is that the reason the house has the advantage is if both you and the dealer bust then you lose. In other words, the dealer enjoys a positional advantage. So, if you mimicked the dealer strategy, then you would do quite badly because you wouldn't be getting the benefits of doubling, splitting, surrender, or the information of one opponent card.

Wouldn't it be nice if when both you and the dealer busted, then you would win? That is what happens in Zombie blackjack if (1) the dealer started with a 7 to ace up and (2) busted with 23 or more. This benefit is paid for with the Geoff Hall "push 22" rule. In other words, if the dealer draws to 22, then any non-busted player bets on the table push instead of win.

The game is currently on field trial at the Venetian where I played it yesterday. Table minimum is $10. I played for about an hour and was up about $90. My first playable hand (the true first was a dealer blackjack) won because of the Zombie feature. It seems about ten bets over the hour were saved by it. Of course, some wins turned into pushes too, due to the push-22 rule. All in all, I think it has a high fun factor. Whenever anybody had an entombed bet (a term I use for a busted bet with chances of winning) the table would yell "Zombie!" if the dealer busted. Especially an Asian man at third base.

There are a lot of strategy changes compared to blackjack. Lots more hitting, like hard 17 vs. 8-A, and less splitting and doubling.

My own analysis is based on an infinite deck. Geoff kindly provided math reports by Elliot From and GLI but both are simulation based, meaning there would be small errors. I'm hoping that QFIT will stumble on this thread and take an interest.

I need to rewrite my whole combinatorial blackjack program to handle strange rules like these and Magic 21. My current one is getting so long and confusing that it is difficult to makes unconventional rule changes to it.

So, please click the link and let me know what you think. As always, I welcome questions, comments, and especially corrections. The question for the poll is would you play Zombie Blackjack?

Link: Zombie blackjack

Need to add the link.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Need to add the link.

Oops. Thank you.

Quote: Wizard

Oops. Thank you.

You're welcome. And after reading about it, I'll stick to regular blackjack.

Venetian offering this at 3 to 2 currently?

Might have to try if it's still there!

I'll play. I'm a Geoff Hall fan. His games always deserve a fair shot.

Quote: tringlomane

Venetian offering this at 3 to 2 currently?

Might have to try if it's still there!

Yep. It was there on Wednesday. Field trial scheduled to end Sep 7.

Sounds interesting.

Geoff puts together some good games that people enjoy, but Blackjack and 1% are two terms I don't like together.

Unfortunately. I generated indices, and applied Kelly betting; and the game does not appear to be amenable to counting. Clearly beatable with hole-carding.

Quote: QFIT

Unfortunately. I generated indices, and applied Kelly betting; and the game does not appear to be amenable to counting. Clearly beatable with hole-carding.

Interesting. I wonder if Geoff even considered this with this twist.

Geoff knows what he's doing. I can get a positive EV. But, the variance is too high to make it playable.

This is still Geoff's game, not SG's, even though they are like the same. It's a strategic play for both party. SG does not take it now for a lower business risk. Geoff represents himself for establishing the market share -if the game works, it is worth much more money. This is a fantastic business model for game inventors - Let SG chase you, not the other way around.

Quote: UCivan

This is still Geoff's game, not SG's, even though they are like the same. It's a strategic play for both party. SG does not take it now for a lower business risk. Geoff represents himself for establishing the market share -if the game works, it is worth much more money. This is a fantastic business model for game inventors - Let SG chase you, not the other way around.

That's sort of true, and sort of not true, but it's not up to me to correct the inaccuracies as I understand them. Switch has made his own deals and worked hard for a decade to earn the negotiating rights he has. I just didn't want any other designers to think this is the whole story, so I spoke up.

Quote: beachbumbabs

That's sort of true, and sort of not true, but it's not up to me to correct the inaccuracies as I understand them. Switch has made his own deals and worked hard for a decade to earn the negotiating rights he has. I just didn't want any other designers to think this is the whole story, so I spoke up.

I think this is the agreement between Switch and SG.

In 2012 SHFL obtained the license to distribute Geoff Hall's blackjack variant, Free Bet Blackjack, worldwide excluding the UK and Nevada. UK is his home court, Vegas is his playland. Not a bad situation at all

Quote: beachbumbabs

That's sort of true, and sort of not true, but it's not up to me to correct the inaccuracies as I understand them. Switch has made his own deals and worked hard for a decade to earn the negotiating rights he has. I just didn't want any other designers to think this is the whole story, so I spoke up.

Dear beachbumbabs,

You are right, this is not the whole story.

I will up date Geoff Hall's on this post, next time I talk to him.

Quote: sixsisters

I think this is the agreement between Switch and SG.

In 2012 SHFL obtained the license to distribute Geoff Hall's blackjack variant, Free Bet Blackjack, worldwide excluding the UK and Nevada. UK is his home court, Vegas is his playland. Not a bad situation at all

Hi sixsisters,

No, SHFL does not obtained the license to distribute Geoff Hall's blackjack variant anymore.

