Zappit Blackjack
Quote: gaming4titoHas anyone has a chance to play this game or analyze this game from a house edge standpoint?
Description of the rules and where you saw it would be nice. Never heard of it, myself.
Quote: AcesAndEightsDescription of the rules and where you saw it would be nice. Never heard of it, myself.
Bodog Casino brings exclusive new Blackjack game (Zappit) online
How Zappit Blackjack works:
This game follows the main rules of Blackjack but, if your initial two cards total hard 15, 16 or 17, then you can "Zap" that hand and have it replaced with two new cards. Again in order to allow for this great feature the only change is that if the dealer hits 22, remaining bets are returned as a "push."
Quote: 24BingoI'm guessing always zap except eights, then play the strategy from the Blackjack Switch page. No idea what the house edge might be, or when surrender would be appropriate, or when to keep eights.
You should 'Zap' everything except 8,8 verses a dealer 6 or 7. You would then follow the 'Blackjack Switch' strategy. Of course, a lot of players will keep a '17' especially against a dealer 'bust' card.
House edge for the land-based version is 0.71% for 6 decks and 0.75% for 8 decks. The online version currently pays 1/1 for a 'Zapped' Blackjack and allows 'Surrender' after a 'Zap' and this gives a house edge around 1%. You can try the game for fun if you go to either bodog.eu or bovada.lv and click on 'Instant Play'. Look for the 'Zappit' game and then click on 'Practice Mode' after clicking on the game icon.
Quote: IbeatyouracesIf you Google it, it says he did design it.
Correct but I appreciate the sentiments Tringlomane.
Quote: SwitchYou should 'Zap' everything except 8,8 verses a dealer 6 or 7. You would then follow the 'Blackjack Switch' strategy. Of course, a lot of players will keep a '17' especially against a dealer 'bust' card.
And surrender? I'm guessing there are more surrenders because of your rule...
Quote: 24BingoAnd surrender? I'm guessing there are more surrenders because of your rule...
The 'Push 22' creates more 'surrenders' although the 'Zap' reduces the number of hands to 'surrender'.
If you can 'Surrender' even after a 'Zap' then it's worth 0.1% to the player. I can't find the 'surrender' plays but it would be the same as in 'Blackjack Switch' or 'Free Bet' if they are listed.
You would always 'Zap' rather than 'surrender' if possible.
nb, All these figures are 'ball-park' estimates only!!!
------------
Online Casino where i first found this game was, see link below
http://www.slots.lv/
Game Rules:
6 Decks, Dealer hit soft 17, Dealer push on 22 (except BJ and Zapped BJ) , Bj pay 3 to 2, Zapped BJ pays 1 to 1, can zap on hard 15 to 17 (first 2 cards), Double on any two cards, 1 card to split aces, split up to 3 hands, 'late' surrender (can also 'late' surrender after zapping), seem to be able to double after zapping too (but this is not written in the game rules, on the slots.lv website)
-----------
Summary:
Estimated Player Edge: Better than -1.20...% , see 'proof' below
'Proof':
-6.91...%, for the push 22*** rule
*** https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/rule-variations/
-0.63...% for the estimated edge^^^, (without being able to 'zap')
^^^ this figure is estimated by using a 'normal bj' (bust on 21) combin. analyzer, BUT playing by the basic strategy for bj switch
+6.34...% (or BETTER) is the gain in 'zapping',
too hard to explain how i got this figure, lol, but some of the raw data used is in the two links below:
https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/switch/appendix/1/
https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/appendix/9/6dh17r4/
------------
see link below for the basic strategy for this game
https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/switch/
"...according to my 'ball-park' figures for splitting 8's, the correct strategy is to 'zap' on every hand except on a 8,8 vs dealer 7 you should play to correct basic bj switch strategy"
"also note, according to my estimated figures, it is always correct to NEVER surrender a 15-17, (even against a dealer 10 or A), on the PRE-ZAPPED hand, even when surrender after zapping IS NOT available"
"lastly, since i don't have a combin. analyzer that has the push 22 option in it, I would like to know what the real Player Edge (or House Edge) is for this game (preferably from the game owner himself if possible)"
---------------------------------------------
i would still like to know what the player edge (or house edge) is for the game rules mentioned in the previous post though
Quote: SwitchYou should 'Zap' everything except 8,8 verses a dealer 6 or 7.
