Easy Jack

Yesterday evening I checked out Easy Jack, a new game on field trial at Harrah's. It is like blackjack, except the goal is to get closer to 11 than the dealer, without going over. A single ace is a blackjack and outranks all other hands, including 11 points. A winning player blackjack pays 3 to 2. Dealer does not take a hole card. There is no doubling or splitting. Add in a Dealer Bust side bet, which pays according to the number of cards in the dealer's hand, if he busts.

Please check out my new page on Easy Jack for all the details and my analysis. Bottom line is a house edge of 0.94%, which for a new game is pretty generous.

The question for the poll is would you play Easy Jack and what to do you think of the game overall. Multiple votes allowed?

I'm not sure I'd play it, but it sounds like it could be a great game for casual gamblers.
You should get BJ much more often than in regular BJ, but lose the ability to double and split. Seems like the dealer bust rate should be higher.
5/13 times he'll need draw a second card and he'd bust the majority of those hands.

First, this is about the easiest game to analyze that I have seen in many years, lol.

Question: the dealer stands on 7 or higher, correct? So for the dealer bust bet to payout a large amount requires dealer hands with a lot of very low cards?

Example: For the dealer to "Bust on 6 cards" and payout 500:1 the dealer must be dealt exactly 2AAAA and then a 6 or higher?
LOL, that's nuts.

Quote: billryan

Seems like the dealer bust rate should be higher.

Keep in mind that if both the player and dealer bust, it is counted in the "player busts" category. A player blackjack and dealer bust is scored as a "player blackjack." So, the dealer bust probability shown is only when the dealer needs to draw in the first place.

Quote: gordonm888

Question: the dealer stands on 7 or higher, correct?

Correct.

Quote:

So for the dealer bust bet to payout a large amount requires dealer hands with a lot of very low cards?

Example: For the dealer to "Bust on 6 cards" and payout 500:1 the dealer must be dealt exactly 2AAAA and then a 6 or higher?
LOL, that's nuts.

Yup, that is the only way for the dealer to bust out with six cards. The could have easily pumped up the win on that, but table game managers hate to see big numbers on a pay table for a new game no matter how unlikely they are to hit.

Are player blackjacks paid immediately or do they wait to see if the dealer has one for a push?

I liked the game.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Are player blackjacks paid immediately or do they wait to see if the dealer has one for a push?

They wait and see what the dealer's card is. If it's an ace, the bet is a push.

Quote: billryan

Seems like the dealer bust rate should be higher.

Here is the probability of all dealer outcomes:

Dealer event	Probability
Dealer blackjack	0.076923
7 points	0.111427
8 points	0.111244
9 points	0.111449
10 points	0.342050
11 points	0.034558
Bust with 2 cards	0.177757
Bust with 3 cards	0.031892
Bust with 4 cards	0.002599
Bust with 5 cards	0.000100
Bust with 6 cards	0.000001

Based on Wizard's numbers, the optimum Basic Strategy should be to Hit on a single-card 6 (or lower) but Stand on a multi-card 6. So, that would lower the calculated HE by a microscopic amount.

Who's working the card counting angle?

Some guy named Jack probably

What was the table minimum? $10?

It's almost like One Up, but without the printed King and with face cards. Same house edge too.

Quote: gordonm888

Based on Wizard's numbers, the optimum Basic Strategy should be to Hit on a single-card 6 (or lower) but Stand on a multi-card 6. So, that would lower the calculated HE by a microscopic amount.

That is correct. Standing on six composed of two or more cards will cut the house edge by 0.0066%.

Quote: billryan

What was the table minimum? $10?

Yep. Base game was $10 to $500. Side bet was $1 to $25.

Quote: miplet

It's almost like One Up, but without the printed King and with face cards. Same house edge too.

How do you remember that game? I totally forgot about it.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: miplet

It's almost like One Up, but without the printed King and with face cards. Same house edge too.

How do you remember that game? I totally forgot about it.

