Twisted 21
A new game called "Twisted 21" has just started a field trial at the Rio. It's from a small company called 21 Stud Gaming but there are no rules listed on their website. They also have a game called "Twisted 21 Stud" from several years ago but again, their website offers no particulars.
Anyways, if one of you Vegas locals happens to be near the Rio, could you pick up a rack card of "Twisted 21" and maybe get a picture of the layout? It would be appreciated.
Quote: SwitchFrom what I see in the video, '21 Stud' could be renamed '2-card War'.
Yeah, there seems to be a mini trend of designers trying to create more passive version of blackjack. Note the Wizard's recent thread on the "21 Bet" (which could be called blackarat).
As an admin, I would like permission to remove the video, to avoid confusing people.
Twisted 21
Here is some initial analysis. Not counting the Twisted Stud Bonus, the house edge on the Stud Bonus side bet is 8.90%.
I get the probability of a Twisted Stud Bonus at 0.009105181, if aces are always counted as one. Given a Twisted Stud pays 20 to 1, that would push the return way over 100%. So, I'm thinking maybe aces count as 11 for purposes of a Twisted Stud, unless it would cause the hand to go over 21 points, as in blackjack.
The payouts on your Twisted 21 page are incorrect: 500:1 for Jacks or Better?
Dog Hand
Quote: DogHandThe payouts on your Twisted 21 page are incorrect: 500:1 for Jacks or Better?
Oops. Just fixed it.
Quote: WizardOops. Just fixed it.
Minor typo , I think ..
In step 8, change put to point.
No considering the rule against splitting or the five-card limit to both player and dealer, my house edge calculator gets 1.40%. My list of rule variations says not being allowed to split costs 0.57%. That would bring up to 1.97%. So that 3.27% may not be right. It's possible the five card limit hurts the player more than the dealer, as it doesn't affect the dealer if the player already busted.
Quote: gordonm888My instincts are that something is wrong on the Twisted Stud probabilities for the stud bonus bet - perhaps you are not limiting the five card hands to 16 and below?
So you're saying the player has to get the poker value AND 16 points or less? How would a royal flush be possible then?
My reaction is that it seems unlikely to me that a 5 card hand summing up to 16 or less will occur at a frequency of 0.8 -0.9%, which is the probability you mention for the Twisted Stud hand in your earlier post.
BTW, your payoff table in the WOO article still has a glitch. The payoff values for a Twisted Stud and a Flush are reversed.
Quote: WizardThis is very tentative, but for the base game I'm getting a house edge of 3.27%, using a modified blackjack program I have.
No considering the rule against splitting or the five-card limit to both player and dealer, my house edge calculator gets 1.40%. My list of rule variations says not being allowed to split costs 0.57%. That would bring up to 1.97%. So that 3.27% may not be right. It's possible the five card limit hurts the player more than the dealer, as it doesn't affect the dealer if the player already busted.
So if I have a hand like A2345 or JJ222 , how do they determine which of the payouts I get? Theyd both qualify for twisted stud and a poker hand payout . In one case the poker hand payout is higher, and in the other the twisted stud payout is higher
Quote: michael99000Quote: WizardThis is very tentative, but for the base game I'm getting a house edge of 3.27%, using a modified blackjack program I have.
No considering the rule against splitting or the five-card limit to both player and dealer, my house edge calculator gets 1.40%. My list of rule variations says not being allowed to split costs 0.57%. That would bring up to 1.97%. So that 3.27% may not be right. It's possible the five card limit hurts the player more than the dealer, as it doesn't affect the dealer if the player already busted.
So if I have a hand like A2345 or JJ222 , how do they determine which of the payouts I get? Theyd both qualify for twisted stud and a poker hand payout . In one case the poker hand payout is higher, and in the other the twisted stud payout is higher
I would assume that you only receive the better pay, not both. If I designed the game, that's what I would do.
Quote: michael99000...So if I have a hand like A2345 or JJ222 , how do they determine which of the payouts I get? Theyd both qualify for twisted stud and a poker hand payout . In one case the poker hand payout is higher, and in the other the twisted stud payout is higher
I'm sure the payout will be dealer dependent and pit person dependent. Sometimes, the player will be paid for both jacks or better and the twisted stud bonus, and other times only for the higher payout.