I'm showing the player should not zap 8,8 vs. 5.
Quote: WizardI'm showing the player should not zap 8,8 vs. 5.
Hmm, I'll check how close the math' is.
I'm also going through the Free Bet information late tonight so will be able to confirm some numbers for you by tomorrow.
Quote: SwitchHmm, I'll check how close the math' is.
Sorry to bother you. I retract my earlier statement.
I notice the following differences from the Bovada rules:
Zap on 18: Rule card allows, Bovada does not.
Blackjack after zap: Rule card treats as 21 points. Bovada treats as an immediate winner but pays only 1 to 1.
Is my understanding correct? Any other differences?
Based on a first draft and an infinite-deck, I get a house edge of 1.31%. It would likely be about 0.1% less with six or eight decks.
I am curious as to the frequency the player uses the Zap feature playing optimally? I am guessing it appears more frequently than getting a lammer in Free Bet BJ, but I could be mistaken.
The original game was allowing a 'ZAP' on 15-17, 'Blackjacks' pay 3/2 and a 'Zapped' Blackjack = 'Blackjack'.
This gives a house edge of 0.71% (dealer hits S17).
If a 'Zapped' Blackjack = Instant Win 21 (and pays 1/1) then this adds 0.4% to the house edge.
If a 'Zapped' Blackjack counts as '21' then this adds 0.68% to the house edge.
If you can 'Zap' 18 as well then this subtracts 0.24% from the house edge (I've suggested to allow players to Zap 15+ rather than limit them to 15-18, as it appears to give more hands to 'Zap' even though you never 'Zap' 19 or 20).
So, the game shown at G2E, for US distribution, is:-
'Zap' 15-18 and a 'Zapped' Blackjack = 21.
This gives 0.71% + 0.68% - 0.24% = 1.15% (for 6 decks).
Other variations:-
8 decks +0.04%
Stand S17 -0.39%
ENHC -0.03% (provided a 'Zapped' Blackjack = Blackjack variation)
Quote: ParadigmZappit was SHFL's best new game on the floor in my opinion.........easy to understand, play and deal.......well done again Switch!
I am curious as to the frequency the player uses the Zap feature playing optimally? I am guessing it appears more frequently than getting a lammer in Free Bet BJ, but I could be mistaken.
Thanks Paradigm!
I haven't got any numbers for the frequency of 'Zapping' a hand but it would roughly be the % of times you are dealt 15, 16 & 17 and then add 6/13 of the frequency of being dealt 18 (as you only 'Zap' 18 against a 9, 10 or Ace).
I believe that the Free Bet frequency is around 18.5% but not entirely sure of that number. Again, it's the frequency of being dealt 9, 10 & 11 along with A-9 splits, so hopefully someone on here can get that %.
Quote: ParadigmI am curious as to the frequency the player uses the Zap feature playing optimally? I am guessing it appears more frequently than getting a lammer in Free Bet BJ, but I could be mistaken.
I get a zap probability of 18.5%, based on infinite decks.
Here is my basic strategy under the Bovada rules, following any zaps. It is the same as the Blackjack Switch strategy, except with some surrender plays.
Quote: WizardI get a zap probability of 18.5%, based on infinite decks]
Thanks Wizard!
Have you analyzed the hit rate on the Pot of Gold side bet for FBBJ (which every operator should be adding to their Free Bet installs in my opinion)?
I am trying to compare the "feature frequency" of Zappit vs. Free Bet.
Edit: I just noted that Switch said FBBJ frequency was also 18.5%, so never mind.
Quote: ParadigmHave you analyzed the hit rate on the Pot of Gold side bet for FBBJ
No. I'm going to downtown tomorrow and will look for it. I also hear there is a single-deck version of FBBJ with a few installs.
Quote: ParadigmThanks Wizard!
Have you analyzed the hit rate on the Pot of Gold side bet for FBBJ (which every operator should be adding to their Free Bet installs in my opinion)?
Paradigm, I've just checked the math' and the Pot Of Gold hit rate is 16.2%.
If you're interested the breakdown is highly skewed towards the '1 Coin' (as expected) :-
1 coin ... 1 in 7.1
2 coins .. 1 in 65.5
3 coins .. 1 in 241.2
4 coins .. 1 in 1,088.7
5 coins .. 1 in 4.778.9
6 coins .. 1 in 34,056.5
7 coins .. 1 in 467,726.8
(with those odds, I can see a 'Progressive' jackpot being ideal :-) ).
