War Blackjack is spreading

Quote: Boz

Downtown Grand just announced they are putting War BJ in later this week.

I can confirm it is on the floor.....according to deal staff & Floorman it replaced UTH!! I had to walk to The D to get my UTH playing time in, unbelievable!

What are the odds with a table min bet on the blackjack portion and table max bet on the war part if the table max is around $100, and you min bet the bj part and max bet the war part? Assimg optimal capping strategy? Would love to know answer to that question

Obviously the game would have been beaten like a red headed step child and would not exist where I found it if that strategy made the game "beatable", but would that strategy at least be optimal?

It has to always be good to cap 10 vs 10 because you have the ability to get blackjack. That's huge.

I'll look for it at the Downtown Grand my next downtown trip.

I liked this game at Ravings.
I dealt it privately to some people in the casino business...they reacted like Fred Flintstone with the War bet...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N57SxyxUhTQ

I did not see much action on the bet over the weekend at DT. Some players would try it play it a few times and then quit. It is a $5 min Casino War game where you don't go to War but just lose on ties. My coompanions did try it, hated losing ties outright but did like the add your winnings to the main BJ bet feature. Aces counting as low also didn't get a rave review either.

I still think House Money is a better "cap your main BJ" side bet option as you can win more than even $, cap with your winnings & your original side bet and you know your two card hand total in HM instead of your one card hand total in War BJ.

I get that War BJ hits more often & is simple, but to me it doesn't offer very much additional "juice" or "rush" to the BJ game which in my opinion is the role of a side bet. War BJ is getting installs all over the place, so I guess you can't argue with its successful launch. Will be interesting to see if it gets consistent long term play.

Quote: miplet

The correct capping based on infinite decks is:
T,J,Q,K vs 2-9
9 vs 2-8
8 vs 2-7
7 vs 4-6
6 vs 5

Would think you'd always cap 10 vs 10 because you have the ability to get blackjack. It's not like non-war 10 vs 10 when you know you don't have bj.

I tried out War Blackjack today at the Downtown Grand. There were two other guys playing when I got there but neither were making the War bet.

I think we all know the gist of the game. Here were the blackjack rules followed at the DT:

6 decks.
BJ pays 3-2.
Dealer hits soft 17.
Double after split allowed.
Surrender allowed.
Re-splitting aces allowed.

By my house edge calculator, I get a house edge of 0.48%.

When I got home I started analyzing the game. I get the same parlay strategy as Miplet, but here it is in graphic form:



Based on my initial calculations (which could be wrong), I get a house edge on the War bet of 8.60% (ouch!). This includes the option to parlay a win on the blackjack bet. Does anyone else have a figure on it?

More Stuff!

Click on images for larger version.

Photo from Raving show last year:




Rack card:

A Table Games Manager at a property in So Cal that recently installed War Bj told me he had been given an HE of 6.6% I assume from a math report.

Isn't the initial edge without considering the capping feature approximately 1/13 or 7.7% for the loss on ties? I would assume that edge comes down when you can add winnings to main BJ bet only in +EV situations.

Here's a 26 page .pdf on the game. They're taking a very different approach to calculating the HE than you are, I think, starting on page 4. In the page 3 summary, they're claiming a HE of 1.2%, while integrating the sidebet into a good BJ rules game to get that.

EDIT: One of the appendices is the GLI analysis of the game, showing about a 7.7HE on the sidebet alone. All in all, a pretty interesting report, though I can't say I understand everything in it just yet.

I think Wizard is counting player face vs dealer face as a loss. The player wins k vs q,j,t; q vs j, t ; and j vs t.

Wow, it is a Stephen How report so I have to defer to his math brain for sure, but I didn't understand the example hand with an expected EV of +0.3279 for the original bet, becomes an expected EV of +1.3279 when you parlay War winnings. I would have guessed the parlay feature would just double the EV to +0.66 assuming the main bet & war bet were the same. Smarter minds will explain what is going on, but I am going to be amazed if the bet really has an overall HE less than 5% because it doesn't feel that way.

Quote: miplet

I think Wizard is counting player face vs dealer face as a loss. The player wins k vs q,j,t; q vs j, t ; and j vs t.

You're absolutely right. What would we do without you, Miplet? Based on that correction I now get a house edge of 1.50% on the War bet only, assuming infinite decks. The player will parlay about 29% of the time, so I would roughly estimate the six-deck house edge as 1.16%.

Please visit my new page on War Blackjack.

As always, I welcome all questions, comments, and especially corrections.

Quote: Wizard

Please visit my new page on War Blackjack.