It was the first BJ variant that I tried analyzing. I got close to your infinite deck house edge, but never got there. Probably was doing splits wrong or something like that.

Mips has a mind like a steel trap when it comes to remembering table game concepts. I consider him better than having a patent attorney when it comes to doing a prior art search 😜.

Edit: Discovered an error in my code -my answers now agree with the Wizard's. Please ignore this message.

Wizard, I am sorry, I have something terrible to tell you. You have made an error.

It is optimal strategy for the player to Stand on a 6 -even a "single-card 6" - rather than HIT it.

Here are your results and then my results:

Stand: -0.576524479 (Wiz) Stand: -0.576524479 (me) (Identical)
Hit: -0.5745620516 (Wiz) Hit: -0.577207146 (me)

I actually know where your error is. When player HITs a 6 he must get an A,2,3,4 or 5 to even care what the dealer has -and in each of these scenarios there is now either an Ace or, more often, one low card removed from the deck. When it occurs, the absence of that one low card (one out of 415) helps to improve the dealer's probabilistic outcome by a very tiny amount. Your calculation ignored the effect of the A,2,3,4 or 5 being removed from the deck. Remarkably, this tiny tiny effect is enough to reduce the EV for HIT 6 just enough that it is a worse option than STAND 6.

This was the smallest of all possible errors -a "nano-error." I am amazed that such a tiny effect actually makes a technical difference in Basic Strategy.

Game is simple enough...but the question is why play it vs. regular BJ? No doubling or splitting means less decision making and less variance. Those aren't problems with the existing game of BJ that need solving.

I suppose it might appeal to new table game players...but that isn't a big enough target audience for a new table game to succeed in my opinion.

Quote: Paradigm

Game is simple enough...but the question is why play it vs. regular BJ? No doubling or splitting means less decision making and less variance. Those aren't problems with the existing game of BJ that need solving.

1. This game should be faster than BJ -more hands per hour.
2. There is less addition involved -which might appeal to the mathematically-challenged. Many people can't add 9+4+2 fast enough to understand what is going on in BJ.
3. Basic strategy is very simple - you don't need to remember when to double on a soft 12 or whether to split a pair of fours vs a 5 as a function of whether there is (or isn't) DAS.

Remarkably, this game is almost identical to the situation in conventional BJ where the Dealer's upcard is a TEN and player's first card is a TEN.

Does Harrahs' offer $10 3-2 BJ in Vegas?
This game is better than 6-5 crapjack.

I do not like this game at all. I dont like how the dealer card is face down. I would prefer the dealer card to be face up but a rule where player must stand on 8 or higher.

Quote: gordonm888

Remarkably, this game is almost identical to the situation in conventional BJ where the Dealer's upcard is a TEN and player's first card is a TEN.

Good point. You're absolutely right.

Quote: GWAE

I do not like this game at all. I dont like how the dealer card is face down. I would prefer the dealer card to be face up but a rule where player must stand on 8 or higher.

You would probably have to give ties to the dealer as well. I think it would be very robotic if the dealer exposed his card, much like Double Exposure was too.

Quote: Wizard

You would probably have to give ties to the dealer as well. I think it would be very robotic if the dealer exposed his card, much like Double Exposure was too.

No way, I like my rules better ;-)

Maybe if I played it I would feel differently. Just by reading the rules it just seems weird to get a 3 and hit, then to have the dealer flip over a 6. Really no reason to even have a dealer down card, you should just play your hand to a certain predetermined number and then stand.

Without looking at any strategy it seems like you will only hit a 2,3,4 and maybe 5.

Quote: gordonm888

1. This game should be faster than BJ -more hands per hour.
2. There is less addition involved -which might appeal to the mathematically-challenged. Many people can't add 9+4+2 fast enough to understand what is going on in BJ.
3. Basic strategy is very simple - you don't need to remember when to double on a soft 12 or whether to split a pair of fours vs a 5 as a function of whether there is (or isn't) DAS.