Are you referring to FBBJ or Zap It? I really like the idea behind Zap It, because hey, who doesn't hate getting a 15, 16, and even 17? =PQuote: SwitchMike, Golden Gate and 'The D' both have Double Deck 3/2 versions. Arizona Charlies have a single deck (6/5) version and GVR have either a single or double deck game but not sure if it's 6/5 or 3/2.
Did this game just make an appearance at the show, or is it live anywhere?
Quote: RomesAre you referring to FBBJ or Zap It?
FBBJ. As far as I know, Zap It doesn't have any land casino placements yet.
Does anyone know the rules of the Pot of Gold side bet?
Quote: SwitchI've checked the math' and can give close values for different rule changes for 6 decks.
The original game was allowing a 'ZAP' on 15-17, 'Blackjacks' pay 3/2 and a 'Zapped' Blackjack = 'Blackjack'.
This gives a house edge of 0.71% (dealer hits S17).
If a 'Zapped' Blackjack = Instant Win 21 (and pays 1/1) then this adds 0.4% to the house edge.
At Bovada a zapped blackjack is an instant winner but pays 1 to 1 instead of 3 to 2. From the above, that would be a house edge of 1.11%. My simulation is getting 1.20%. The infinite-deck model gets 1.31%.
Would you happen to have a math report on the game I can compare my figures to? If not, would you happen to know at Bovada:
1. Can the player zap after splitting?
2. If the dealer has a blackjack and the player has a zap hand, can the player zap in the hopes of getting a blackjack and a push?
I believe I recall seeing earlier that the dealer checks for blackjack before the players have any option to play their hand... Split, double, or Zap.Quote: Wizard...2. If the dealer has a blackjack and the player has a zap hand, can the player zap in the hopes of getting a blackjack and a push?
Quote: WizardDoes anyone know the rules of the Pot of Gold side bet?
Wizard, Pot of Gold is a side bet for FBBJ that I believe was introduced at G2E 2014. It is a bet by the player that they will earn a Gold Coins/Lammer (e.g. Free Double/Free Split) during the hand of FBBJ. What they win depends on how many Gold Coins/Lammers they get during the hand. The pay table that was at G2E last year was:
1 Coins - 3 to 1
2 Coins - 12 to 1
3 Coins - 30 to 1
4 Coins - 50 to 1
5+ Coins - 100 to 1
I have no idea what pay table is actually being used and where the game is in play. Although authorized in WA state, I have not seen it installed anywhere, just the Push 22 side bet. I haven't been looking for it in CA........actually don't get to the So. CA casinos that often if you can believe that!
Switch can correct anything I have incorrect above, but I believe it all to be accurate.
Quote: Wizard1. Can the player zap after splitting?
2. If the dealer has a blackjack and the player has a zap hand, can the player zap in the hopes of getting a blackjack and a push?
To answer my own questions, I played until both situations occurred, as follows:
Here we see a 15 after splitting without the option to zap. So zapping after splitting is not allowed.
Here we see the dealer with an ace up, before peeking, with the option to zap. I zapped, got a 20, and the dealer did not have a blackjack. It would take hundreds of hands to verify, but I assume that the player may indeed zap before the dealer peeks, and a blackjack tie after zapping would push. This is not what my earlier simulation did. Let me recode and rerun it.
It would really surprise me if that was not how the game was played in live format.
In a heads up game online, I could see allowing the player to Zap before checking for Dealer BJ as there are no other players impacted by the decision to Zap (e.g. you would need to deal with first base's decision to hit or stand before allowing player 2 to Zap). There is no way in a live game they would go through all of that time and motion only to have the dealer reveal blackjack.......that is unless they were player ENHC rules when spreading the game.
Quote: ParadigmPer the rack card you posted, the dealer checks for blackjack before the player is allowed to Zap.
It would really surprise me if that was not how the game was played in live format.
I agree with your comments on the live game.
The option to zap before peeking is worth only 0.04% anyway, according to my math.
Quote: WizardMy simulation is getting 1.20%. The infinite-deck model gets 1.31%.
I found a bug in the simulation, in that is wasn't zapping on a pair of eights correctly. After fixing it, I am getting 1.15% under the Bovada rules.