As always, I welcome all questions, comments, and especially corrections.

Looks generally good, but the expand option on the dealer card/player card grid doesn't expand all the way out to see all combinations listed.

Quote: Paigowdan

but the expand option on the dealer card/player card grid doesn't expand all the way out to see all combinations listed.

Did you mouse over "expand"? If so, which browser are you using? It works fine for me in Chrome.

IE 11; it cut off half of the last column.

Quote: Wizard

Please visit my new page on War Blackjack.

As always, I welcome all questions, comments, and especially corrections.

As you say, you can't be wishy washy and say this side bet is OK, but seems that you could mention the effect on the variance, something like "betting the side bet cannot fail to increase the HE, but in this case it increases nicely the variance on a game that otherwise has very low variance" [if it is true that the side bet does so, and I have to imagine 'yes']

Quote: Paigowdan

Looks generally good, but the expand option on the dealer card/player card grid doesn't expand all the way out to see all combinations listed.

Check the zoom on the page generally; I often am zoomed in at WoO when playing games and the site remembers my zoom setting

Quote: Wizard

Please visit my new page on War Blackjack.

As always, I welcome all questions, comments, and especially corrections.

Humdinger: I love that word.
The BS graphic stops at 10. I would add J, Q , and K.
"Never parlay against a dealer ace." should read "Never parlay against a dealer ace, 10, or face."
Could you add a "Expected Value Table after Two Cards" chart in a BJ appendix? You never know when that could come in handy: i.e.: miss deals that they offer to get out of a hand.

Quote: Wizard

...I now get a house edge of 1.50% on the War bet only, assuming infinite decks...

I've just seen this shown at Coventry ( https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gaming-business/game-inventors/18111-ricoh-coventry-showcase/2/#post358461 ) and it seemed a great idea. A quick calculation (infinite S17) I got payback of 98.506%, the same strategy and Parlay 49 out of 169 combinations.
Don't Parlay against A K Q J 10
Parlay 8+ vs 2, 3
Parlay 7+ vs 4
Parlay others

Thanks for the comments. I just updated the parlay strategy image on my site to make clear to not parlay against tens and faces.

Good idea about the BJ table. As long as I did the work on the EV of one player card vs dealer card, I may as well.

For those doing an infinite deck analysis, I think that is fine and will get you within 0.1%. However, don't assume infinite decks for purposes of the War bet. A tie is more likely with infinite decks, and will depress the EV.

I've just noticed you have the same card they were handing out at Coventry. They seemed unaware that in the UK we don't deal the second card (and speaking to a casino manager he would ensure it wasn't). There is also a typo that "All Blackjacks pay 3:2". - I pointed this out and they confirmed it did not mean Player Blackjacks always win.

Thanks: Yes - infinite deck there are 169 equal outcomes (78 win (46.15%), 13+78 tie/lose) whereas 6dx (44928 win (46.30%), 7176+44928 tie/lose) - this accounts for the difference between 1.49% and 1.18% (and I'm guessing 1.16% when the BJ is 6dx rather than infinite).

Quote: charliepatrick

I've just noticed you have the same card they were handing out at Coventry. They seemed unaware that in the UK we don't deal the second card (and speaking to a casino manager he would ensure it wasn't). There is also a typo that "All Blackjacks pay 3:2". - I pointed this out and they confirmed it did not mean Player Blackjacks always win.

I just made a note about this rule on my War/BJ page. I also changed the wording to say WINNING blackjacks pay 3-2.

Quote:

Thanks: Yes - infinite deck there are 169 equal outcomes (78 win (46.15%), 13+78 tie/lose) whereas 6dx (44928 win (46.30%), 7176+44928 tie/lose) - this accounts for the difference between 1.49% and 1.18% (and I'm guessing 1.16% when the BJ is 6dx rather than infinite).

You're welcome. I did the same thing.

This may be a stupid question - but the parlay image assumes that the player has an ace, 10, or perhaps 9, correct? In that the player would not parlay his 5-8 against a dealer 7 (assuming the 8 was the war card).

Quote: charliepatrick

I've just seen this shown at Coventry ( https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gaming-business/game-inventors/18111-ricoh-coventry-showcase/2/#post358461 ) and it seemed a great idea. A quick calculation (infinite S17) I got payback of 98.506%, the same strategy and Parlay 49 out of 169 combinations.
Don't Parlay against A K Q J 10
Parlay 8+ vs 2, 3
Parlay 7+ vs 4
Parlay others

Quote: Banzai

This may be a stupid question - but the parlay image assumes that the player has an ace, 10, or perhaps 9, correct? In that the player would not parlay his 5-8 against a dealer 7 (assuming the 8 was the war card).

parlay an 8 against a dealer's 7 card.

