Player's Choice 21

Player's Choice 21 is a new game that I noticed at the Palazzo on August 17. The idea is that the player gets three cards to make two blackjack hands, with one card, of the player's choice, common to both hands. For example, if the player got a king, queen, and ace he could make the ace the common card and have two blackjacks. To pay for this, a very negative side bet is required.

Please click on the link above for a preview of my new page on the game. Our own CRmousseau is the mathematician on this one. The game owner kindly let me use Charles' report for my page, which saved me a lot of work.

Being trialed in the UK


Players Choice 21
Renegade Table Games

Birmingham
Swansea

I think your big table would be more understanding if you put the card you KEEP in the intersection, rather than the card number.

For example, in X-A-4, you put the "A" instead of "2".

This is an interesting game. Obviously any effect of card counting goes away due to the huge variance on the bonus bet. But at less than 1%, it's a pretty good game given the mandatory side bet.

I was going to UK to evaluate the game in the casino, but Switch refuses to let me sleep on his couch GRRR

Quote: Buzzard

I was going to UK to evaluate the game in the casino, but Switch refuses to let me sleep on his couch GRRR

lol :-)

This looks fun! I love BJack Switch and I love the idea of this. Giving BJack a new flavor.

Quote: boymimbo

I think your big table would be more understanding if you put the card you KEEP in the intersection, rather than the card number.

Thanks, I don't know why I didn't do that way in the first place. I just changed it per your suggestion.

I'm surprised to see so many lines where the common card card changes based upon the dealer's up card.

Are you working on a simplified version of that chart? Nobody is gonna be able to remember it. Hell, even a printed copy would be too unwieldy

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I'm surprised to see so many lines where the common card card changes based upon the dealer's up card.

Are you working on a simplified version of that chart? Nobody is gonna be able to remember it. Hell, even a printed copy would be too unwieldy

Atleast its easier to follow than mine for 5ive card hi lo.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I'm surprised to see so many lines where the common card card changes based upon the dealer's up card.

Are you working on a simplified version of that chart? Nobody is gonna be able to remember it. Hell, even a printed copy would be too unwieldy

I suspect that a simplified strategy, where you memorize a point-based, hand value-versus-upcard matrix, would go a long ways. But yeah, the strategy is a little on the byzantine side to say the least.

I've just started looking at this.

The strategy seems unnecessarily complicated in places. For example, the very first strategy line I looked at was one from the video, X-4-8. Strategy table says you should make 8 the common card, except against dealer 4-6, in which case you make X the common card. But 14+18 is never better than 12+18; against dealer 4-6 the choice doesn't matter, but you may as well be consistent and always put the 8 in the middle to simplify strategy.

Scanning the table, it looks like X-3-9, X-4-9, X-5-7, X-5-8, X-5-9, X-6-7, X-6-8, and X-6-9 have the same issue.

The hands where strategy really does vary by dealer upcard are quite interesting. You could probably learn a lot about someone's intuitive grasp of blackjack concepts by handing them A-2-7 and asking them to set it against any dealer upcard, and seeing what they come up with...

Quote: fivespot

But 14+18 is never better than 12+18; against dealer 4-6 the choice doesn't matter, but you may as well be consistent and always put the 8 in the middle to simplify strategy.

The expected value is equal for that hand against a 4 to 6, because the player will stand on the stiff hand either way. It is just the way the spreadsheet was organized that puts the 4 in the middle for that hand.

I tried the game at it's games night in Coventry and am hoping to try it out for real. However I have a question (based on UK rules stand 17) as how the calculation works. I have an infinite deck spreadsheet and there are also some figures here https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/appendix/1/ .

As far as I understand you make the best hand possible and then decide which of the other two hands are better - in some cases there are only two ways to play it. As a simple example I looked at X-8-8 and X-9-9.

(a) X-9-9 you can either play the X as common (making 19 19) or a 9 (making 19 9-9). Thus it seems the choice is whether 9-9 is better than 19. Personally I always think 19s are better and wizard's figures for 3-6 (4044-..-4960, 2585-..-4713) confirm this, but the table https://wizardofodds.com/games/players-choice-21/ says make 9-9 vs 6.

(b) X-8-8 - similar argument whether 18 is better than 8-8. In this case against a 6 you would definitely prefer 8-8, whereas against a 7 you'd prefer the made 18. (Switch uses similar logic.) Using wizard's number for 3-6 (1483, 1759, 1996, 2834) (1462, 2208, 2975, 4093) suggests you want 8-8 vs 4-6.

I accept there are slight differences between infinite deck and 4 to 8 decks. One idea is wizard's figures for splitting don't allow for resplit (which would make the ones you split have a higher value) but they look as if they take account of it - but is my logic vaguely correct.

Thanks

Quote: charliepatrick

I...am hoping to try it out for real.

Sadly when I got to Birmingham they've put it on hold. I don't know the full story but it seems Swansea took a hit with some of the larger payouts. Typically Grosvenors are happy to trial new games with 2/3/5 to 200 on the basic game and 2/3/5 to 25 or 50 on the sidebet - essentially limiting their worst case scenario.

The problem with Player's Choice seems to be the basic game has a mandatory bet which, if the casino is unlucky, can pay out well over £1k (i.e. >> 5 to 1). As comparison 3CP can pay a 5-1 bonus and Blackjack games can pay if there are lots of splits and doubles (especially Freebet because the player does this more often).


It raises an interesting issue for games designers - casinos are happy with high odds on sidebets (with a reasonable HE) and can limit their liabilities by reducing the maximums - but still leave the main game with a reasonable maximum (Top 3 is an obvious example). However there are some games such as 2-way poker and XX Poker (and I guess other similar games) which can have high payouts under rare cases.

Thus I am wondering whether there should be an optional side bet (using a more generous paytable) whereas the "mandatory" bet has a different schedule which comes to a similar HE but never exceeds 5-1.

Quote: charliepatrick

..."mandatory" bet has a different schedule...

One idea might be
(i) 1-1 : Pair
(ii) 2-1 : Suited Pair and/or Flush
(iii) 3-1 : Straight or better
(-24.79% 6dx).
(c) Charlie Patrick !

deleted