Quote: WizardTo answer my own questions, I played until both situations occurred, as follows:
Here we see a 15 after splitting without the option to zap. So zapping after splitting is not allowed.
...
Maybe the program was just shocked anybody would split 5's against a dealer 5? (Kidding)
Quote: WizardAt Bovada a zapped blackjack is an instant winner but pays 1 to 1 instead of 3 to 2. From the above, that would be a house edge of 1.11%. My simulation is getting 1.20%. The infinite-deck model gets 1.31%.
Would you happen to have a math report on the game I can compare my figures to? If not, would you happen to know at Bovada:
1. Can the player zap after splitting?
2. If the dealer has a blackjack and the player has a zap hand, can the player zap in the hopes of getting a blackjack and a push?
I'll send you the report Mike.
No, a player cannot 'Zap' after splitting.
Yes, with ENHC, the player can 'Zap' in the hope of getting a 'Blackjack;.
Quote: SwitchYes, with ENHC, the player can 'Zap' in the hope of getting a 'Blackjack;.
I claim that you can also do that at Bovada, which is not ENHC, as evidenced by my screen shot above.
Thank you for the reports!
After reading the report, the 0.71% baseline house edge assumes re-splitting aces is allowed, which Bovada does not allow. That, with a zapped blackjack paying 1-1, should result in a Steve How house edge of 1.19%. I'm at 1.15%, which is close enough for me.
Quote: WizardI claim that you can also do that at Bovada, which is not ENHC, as evidenced by my screen shot above.
Interesting. Can you play your hand out against a dealer 'Blackjack' or is it just the 'Zap' that is allowed?
Quote: SwitchInteresting. Can you play your hand out against a dealer 'Blackjack' or is it just the 'Zap' that is allowed?
It is just the zap that is allowed.
Also, I ran a simulation of the G2E rules and get a house edge of 1.25%. It is hard to compare this to Stephen's report because he never addressed zapping an 18.
Speaking of which, I find the player should zap 18, including two nines, against a dealer 9, 10, or ace.
Quote: Wizard
Speaking of which, I find the player should zap 18, including two nines, against a dealer 9, 10, or ace.
Correct.
Quote: tringlomaneFor geoff's sake, I hope he designed this game, or at least he gets something foe the push 22.
I think the odds of having 22 or 23 is the same or nearly identical. However, "push 22" is used as a marketing gimmick for the psychological impact.
The "push 22" is appealing or sounds or playful because it is just one point beyond the best "21" hand. This is the reason why "push 22" is used as an "equalizer" by many ("push 23", "push 24", etc. can be used but it does not sound appealing).
Quote: 777I think the odds of having 22 or 23 is the same or nearly identical. However, "push 22" is used as a marketing gimmick for the psychological impact.
The "push 22" is appealing or sounds or playful because it is just one point beyond the best "21" hand. This is the reason why "push 22" is used as an "equalizer" by many ("push 23", "push 24", etc. can be used but it does not sound appealing).
Plus my patent covers Push 22, 23, 24, 25 & 26 :-)
Quote: SwitchPlus my patent covers Push 22, 23, 24, 25 & 26 :-)
Hahahaha...was wondering if I'd scroll down and see you on this. "Many". Love it. May they number in the thousands, and line up with checkbooks open.
And yeah, trin, it's another of GH's games. :)
As always, I welcome comments, questions, suggestions, and especially corrections.
Quote: SwitchPlus my patent covers Push 22, 23, 24, 25 & 26 :-)
I'm totally new to this site, and consequently am not familiar with all the posters. Your reply enticed me to look at your profile, and from your profile I assume that you are the inventor of Switch and Free Bet BJ games. It is an honor to know you – the inventor of Switch and Free Bet via this thread.
I did not try Switch but have seen people played at the Bellagio recently and it appears to be a fun game. I played Free Bet recently at the Cosmo and Bellagio, and I like it a lot.
Congratulations to you for giving birth to these two fun games. I see the uniqueness and novelty in the switch and free bet actions in your games, but the "push at 22 or any points beyond 21" action is nothing new and is a "prior art" (I remember the BJ game I played for fun with friends during my youth gave the dealer NO advantage in the event of a “dealer” bust). IMO, deep pocket entity/institution can SUCCESSFULLY challenge your claim of the “push at 22 and beyond”. With small and/or not well finance entity, I think you will have great success in demanding royalty for or defending your invention of “push at 22 and beyond,” but with any deep pocket entity/institution, I wish you the best of luck.