So, to make an explicit and spelled out EZ-card with just FIVE rules:

1. "Always Take down" against a dealer's 10 or Ace.
2. Parlay all 9's & 10's against 9 or less; (or.....9's & 10's against ANY lower up card, as 9-to-9 is a little tough.)
3. parlay 8's against stiffs (Assuming you'd parlay 8+ against 2,3,4,5 & 6 if parlaying against 2 & 3.)
4. parlay 7's against 4-6 stiffs
5. Parlay everything 'pat' against a 5 or 6;

To make it a tad simpler than Mike's rule matrix/grid, and almost as close.


Edit: even simpler - Three Easy rules:

1. Take down against dealer 10 or ace;
2. parlay all pat cards against dealer's lower upcard. (This ignores player 7's vs 2's or 3's, but it's SO close....)
3. don't parlay any stiffs cards except a 6 card against dealer 5 upcard.

I think that's it, simpler than the matrix, Neo. Dan's avoid-the-matrix strategy for War Blackjack in three EZ steps. ;)


Duh...two rules REALLY cover it......
1. Parlay any wining pat card against a dealer's 9 or less.
2. don't parlay a winning stiff card except 6 over 5.

This avoids any sort of "If the sum of...." clause in a player strategy rule, which glazes players over, in a How-to-play card or tip.

I like Wiz's "add to 11 or more" rule and never against any 10 or Ace. With the only exception being 8 vs. 2, it seems pretty straightforward.

If players can't add two cards up and determine they are greater than 11, they likely aren't playing basic strategy correctly so it wouldn't matter what you tried to explain to them on a rack card :-)

Quote: Paradigm

I like Wiz's "add to 11 or more" rule and never against any 10 or Ace. With the only exception being 8 vs. 2, it seems pretty straightforward.

I personally agree - but I have been ordered by my bosses to 'de-math' the language on ALL How-to-Play cards, and all strategy advice in documents, and I agree with this AFTER being in the industry - writing How to play cards for "The Common Gambler.'

Read Below some advice I gave to a Gaming Game Writer:

Tony,
Concerning the offering of "Simplified strategy" advice:
Your strategy advice is consistently fantastic, needless to say, - but is quite naturally mathematical, even in "Commandment" format, because of verbal mathematical clauses. Now Tony, this is only an observation, but...

I've been gigged at work (both at DEQ and Galaxy) on this strategy advice usage when writing "mass public" strategy cards, and learned to avoid both Matrices/Spreadsheet-like strategy aids, as well as having any 'math language" when presenting advice or strategy to the "Common Gambler." While it is different for you or I, any math work - including addition and subtraction - is work for the common gambler, and not play, - and so anathema for strategy advice or IN strategy advice.

Work-arounds are vital for 'best advice presentation" in simple strategies offered, even if the optimal strategy descends from near 100% to 90% for it. The Goal is to get the common gambler to Employ "a strategy" that will work well enough.

As useful as they are for perfect/optimal strategy advice, phrases such as "If the sum of...", "If two-third or better than the point value," "If better than one-half the value of the dealer's...." etc. make for poor "Civilian" How to play cards or advice. Gambling Players simply cringe at ANYTHING that may sound very distantly like an SAT question, and I had to answer to Rob XXXX and other bosses in removing ALL calculations from strategy advice, and to produce clear advice advice that still works in very close approximate strategy. This is the big challenge!

While it is great to avoid grids/matrices as advice outside of Basic Strategy, any verbal instructions or strategy rules that contain or to instruct math operations such as: "Sum...", "Divide...", "multiply" are verboten in mass public gambling advice like How-to-Play cards (no matter if slightly less efficient) - IF it can otherwise be done with "card or hand values." A trick of the trade.

In all "verbiage" advice or strategy instructions, what is expected is to indeed offer instead absolute pablum to the Common Gambler that is almost as effective;

"If the sum of the dealer and player hands' points equal or exceed 14 then you Raise 2x" becomes the approximation: 'IF you hold a Jack or better then you Raise 2x...", - and while it is less accurate, it is indeed close enough AND has more puissance with gamblers trying a new game, - because their eyes are glazed over enough walking in. "Lemme get a glass of wine and put some chips down....." They're brain-dead after eight hours of office work, AND on a Saturday night.

So, you reduce it ALL to a 7th grade level (and trust me Tony, - I taught Public High School math in North Las Vegas).
For writing for the Proletariat on War Blackjack:
1. Parlay any wining pat card against a dealer's 9 or less.
2. don't parlay a winning stiff card except 6 over 5.

etc.