SHFL bought Geoff Hall's and own the games worldwide including the UK and Nevada, but they have some private agreement on his (Blackjack Switch) and New Games.

Speaking in generalities only, I usually recommend to game inventors that if they can get something going on their own, they will have a lot more bargaining power with a game distributor. However, it isn't easy getting something going on your own. Most games need to be subsidized for the first several placements while it waits to gain a following among players.

Tough business.

Quote: Wizard

...My first playable hand (the true first was a dealer blackjack) won because of the Zombie feature. It seems about ten bets over the hour were saved by it. Of course, some wins turned into pushes too, due to the push-22 rule. All in all, I think it has a high fun factor...

Another pretty darn good feature in a BJ variant from Geoff!

While the hard core BJ players will not play many variants due to their commercially viable 1%+ HE, this game should appeal to the masses of regular BJ, much as Free Bet & Switch have in the past.

Mathematically speaking, how often does the math report indicate that a player's bet is "boxed" and how often is a "boxed" bet paid even money?

Quote: Paradigm

Mathematically speaking, how often does the math report indicate that a player's bet is "boxed" and how often is a "boxed" bet paid even money?

I don't think anybody has intrinsically quantified how often there is a Boxed Bet. I can say the probability of the dealer busting, with 23-26, by up card from 7 to ace (after peeking) is:

17: 19.8%
18: 18.4%
19: 17.2%
20: 17.3%
Ace: 14.7%.

I think you mean with7,8,9,10 upcard.

Quote: QFIT

Unfortunately. I generated indices, and applied Kelly betting; and the game does not appear to be amenable to counting. Clearly beatable with hole-carding.

I did consider that the + count cards (7 thru Ace) would be worth more ev, if left in the deck, as they are not as valuable to the dealer, as with regular Blackjack, due to the 'Zombie' feature. Of course it also eliminates some high count index plays as you would never stand on a 15 or 16 against any dealer up-card 7-Ace.

I wasn't given a breakdown of the math' analysis but I am interested to see whether the player is better off against, say, a dealer 2 or 7 with a random hand. Not sure if you or Mike have the player's ev for each dealer up-card but if you have then I would love to see them. From my limited viewing of the game so far it seems that players like the dealer having a 'Zombie' up-card as it gives them 2 chances to win.

Early days but the initial response from players seem encouraging. I just need a Zombie-style side bet to spice it up a little more.

Quote: MrCasinoGames

Dear beachbumbabs,

You are right, this is not the whole story.

I will up date Geoff Hall's on this post, next time I talk to him.

All of the quotes contain some truth in them but SG has the right to exclusively distribute any new game that I create. However, Roger is a smart guy and we felt that it was a good idea for me to (hopefully) get the momentum going in Vegas as I have had some experience in distributing Blackjack variants in that area.

I can tell you that The 4 Queens and Binions will be installing the game after the anticipated approval of the game (Oct 19th).

A lot will rest on the results from the field trial at The Venetian but I will be aiming to get more installations after G2E.

The player is far worse off with a deuce upcard than with normal BJ. Seven upcard is the best for the player. The game is probably countable with a custom count.

Quote: Switch

I wasn't given a breakdown of the math' analysis but I am interested to see whether the player is better off against, say, a dealer 2 or 7 with a random hand.

Here is my expected values by dealer up card, after peeking for blackjack:

2	-6.29%
3	1.96%
4	5.28%
5	8.72%
6	12.72%
7	19.87%
8	13.78%
9	3.66%
10	-3.45%
ace	-3.68%

I'm available for hire to do a card counting vulnerability study. However, I'm sure my competitors would charge less.

Quote: Wizard

Here is my expected values by dealer up card, after peeking for blackjack:

2	-6.29%
3	1.96%
4	5.28%
5	8.72%
6	12.72%
7	19.87%
8	13.78%
9	3.66%
10	-3.45%
ace	-3.68%

I'm available for hire to do a card counting vulnerability study. However, I'm sure my competitors would charge less.

Thanks Mike!

Wow, the 7 really is such a good card for the player.

No wonder the players preferred the 'Zombie' up-card. You are better off playing against a dealer 10 than a dealer 2 and also a dealer 9 rather than a dealer 3.

Might have to tweak the simple 'Ace 5' count and use the '2 7' count instead :-)

Eliot did do some count vulnerability and found that it was not overly susceptible as QFIT already calculated.

Quote: QFIT

The player is far worse off with a deuce upcard than with normal BJ. Seven upcard is the best for the player. The game is probably countable with a custom count.

I think the EOR's could end up radically different than regular Blackjack.

No vulnerability study done yet???

Quote: panda1314

No vulnerability study done yet???

Yes, one has been done that showed no more susceptibility than the regular game.

Quote: Switch

Yes, one has been done that showed no more susceptibility than the regular game.

Vulnerability analysis still can not emulate hit-and-run, nor limited bankroll.

Well, any correctly done study can analyze anything. But, you are not likely to see any publicly published study on custom counts based on EORs.