Logically, the player should be paid only the higher payout. For example, AAA22 (total of 7) should be paid 75 to 1 for the full house and not 75 + 20. And a flush of A2346 (total of 16) should be paid 20 for the twisted stud bonus and not 15 for the flush or 20+15 for both flush and twisted stud bonus.
Many players will say to the dealer, "You only paid me for the full house. The other dealer pays for both."
Of course, maybe both should be paid. In that case, some dealers and pit people will only pay the higher payout.
Another important question, as the Wizard pointed out, is may aces be counted as one? For example, would AAA23 be called a total of 8 or 18?
Quote: WizardThis is very tentative, but for the base game I'm getting a house edge of 3.27%, using a modified blackjack program I have.
No considering the rule against splitting or the five-card limit to both player and dealer, my house edge calculator gets 1.40%. My list of rule variations says not being allowed to split costs 0.57%. That would bring up to 1.97%. So that 3.27% may not be right. It's possible the five card limit hurts the player more than the dealer, as it doesn't affect the dealer if the player already busted.
I get a house edge of 1.939%. Of course, no guarantees this is right either, but it is quite close to your estimate with the rule variations.
Quote: WizardThis is very tentative, but for the base game I'm getting a house edge of 3.27%, using a modified blackjack program I have.
I found an error having to do with the fact that dealer can stop of fewer than 17 points. The 3.27% is incorrect. I'm working on correcting it.
Quote: gordonm888The rules you've posted say that the Stud BONUS wager pays if "your five card hand is a pair of jacks or better OR the sum of the Player's cards is 16 or less" - the latter criteria is the "Twisted Stud" hand.
I stand by that. Note it's "or" not "and."
Quote:My reaction is that it seems unlikely to me that a 5 card hand summing up to 16 or less will occur at a frequency of 0.8 -0.9%, which is the probability you mention for the Twisted Stud hand in your earlier post.
Why do you think that?
Quote:BTW, your payoff table in the WOO article still has a glitch. The payoff values for a Twisted Stud and a Flush are reversed.
Thanks for the correction there.
Quote: michael99000So if I have a hand like A2345 or JJ222 , how do they determine which of the payouts I get? Theyd both qualify for twisted stud and a poker hand payout . In one case the poker hand payout is higher, and in the other the twisted stud payout is higher
I'm not sure about the A2345. It would get at least 6. The player would get 26 if the ace counted as 1 and the player got paid for both the straight and Twisted Stud. It would get paid 20 if the ace counted as 1 and the player got paid for the higher of the straight and the Twisted Stud. If the ace counted as 11 it would get paid 6 for sure. This is one where I need clarification on the rules.
JJ222 would get paid 75 for sure, because of the full house. There are 26 points in the hand, which is way over 16, so no Twisted Stud there.
Quote: Wizard
JJ222 would get paid 75 for sure, because of the full house. There are 26 points in the hand, which is way over 16, so no Twisted Stud there.
You are right.
I meant to say a hand of 33222, which is a full house that qualifies as a twisted stud.
In which case Im sure only the full house gets paid
I cannot think of any game or side bet with a tiered payout like this , where the player gets paid for all of the winning hands his cards can produce. Has there been any ?
| Hand | Super Perms | Other Perms | Pays | Contribution |
| Super 16 | 21 708 | 20 | 455 868 | |
| Royal Flush | 4 | 1 000 | 4 004 | |
| Straight Flush | 36 | 500 | 18 036 | |
| Quads | 624 | 200 | 125 424 | |
| Full House | 3 744 | 75 | 284 544 | |
| Flush | 4 | 5 104 | 15 | 81 664 |
| Straight | 1 020 | 9 180 | 6 | 64 260 |
| Trips | 3 392 | 51 520 | 4 | 257 600 |
| Two Pairs | 4 752 | 118 800 | 3 | 475 200 |
| Pair of Jacks thru Kings | 253 440 | 2 | 760 320 | |
| Pair of Aces | 4 608 | 79 872 | 2 | 239 616 |
| Pair of Twos | 3 840 | 80 640 | ||
| Pair of Threes | 1 920 | 82 560 | ||
| Pair of Fours | 768 | 83 712 | ||
| Pair of Fives | 384 | 84 096 | ||
| Pair of Sixes thru Tens | 422 400 | |||
| Nothing | 1 020 | 1 301 520 | ||
21 708 | 2 577 252 | |||
0.835 257% | 2 598 960 | 2 766 536 |
Note: I don't count Super hands, eg 33322, where the payout for the base hand is higher.