Which of the above do you believe are big problems that when fixed by Easy Jack will generate more play/players knowing that Casino War and BBB's Ultimate Casino War are already out in the market place?

Unfortunately, not vulnerable to card counting in the slightest...I get something like 8.8% to hole card...how do they deal the game? Seems really easy to make it never vulnerable face down from a shoe. Maybe some of the dealers are terrrible tho.

Quote: lightningbolts

Unfortunately, not vulnerable to card counting in the slightest...I get something like 8.8% to hole card...how do they deal the game? Seems really easy to make it never vulnerable face down from a shoe. Maybe some of the dealers are terrrible tho.

It's dealt like regular blackjack from a shoe. 2 to 2.5 decks cut off out of 8.

I guess it's a good addition for people who like Blackjack but can't remember ALL the basic strategy charts, their house edge is probably less with this game than with Blackjack with bad plays?

Quote: tyler498

I guess it's a good addition for people who like Blackjack but can't remember ALL the basic strategy charts, their house edge is probably less with this game than with Blackjack with bad plays?

Probably. Strategy errors cost the average blackjack player about 1.5%.

I have to disagree with those who say the HE is too low to be profitable. This game will deal, from an 8 deck shoe, at over 100 hands/hour in nearly all circumstances If the dealer has any skill at all. Add one of those mulit-deck shufflers, and the HE will just keep hitting the br, faster than nearly anything out there. So the HE is about right, because even 2% would blow players off the table too fast.

Quote: Wizard

Yesterday evening I checked out Easy Jack, a new game on field trial at Harrah's. It is like blackjack, except the goal is to get closer to 11 than the dealer, without going over. A single ace is a blackjack and outranks all other hands, including 11 points. A winning player blackjack pays 3 to 2. Dealer does not take a hole card. There is no doubling or splitting. Add in a Dealer Bust side bet, which pays according to the number of cards in the dealer's hand, if he busts.

The question for the poll is would you play Easy Jack and what to do you think of the game overall. Multiple votes allowed?

Sure I would. Its fast, its simple. It doesn't have a zillion footnotes or exceptions to it. I think this is the only reason the house offers it. At 0.94 percent house edge they can deal half a zillion games per minute.

And of course with my own personal limitations, I only gots to add up to eleven not twenty-one. My dream game for sure.

When people from time to time ask me about game design issues I usually emphasize as the primary rule to design a game for a whole bunch of drunken players, a drunk dealer and a drunk 'eye in the sky' guy.

When a meandering drunk can approach the table and know how to play the game, he probably will do so.
When the game is so simple that a dealer can deal it quickly and simply, the management will be happy. No training time, no requirement to hire some jerk with a brain, they can just hire some jerk. And when the layout and arm movements are so simple, plain and open, even a drunk camera-guy will see some violation of procedures going on.

More and more gamblers appear to be visiting casinos in groups or as couples who remain together. You've all seen those slot machines that feature 'couples seating' or are designed for group play, such as a bunch of housewives going out on the town together. As ancient and doddering old gamblers, such as I, go to the Seven Out Pit in the Sky, the casinos latest flock of gamblers are a group of video gamers and pin ball types.
They are used to playing Trivia in a bar room with terminals, which means group play. The demographics of gambling are forever in flux and this game is fast, easy and appealing. If one person wanders by, he can become ensnared very easily. If a group of wandering drunks flows by, they can all be included without any one of them having to learn how to yell Yatzee.

I have no idea how the trial period is actually going or if the floor placement has been wise but I think this game will have great potential.

Quote: FleaStiff

Sure I would. Its fast, its simple. It doesn't have a zillion footnotes or exceptions to it. I think this is the only reason the house offers it. At 0.94 percent house edge they can deal half a zillion games per minute.

And of course with my own personal limitations, I only gots to add up to eleven not twenty-one. My dream game for sure.

When people from time to time ask me about game design issues I usually emphasize as the primary rule to design a game for a whole bunch of drunken players, a drunk dealer and a drunk 'eye in the sky' guy.