If I taught UNLV gaming courses, I would - as extra credit - challenge students to hide math verbs in strategy language, in exchange to approximate hand holdings that still give 90%+ to optimal play in an easy way. ("Round #1, King or better raise 3x...round #2, raise with Jack two times....round #3, fold if 10-high or less...OKAY)...Pai Gow Poker house ways had cut my teeth on this until they bled. LOOK at ANY how-to-play or strategy cards from ANY gaming distributor and you will never see a mathematical operand in there, IF you see detailed strategy advice. Here at this board, Mike should have a BOTH a detailed and complex strategy, - and a Basic "Everyman" strategy that is very plain - hand value points only for raise-check-fold after the detailed strategy.

You make it easy to play your game's strategy - you GET them to.....play your game!

Gamblers are looking for fun, and an easy strategy that gives them a chance against the house on YOUR game. They are not looking for work, they are looking for play that seems both easy and doable

Quote: Paradigm

If players can't add two cards up and determine they are greater than 11, they likely aren't playing basic strategy correctly so it wouldn't matter what you tried to explain to them on a rack card :-)

Yes you can - so you use "easy hand-level parameters and examples" - and approximate bet-check-fold-parlay-takedown hand levels strategy that come extremely close to optimal formula strategy.

When you are writing for the Common Gambler, you do not expect them to calculate or do any math, aside from what they're holding in their hand and can see.

You give them three rules, with NO spreadsheet matrix and NO 'Add, divide, multiply, or subtraction' work as part of a usable strategy.

Make it as easy as possible, and they may play your game.

To state that any new casino player walking onto ANY new casino game without at least a bare-bones strategy is at risk, - would be true.
However - A new player can actually walk into a new strategy-based game and do very fine with just some basic ground rules.

This is why it goes onto the player's How-to-Play cards, and INTO dealer training.

The same applies for War Blackjack, and the two basic rules of:
1. Parlay any "Pat" card (7+) that beats a dealer's 9 or lower, and;
2. The only stiff card you Parlay is a 6 over a 5
- will get a newbie playing at 95% of the pro - and so the game works for the house and the player.

High Card Flush training for dealer advice, and players was:
1. Play any 3-card flush with a face card, Jack or better.
2. Fold all others.
With this, - and talking No math strategy here, and just two rules, it worked for the players, the casinos, and the game. This is over 92% of professional play on a close game.

We've trained dealers on UTH/Heads Up Hold 'em with this as a bare-bones strategy;
1. King, Ace or a pair of 3's+ hole cards - just Raise 3x.
2. Any touch on the flop or four to a flush with a 10+ - just Raise 2x.
3. River - with pair or better on board, Raise Queen, - with no pair, raise King, else fold.
This is better play than the VAST majority of current UTH/Heads Up Hold 'em players on the game.

Sheoot, look at Three Card poker;
1. Raise Q-6-4, fold the rest.
If you WANT to get fancy, play Q-6-3 rainbow. "Advanced Strategy - for the Pro."

There is a HUGE gap between the level of play worthy of WOO or discountgambling.net, - but a couple of calculation-free rules to follow can get a newbie up to a FINE level on a reasonable game.

I look at a simple, calculation-free "accessible strategy going in" - that just about anyone can grab onto - as a must as a new game starter.

Asia Poker Failed big time, and is dead.
So has Lunar poker.
Make it too fancy - and kill your game.

I have a math degree, but feel games should be playable by regular off-the-bat common everyday gamblers. Every time. Every single one who has cash in his pockets and an itch to play.
janitors, strippers, cab drivers, McDonalds workers, - you can play this game and play it right.

No Jacket required, and no math degree required.
Just cards that make sense to you.

I agree - it seems one easy strategy (which has three exceptions to create correct strategy) is:-
(a) Parlay any 7 or higher only if dealer's card is nine or lower (don't Parlay against dealer's Ace, Face or Ten).
Exceptions : Don't Parlay 7 vs 2 or 3, Parlay 6 vs 5.

Quote: charliepatrick

I agree - it seems one easy strategy (which has three exceptions to create correct strategy) is:-
(a) Parlay any 7 or higher only if dealer's card is nine or lower (don't Parlay against dealer's Ace, Face or Ten).
Exceptions : Don't Parlay 7 vs 2 or 3, Parlay 6 vs 5.

This is Very fine. It has to be this easy to work for a new game - and the new people trying it.