Quote: WizardI found an error having to do with the fact that dealer can stop of fewer than 17 points. The 3.27% is incorrect. I'm working on correcting it.
After fixing that bug (not to say there aren't more), I'm getting 3.21%. Any other opinions?
Quote: michael99000I cannot think of any game or side bet with a tiered payout like this , where the player gets paid for all of the winning hands his cards can produce. Has there been any ?
Yes. The current version of Lunar Poker...
Quote: WOOIf a player's winning hand also contains a second poker combination, then the player will be paid for both combinations, even if the second combination doesn't beat the dealer's hand. For the second combination to qualify, it must contain at least one card which wasn't included in the first winning combination.
...although for most combinations the player is using 6 cards.
Quote: michael99000I meant to say a hand of 33222, which is a full house that qualifies as a twisted stud.
In which case Im sure only the full house gets paid
I cannot think of any game or side bet with a tiered payout like this , where the player gets paid for all of the winning hands his cards can produce. Has there been any ?
Good point. The supervisor and dealer threw around the word "bonus" right and left. I interpret a "bonus" to mean an extra win. Like the Ante bonus in Three Card Poker -- you get it regardless of the rest of the hand outcome.
You're probably right. In which case I would say that "Stud Bonus" is a terrible name for a side bet, because it isn't a "bonus."
Quote: charliepatrick
Note: I don't count Super hands, eg 33322, where the payout for the base hand is higher.
What's your table if you do count them?
Spreadsheet: 2.66%
Looping program: 3.24%
So there is an error somewhere. I tend to trust the spreadsheet number more.
| Total | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ace |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bust | 0.345089 | 0.369178 | 0.392362 | 0.414774 | 0.437694 | 0.261368 | 0.244208 | 0.228113 | 0.229672 | 0.189154 |
| 1 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| 2 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| 3 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| 4 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| 5 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| 6 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| 7 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| 8 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| 9 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| 10 | 0.000035 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| 11 | 0.000140 | 0.000035 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| 12 | 0.001050 | 0.000490 | 0.000175 | 0.000035 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.001011 |
| 13 | 0.002030 | 0.001190 | 0.000630 | 0.000280 | 0.000105 | 0.000035 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.001769 |
| 14 | 0.003325 | 0.002170 | 0.001330 | 0.000735 | 0.000385 | 0.000175 | 0.000070 | 0.000035 | 0.000000 | 0.003286 |
| 15 | 0.005390 | 0.003465 | 0.002310 | 0.001435 | 0.000875 | 0.000455 | 0.000245 | 0.000140 | 0.000038 | 0.005460 |
| 16 | 0.008156 | 0.005531 | 0.003606 | 0.002415 | 0.001610 | 0.000910 | 0.000560 | 0.000350 | 0.000152 | 0.008190 |
| 17 | 0.128532 | 0.125274 | 0.121740 | 0.117957 | 0.114598 | 0.368443 | 0.128499 | 0.119956 | 0.120698 | 0.081727 |
| 18 | 0.134832 | 0.130878 | 0.126630 | 0.122511 | 0.114595 | 0.137671 | 0.359270 | 0.119938 | 0.120697 | 0.205127 |
| 19 | 0.129585 | 0.125974 | 0.122089 | 0.117957 | 0.114598 | 0.078498 | 0.128498 | 0.350730 | 0.120698 | 0.205128 |
| 20 | 0.123946 | 0.120727 | 0.117188 | 0.113398 | 0.110045 | 0.078499 | 0.069324 | 0.119956 | 0.370681 | 0.205131 |
| 21 | 0.117891 | 0.115088 | 0.111940 | 0.108503 | 0.105494 | 0.073945 | 0.069326 | 0.060783 | 0.037364 | 0.094015 |
| Total | 1.000000 | 1.000000 | 1.000000 | 1.000000 | 1.000000 | 1.000000 | 1.000000 | 1.000000 | 1.000000 | 1.000000 |
Quote: WizardHere are my dealer probabilities in the base game with 999 decks, assuming no blackjack. The dealer up card is along the first row. I post this table because I think starting with the dealer probabilities is a good place to look for agreement.