People seek advice from you on game design. You must be an experienced and successful game designer. Which are your games? Where are they placed? If near by, I love to try them.

Quote: RoyalBJ

People seek advice from you on game design. You must be an experienced and successful game designer.

No, not at all. Nor have I ever been a craps dealer or claimed to have been one but that did not stop some people from asking my advice on how to become a craps dealer in Vegas and I think I gave them pretty good advice despite my inexperience. I advised one man to never be without a pair of black pocket-less pants and a white pocketless shirt and black shoes in his car trunk. It just so happened that shortly thereafter his dealer school sent him to a sudden audition at a break in joint (or at least he claimed that it happened). It was a common sense statement but he seemed to have benefited from it.

I will admit that I did once claim to be a professional Keno Player and to be a presenter of Keno Seminars. (This was in the days of Big Room Keno and Keno Runners all over the place, not video keno). It was a joke and I never expected anyone to take me seriously but one man actually did . I immediately and publicly disabused him of any such notion although I'm not sure if he was simply sending me up as some sort of counter-joke.

I have spoken briefly with two Directors of Table Games but these were brief conversations of a general nature, nothing of any special significance.

Would tracking Tens and/or Aces remaining provide a player advantage?

Quote: RoyalBJ

People seek advice from you on game design. You must be an experienced and successful game designer. Which are your games? Where are they placed? If near by, I love to try them.

This forum puts an emphasis on talking about and analyzing new casino games. Flea is the 4th most active poster so I'm sure has learned a thing or two about the business in his many years here.

But have you stayed at a Holiday Inn?

Honestly, I would probably rather play this than regular Blackjack. I'm not really a Blackjack guy, but this seems closer to Baccarat-style games, which I like more. Simple strategy, low house edge... definitely a game to play for $5 a hand while milking free drinks from the casino.

While not scientific, if I had two small cards, I'd look around the table, if lots of small cards are out. I'd stay.
While I don't think counting won't help you as far as making bets goes, I it would be useful in deciding to take a third card, or maybe even a second. If the deck is rich in tens, you might stay on a lower number. My concern would be the number of hands played per hour. Have to slow the game down somehow.

Quote: billryan

While not scientific, if I had two small cards, I'd look around the table, if lots of small cards are out. I'd stay.
While I don't think counting won't help you as far as making bets goes, I it would be useful in deciding to take a third card, or maybe even a second. If the deck is rich in tens, you might stay on a lower number. My concern would be the number of hands played per hour. Have to slow the game down somehow.

If using the Hi-Lo, I would stand on six in any positive count and stand on 5 with a true count of +4 or more. I'm just taking these numbers from the Hi Lo for a 15/16 vs. dealer 10. As was pointed out in another post, this game is blackjack where both parties start out with a 10.

For those thinking of devising a count tailor-made for this game, here is the effect of removal for each card in an eight-deck game.

Card	Effect
Ace	-0.001217
2	0.000250
3	0.000237
4	0.000224
5	0.000208
6	0.000339
7	-0.000191
8	-0.000099
9	-0.000014
10	0.000065

I'll let you take it from there.

Quote: billryan

But have you stayed at a Holiday Inn?

Yes. Eons ago, but it was over priced and afterwards I did not feel i was capable of performing brain surgery. Nor was I capable of simple math.

The dumbing down of blackjack to get it closer and closer to a simple game of Casino War.

That's how I'd describe this game

Quote: Wizard

If using the Hi-Lo, I would stand on six in any positive count and stand on 5 with a true count of +4 or more. I'm just taking these numbers from the Hi Lo for a 15/16 vs. dealer 10. As was pointed out in another post, this game is blackjack where both parties start out with a 10.

For those thinking of devising a count tailor-made for this game, here is the effect of removal for each card in an eight-deck game.

Card	Effect
Ace	-0.001217
2	0.000250
3	0.000237
4	0.000224
5	0.000208
6	0.000339
7	-0.000191
8	-0.000099
9	-0.000014
10	0.000065

I'll let you take it from there.

