Quick Pay 21

This game has been touched on before, but deserves it own thread. It recently completed a field trial at Planet Hollywood, where it evidently did well as it is still on the floor.

The game plays like blackjack, except:

1. The game offers a "quick pay" option for totals of 18 to 21 after the initial cards are dealt.
2. There are also Hedge bets, which are side bets that pay if the dealer achieves a specific total from 18 to 21. The pays depend on the dealer's up card.
3. If the dealer draws to 17, then all player bets standing shall push.

For all the rules and analysis, please see my new page on Quick Pay 21. It is still a little rough and the math has not been finalized. I link to it here as a preview. As always, I welcome all questions, comments, and especially corrections.

The question for the poll is would you play Quick Pay 21?

Quote: Wizard

This game has been touched on before, but deserves it own thread. It recently completed a field trial at Planet Hollywood, where it evidently did well as it is still on the floor.

The game plays like blackjack, except:

1. The game offers a "quick pay" option for totals of 18 to 21 after the initial cards are dealt.
2. There are also Hedge bets, which are side bets that pay if the dealer achieves a specific total from 18 to 21. The pays depend on the dealer's up card.
3. If the dealer draws to 17, then all player bets standing shall push.

For all the rules and analysis, please see my new page on Quick Pay 21. It is still a little rough and the math has not been finalized. I link to it here as a preview. As always, I welcome all questions, comments, and especially corrections.

The question for the poll is would you play Quick Pay 21?

I just stayed at PH during G2E and there were always at least one or two people playing just about every time I walked by the end of that pit.

Fun fact, the PG Progressive was almost $1.8 million, wonder if it will reach $2M before it hits.

The house edges you give for all the Hedge Bets match exactly with what I get assuming your 6 deck H17 Dealer Odds table is correct, which I'm sure it is. I did notice, though, that the First Two Cards strategy table doesn't have a row for hard 20, since that is covered below in the 10,10 pair row. I know it's redundant, but it might make the table more user-friendly and easier memorize if you copy the 10,10 row into the hard totals section so all the hard total Quick Pay decisions are in one place, especially since basic strategy players usually don't even consider splitting a hard twenty and so may not think to look it up as a pair.

The only other possible corrections I found are super trivial things that probably aren't worth your time to fix (I wish I could turn off the part of my brain that notices these things, but I think taking a job as a proofreader sealed my fate). Since you're still in the process of working on the page, here they are in case you want to snag them while you're under the hood:

• In the "Rules" section, #3 begins "The dealer take a hole card" instead of "The dealer takes a hole card"
• In the Three or More Card strategy table, you don't include a row for soft 13 in the soft section because that hand is impossible if you follow basic strategy and split aces. By the same convention of excluding impossible hands, the first row of the hard section in that table would be labeled "6 to 7" instead of "5 to 7".
• Similarly, you might consider labeling the first row of the hard section in the First Two Cards table "4 to 7" instead of "5 to 7", to cover the small possibility that you've re-split 2's to the maximum number of hands and have to treat 2-2 as a hard 4.
• For completeness, you could also include a soft 21 row in the Three or More Card table, or just label the last row "19 to 21"
• (Super unimportant): The column headings in the hard section of the Three or More Card table are aligned right (except for A, which is aligned left), whereas for the rest of the tables they are centered.

So, on a 16 versus 7, why is HITTING the 16 optimum?

If Player STANDs with 16 v7, then Dealer's 7 implies:

Dealer Busts and loses versus 16: 26.2%
Dealer gets 17 and pushes: 36.8%
Dealer gets 18-21 and wins vs 16: 37%

So, if players stands on 16 v 7 the EV for standing should be about -10.8%. That must be much better than HITTING the 16.

Have I missed something? Or should player STAND on 12-16 v 7 ?

Quote: gordonm888

So, on a 16 versus 7, why is HITTING the 16 optimum?

If Player STANDs with 16 v7, then Dealer's 7 implies:

Dealer Busts and loses versus 16: 26.2%
Dealer gets 17 and pushes: 36.8%
Dealer gets 18-21 and wins vs 16: 37%

So, if players stands on 16 v 7 the EV for standing should be about -10.8%. That must be much better than HITTING the 16.

Have I missed something? Or should player STAND on 12-16 v 7 ?

Standing is correct and that’s what the strategy chart says.

Quote: Ajaxx

In the "Rules" section, #3 begins "The dealer take a hole card" instead of "The dealer takes a hole card"

Thanks, fixed.

Quote:

In the Three or More Card strategy table, you don't include a row for soft 13 in the soft section because that hand is impossible if you follow basic strategy and split aces. By the same convention of excluding impossible hands, the first row of the hard section in that table would be labeled "6 to 7" instead of "5 to 7".

You make a good proofreader, perhaps too good. Valid points, but this is too obscure to fix, as well as your other items. It takes a lot of steps to fix and replace a graphic image.

If I find a strategy error in the table, I'll fix the cosmetic items you mention.

Thank you.

Quote: gordonm888

So, on a 16 versus 7, why is HITTING the 16 optimum?...

It looks an interesting twist since you don't lose with a low total if the dealer makes 17. Thus the strategy on the WoO page ( https://wizardofodds.com/games/pick-pay-21/ ) has you standing on 12 and also splitting most pairs opposite a dealer's 7. Also, in general, since the value of a total over 17 is reduced by only getting a standoff vs dealer's 17, you stand much more often on hard hands.

I'm guessing the Quick Pay gives something whereas the push vs 17 takes more back.

As a comparison I vaguely remember some "Pushes lose" games (e.g. Pontoon variants) also have strategies where you stand on more hand totals than regular BJ.

Quote: miplet

Standing is correct and that’s what the strategy chart says.

My bad. That is indeed what the chart says. D'oh.