Pick One 21

Does anyone have a breakdown of the house advantage for the game Pick One 21? This game is dealt with a Spanish 21 deck and the player bets on which of two blackjack hands dealt will win, or if they will tie. Does the Wizard have or used to have an odds calculator for Pick One 21 where rule changes can be inserted to calculate house advantage? Thanks

I was the original mathematician on that game. The former owners asked that I not write up the strategy on my site, so I didn't. However, I know it is under new ownership now. If you tell me where it is played and the full rules I will publish a page on the game, since I already have the math. However, the rules may have changed over the years.

Thank you for your reply. The game is under new ownership and is on the floor at the WinStar in Oklahoma where I work. We are currently working with owners and looking at adjusting game rules. The new owners are looking for a tool where we can explore adjusting game rules to possibly lower the house advantage and increase time on device. The rules have not changed since you did your original evaluation. Would you please publish a game page and calculator so that we can explore alternatives to the current rules, such as allowing all tens, changing the rule on Ace values to allow 1 or 11 and possibly changing the payoff for tie wagers. Thank you and please let me know if you would like to speak directly with the owners.

I see that I did five different math reports on this game, for five different versions. Can you give me the rules currently being played at the WinStar. I believe you told me already by Email or PM, but I lost the message.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Please check out my new page on Pick One 21. I would prefer that spelling and typographic errors be sent to me by PM. For general comments on the game and analysis, please post them here.

Q: How did Darth Vader know what Luke got him for Christmas?

Looks good to me. What's the element of risk?

Quote: miplet

Looks good to me. What's the element of risk?

I don't know. I did that analysis in 2001 before I came up with the term. My report doesn't indicate the information I would need to know to calculate it. Since then, I lost that program in a computer crash. Maybe I could find an archive copy somewhere and modify it, but with just one placement, I don't think I'll go through the bother.

Update: I found an old back-up from 2005 with my program. Let me try to update my program to answer your question.

Page looks good. Interesting game too, but I think the Ace = 1 rule could throw a lot of dealers for a loop.

Rule#7 says If one hand busts,then the other hand automatically wins. Then It says, If both hands Bust both red and blue lose. How can both hands bust if one hand automatically wins?

Please notice before rule #7 it states that BOTH hands will be hit out to the predetermined rules meaning BOTH hands will ALWAYS be hit out to completion therefore it is accurate to say if one hand busts the other hand automatically wins. Hope that helps.

Quote: TnT23

Please notice before rule #7 it states that BOTH hands will be hit out to the predetermined rules meaning BOTH hands will ALWAYS be hit out to completion therefore it is accurate to say if one hand busts the other hand automatically wins. Hope that helps.

But if both hands bust, the other hand does not automatically win. It says if both hands bust then bets on red and blue lose.

I understand your point and did not clarify well enough. I think what's making it sound confusing is the use of the word "automatically". Let me try to explain it this way:

* Please note both hands will always be hit out to completion (until at least reaching 17). In other words it doesn't matter which hand is hit out first because they will both be hit out. I think the word "automatically" implies that if the first hand has busted the other hand has "automatically" won and the hand is over at that point. When we understand that the second hand will always be hit out to completion as well then it makes it correct to say if one hand has busted the other hand has automatically won. What it's actually intending to imply is that because we know both hands have been hit out and only one hand has busted we know that the other hand has not busted therefore it has "automatically" won because it didn't bust. I know what I'm trying to say but may not be explaining well enough. I was one of the original inventors of the game so I'm very familiar with it. I hope that helps. If not, hopefully Mike can come back on and explain it better than I did.

Quote: TnT23

I understand your point and did not clarify well enough. I think what's making it sound confusing is the use of the word "automatically". Let me try to explain it this way:

* Please note both hands will always be hit out to completion (until at least reaching 17). In other words it doesn't matter which hand is hit out first because they will both be hit out. I think the word "automatically" implies that if the first hand has busted the other hand has "automatically" won and the hand is over at that point. When we understand that the second hand will always be hit out to completion as well then it makes it correct to say if one hand has busted the other hand has automatically won. What it's actually intending to imply is that because we know both hands have been hit out and only one hand has busted we know that the other hand has not busted therefore it has "automatically" won because it didn't bust. I know what I'm trying to say but may not be explaining well enough. I was one of the original inventors of the game so I'm very familiar with it. I hope that helps. If not, hopefully Mike can come back on and explain it better than I did.

I understand what you are saying,but it does sound a little confusing. Perhaps it could say somehing like, After completing both hands if one of them has busted the remaing unbusted hand is an automatic winner.

I agree with you. We introduced that game over ten years ago and I felt compelled to respond to your post because I can remember when I first read that math analysis way back then I had to go back over that part several times before it sunk in. I've had similar experiences proof reading our patent applications. We've worked with Jon Muskin who I hold in the absolute highest regard but he is so talented at what he does I sometimes find myself going back over what's he written several times before I completely understand the way he's worded something.

Maybe like this:
Both hands will play out until it reaching 17 or higher, unbusted hands beats busted hands.

Quote: Hunterhill

Rule#7 says If one hand busts,then the other hand automatically wins. Then It says, If both hands Bust both red and blue lose. How can both hands bust if one hand automatically wins?

He literally means only one hand busted, not both of them. Maybe it could be reworded a little better. If only one hand busts, then the other automatically wins.

Quote: miplet

What's the element of risk?

1.58%.

Quote: Hunterhill

Rule#7 says If one hand busts,then the other hand automatically wins. Then It says, If both hands Bust both red and blue lose. How can both hands bust if one hand automatically wins?

That could have been more clear. I meant if one hand busts, and the other doesn't, then the non-busted hand wins.