You could do it with that, but to me it seems much easier just to do a simple Ace count because of the way that affects the Player Natural. If the game were single-deck with 48 cards left and all Aces remaining, for example:

(1/12) * (44/47) = 0.07801418439

So, that's the probability of an unmatched Blackjack in that situation, which pays 3:2, so:

0.07801418439 * 1.5 = 0.11702127658

Which adds:

0.11702127658 - 0.106766 = 0.01025527658

Or, 1.0255% to the return which is already sufficient to make it a positive game, all other things equal. Granted, the other cards removed would matter in terms of it being an overall positive or not, but for something simple, it would balance out as a general rule for a single deck.

Of course, with it being an eight-deck game, the requirements might be a little higher than an Ace being one of twelve cards due to the reduced effect-of-removal of the ace, in terms of the dealer also getting an ace. In fact, I did it based on 23 Aces in 276 cards and the added value of the Ace was not sufficient to overcome the house edge, so it's going to be variable based on how many total cards are left. If there were 24 Aces out of 276, though:

(24/276) * (252/275) * 1.5 = 0.1195256917

Which is greater than .106766 + .0094 = .116166, so nothing more needs done there.

That would be one in 11.5 cards being Aces, initially,

In the extreme, the most cards that could remain with Aces comprising 1 in 11.5 would be 368, which would leave 32 Aces, which would mean that none of the aces came out. That's overwhelmingly unlikely, of course, but we can use it to prove the case:

(32/368) * (336/367) * 1.5 = 0.11941713067

So, even in this extreme case, 1 in 11.5 cards being Aces is enough to present an advantage.

In terms of an exact case, Aces being 1 in 12 cards only becomes sufficient with 72 (or fewer) cards remaining.

(6/72) * (66/71) * 1.5 = 0.11619718309

Therefore, it would seem like the simplest way to do it and have an advantage over the long run while still disregarding other cards in favor of an extremely simple system is to count total cards and aces. If you divide the total cards by the number of Aces and the result is 11.5 (or less) with more than 73 total cards left, you're at an advantage. With the total cards at 72, a result of twelve (or anything lower) is good. If it's easier, just multiply the number of aces remaining by 11.5 and make sure the result is greater than the total number of cards left. Or, multiply by twelve and subtract the product by half of the number of remaining aces if that's easier.

It's obviously possible to get even closer than that, but this seems pretty easy in terms of having to do it mentally. This isn't meant to be great or maximize value, just to be a simple counting system that is feasible given the speed of the game and that, with practice, most people could do.

lol EoR's are way too small to have an edge very often...I ran this last night and I can post later, but the edge from wonging is so small for both base game and side bet I didn't even bother to show sim results.

The question is though, if you had a terrible dealer who somehow exposed his hole card what would you do? What about lowering variance and increasing play time by backcounting aces then hopping on when aces are gone. Because with the correct strategy you will look obvious. You stand everything dealer 2-6, then hit if you're lower than dealer otherwise. This is worth over 10% edge.

Don't deal the dealers card until the players have played their hands. Simple enough.

It's really quite an easy game and a good introduction to Blackjack without worrying about splitting etc. I agree with the figures (HE = 0.937738%) and standing on 2-card 6's.

It's actually fairly easy to knock up two spreadsheets (one is hit 6, the other stand 6) as there are about 289 possible hands for the dealer to have, so the sheet is 289^2 rows and a use of SUMIF.

btw I vaguely remember a similar game but using Baccarat scoring with 10's worth 0 and you could continue to draw cards. However I suspect values over 9 went back to 0 and you couldn't hit again. Probably in California somewhere years ago.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Don't deal the dealers card until the players have played their hands. Simple enough.

I agree. I think they give the dealer a card just out of tradition.

Quote: Mission146

You could do it with that, but to me it seems much easier just to do a simple Ace count because of the way that affects the Player Natural.

I think you may be overthinking it. For practical purposes, if I devised a count for this game it would have these indices:

Ace: -5
2 to 6: +1