Quote: 777I'm totally new to this site, and consequently am not familiar with all the posters. Your reply enticed me to look at your profile, and from your profile I assume that you are the inventor of Switch and Free Bet BJ games. It is an honor to know you – the inventor of Switch and Free Bet via this thread.
I did not try Switch but have seen people played at the Bellagio recently and it appears to be a fun game. I played Free Bet recently at the Cosmo and Bellagio, and I like it a lot.
Congratulations to you for giving birth to these two fun games. I see the uniqueness and novelty in the switch and free bet actions in your games, but the "push at 22 or any points beyond 21" action is nothing new and is a "prior art" (I remember the BJ game I played for fun with friends during my youth gave the dealer NO advantage in the event of a “dealer” bust). IMO, deep pocket entity/institution can SUCCESSFULLY challenge your claim of the “push at 22 and beyond”. With small and/or not well finance entity, I think you will have great success in demanding royalty for or defending your invention of “push at 22 and beyond,” but with any deep pocket entity/institution, I wish you the best of luck.
Appreciate the kind words 777.
I'm not sure about the comments regarding any 'Prior Art' just because there have been instances where players treat a dealer 'bust' differently, although it's probably a moot point as I have been collecting royalties for 15 years now. There are a lot of concepts out there that are very close to existing ip and I guess it's distinguishing that 'fine line' that gets both complicated and costly to the inquisitive :-)
I just need to think of a similar 'Push 22 - type' concept so that I can continue with other games when that patent eventually expires.
Quote: 777I'm totally new to this site..........IMO, deep pocket entity/institution can SUCCESSFULLY challenge your claim of the “push at 22 and beyond”. With small and/or not well finance entity, I think you will have great success in demanding royalty for or defending your invention of “push at 22 and beyond,” but with any deep pocket entity/institution, I wish you the best of luck.
777......time to do some more research......do you think Scientific Games has deep enough pockets to defend the Push 22 IP? They might have a vested interest in doing so, don't ya think?
And your use of caps when discussing a topic you aren't up to date on is a bit embarrassing......Switch was very kind to you in his response, you should show a bit more respect and humility before questioning the legal strength/status of the work one of the great inventor's in this business.
This is about as iron-clad and as fully substantiated a patent's validity (and legal proof) can be.
Quote: Paradigm777......time to do some more research......do you think Scientific Games has deep enough pockets to defend the Push 22 IP? They might have a vested interest in doing so, don't ya think?
And your use of caps when discussing a topic you aren't up to date on is a bit embarrassing......Switch was very kind to you in his response, you should show a bit more respect and humility before questioning the legal strength/status of the work one of the great inventor's in this business.
As I stated earlier I’m totally new to this site, and am totally clueless about the site, you, Switch and all other posters. As a newbie, I just happened stumble onto this thread, and noticed a post by tringlomane with a “push 22” comment (time stamped at January 14th, 2014 at 6:14:51 AM) deserve a response due to my childhood memory.
And my childhood memory is this: The BJ game that I played with friends has the following rule: A dealer bust has the same weight as a player bust. And for this reason, my immediate conclusion is the “push 22” is a prior art with NOTHING new (I could use HTML code for emphasis words that deserve attention, but using CAP for emphasis is much quicker).
And since you brought up Scientific Games -- Scientific Games’ involvement does NOT change my opinion about the patentability of the “push 22”. Perhaps the “push 22” has survived to this date because it has not been challenged by anyone???
I’m not here to attack or bring anyone down. My purpose here is to learn, and to make contribution whenever possible. My comment to the “push 22” discussion may give you an impression of disrespect to Switch, and I assure you this is 100% NOT my intention. Although you don’t appreciate my “push 22” comment, I strongly believe that it benefits others.
I did not look at your profile from your prior reply to me, but due to the unpleasant tone in your reply I then looked up your profile and learned that you are also game designer, and now I have a better understanding of the unpleasant tone in your reply.
It is an honor to meet you -- another game inventor via this thread. My apology to you and Switch for not knowing that Switch is one of the great inventor. I hope someday I can meet you, Switch, and all others in person. How about let’s get together at the upcoming 2015 Table Game convention. Anyone?