I have got to salute the War Blackjack group, - their game works. A game has to exist in the field so that it works reliably, day in and day out, by all the dealers, players, and floormen who don't have a minute to spare for any upset with it at all. From its play, to its math and table hold, to its ease of dealing, and to the people learning it in 20 seconds or else they'll never play it, so much has to be in place. They seem to have got it down pat, really right and tight.

If this game works out, then I'll have to change my fifth of my Ten Commandments for Game Inventors.

Quote: Wizard

If this game works out, then I'll have to change my fifth of my Ten Commandments for Game Inventors.

I have always felt the same as you on the 5th commandment. At Raving, I almost didn't visit this game because of my disdain for combined games. I like to refer to them as "Po-Crap."

This game might be the lucky survivor.

I used to detest game co-mingling, and still generally.

Most of the time it is NOT like mixing "peanut butter and chocolate," but mixing Gin and Kahlua.
21+3 is a huge hit, and I used to think it was the exception that proved the rule.

I will say mixing games or game rules are terrible when in the main game; as a side bet, it is more palpable.

Quote: Paigowdan

21+3 is a huge hit,

I don't count that as a game mixture. It is just another blackjack game with a side bet, that happens to resemble the Pairplus in Three Card Poker.

Quote: Wizard

I don't count that as a game mixture. It is just another blackjack game with a side bet, that happens to resemble the Pairplus in Three Card Poker.

True, as a side bet add-on it really is in that "not really a mixed game, and safer" category.

I did like Pai Gow Mania, where you start with three card poker, then get four more cards to play Pai Gow poker both as main games. But it's drawback was that it was Sooooo slow to play and deal, it didn't operate or perform well, forcing a two-stage game.

Quote: Wizard

You're absolutely right. What would we do without you, Miplet? Based on that correction I now get a house edge of 1.50% on the War bet only, assuming infinite decks. The player will parlay about 29% of the time, so I would roughly estimate the six-deck house edge as 1.16%.

No parlaying 10 vs 10 or 10 vs A even with the possibility of player blackjack still up in the air? Interesting.

Quote: Swanson234

No parlaying 10 vs 10 or 10 vs A even with the possibility of player blackjack still up in the air?

That's the fact, Jack.

Is this game still going strong? Didn't they do all
their placements for nothing?

Game was sold to AGS last month.

War BJ Sale

Quote: Paradigm

Game was sold to AGS last month.

War BJ Sale

AGS has no table games, this is their first?
Isn't this like listing your house with somebody
who has never sold a house before? AGS is
a slot company.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: Paradigm

Game was sold to AGS last month.

War BJ Sale

AGS has no table games, this is their first?
Isn't this like listing your house with somebody
who has never sold a house before? AGS is
a slot company.

He sold the game for a very nice sum. I'm sure for sentimental reasons he hopes they run with it, but do you know how the last car or house you sold is doing?

ZCore13

AGS is now run by a former SHFL Exec and he has brought in some other former SHFL employees.....they are clearly headed into the table game market with experience. Perhaps all the Bally/SHFL/SG activity & distraction provides an opportunity for a new player to hit the space hard.

Who knows where it goes, but the Apollo Global Management isn't some small time player and they are behind AGS at this point and the new CEO is their pick to run the company. He is a former SHFL guy......hmmmm.....to me that says table games is a pretty important growth component for AGS going forward.

I assume that be David lopez.

Quote: Zcore13

He sold the game for a very nice sum. I'm sure for sentimental reasons he hopes they run with it, but do you know how the last car or house you sold is doing? ZCore13

What would be a fair market price for a "popular" blackjack side bet? half a mil?
Here is the math: $100 / month / table x 100 table x 12 month / yr = $ 120,000. Then 4 or 5 times of annual revenue =
$480,000 - $600,00. Should be about right.

Some of the hotter BJ side bets are $200-$300 per table-month, and this category (may) include(s) War blackjack.

Quote: UCivan

What would be a fair market price for a "popular" blackjack side bet? half a mil?
Here is the math: $100 / month / table x 100 table x 12 month / yr = $ 120,000. Then 4 or 5 times of annual revenue =
$480,000 - $600,00. Should be about right.

That might be the math and money for a game that has 100 installs already, although 4 or 5 times revenue is a lot too. I don't think that would fly for a game that is new and has little to no track history or proven "stayability" on the floor.


ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

He sold the game for a very nice sum ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

That might be the math and money for a game that has 100 installs already, although 4 or 5 times revenue is a lot too. I don't think that would fly for a game that is new and has little to no track history or proven "stayability" on the floor.

ZCore13

ZCore, Are you saying he got a very nice sum, but not as nice as $480,000 +? If that's the case, then it's a moderate sum :-)))