I am in 100% agreement with this table.
Quote: CrystalMathI am in 100% agreement with this table.
Thank you.
Quote: WizardI've analyzed an infinite-deck version of the base game two ways. Here are the results of the house edge:
Spreadsheet: 2.66%
Looping program: 3.24%
So there is an error somewhere. I tend to trust the spreadsheet number more.
I get 2.656% with 1000 decks, which looks right in line with your spreadsheet.
I am now at 1.925% with 1 deck. I had an error accounting for the dealer peek, assuming a score of 17 or better.
Quote: CrystalMathI am now at 1.925% with 1 deck. I had an error accounting for the dealer peek, assuming a score of 17 or better.
Thanks. I will look at my program again, as I get a higher number for one deck. I tend to think you're right.
Quote: CrystalMathI am now at 1.925% with 1 deck.
I found a bug where I wasn't removing the initial three cards from the deck array. After correcting for that, we agree.
Thank you!
I thank all who helped with this page, either doing math or helping determine the actual rules.
btw the figures I posted a few days ago were based on a quick look,
Table 1: I have updated the figures for the new rules and agree with wizard's.
Table 2: What would happen if any hand is paid for "Twisted Stud" if that's a better pay out and was 10 to 1.
| Hand | These rules | Other Perms | Pays | Contribution |
| Super 16 | 7 932 | 7 932 | 20 | 166 572 |
| Royal Flush | 4 | 1 000 | 4 004 | |
| Straight Flush | 36 | 500 | 18 036 | |
| Quads | 624 | 200 | 125 424 | |
| Full House | 3 744 | 75 | 284 544 | |
| Flush | 5 108 | 15 | 81 728 | |
| Straight | 10 200 | 6 | 71 400 | |
| Trips | 54 912 | 4 | 274 560 | |
| Two Pairs | 123 552 | 3 | 494 208 | |
| Pair of Jacks thru Kings | 253 440 | 2 | 760 320 | |
| Pair of Aces | 84 480 | 2 | 253 440 | |
| Pair of Twos | 3 840 | 80 640 | ||
| Pair of Threes | 1 920 | 82 560 | ||
| Pair of Fours | 768 | 83 712 | ||
| Pair of Fives | 384 | 84 096 | ||
| Pair of Sixes thru Tens | 422 400 | |||
| Nothing | 1 020 | 1 301 520 | ||
7 932 | 2 591 028 | |||
0.305 199% | 2 598 960 | 2 534 236 | ||
97.509 619% |
...and these are what it would be if "Twisted Stud" were to pay 10 to 1.
| Hand | These rules | Other Perms | Pays | Contribution |
| Super 16 | 23 256 | 23 256 | 10 | 255 816 |
| Royal Flush | 4 | 1 000 | 4 004 | |
| Straight Flush | 36 | 500 | 18 036 | |
| Quads | 624 | 200 | 125 424 | |
| Full House | 3 744 | 75 | 284 544 | |
| Flush | 5 108 | 15 | 81 728 | |
| Straight | 1 020 | 9 180 | 6 | 64 260 |
| Trips | 3 264 | 51 648 | 4 | 258 240 |
| Two Pairs | 4 896 | 118 656 | 3 | 474 624 |
| Pair of Jacks thru Kings | 253 440 | 2 | 760 320 | |
| Pair of Aces | 6 144 | 78 336 | 2 | 235 008 |
| Pair of Twos | 3 840 | 80 640 | ||
| Pair of Threes | 1 920 | 82 560 | ||
| Pair of Fours | 768 | 83 712 | ||
| Pair of Fives | 384 | 84 096 | ||
| Pair of Sixes thru Tens | 422 400 | |||
| Nothing | 1 020 | 1 301 520 | ||
23 256 | 2 575 704 | |||
0.894 819% | 2 598 960 | 2 562 004 | ||
98.578 047% |
Quote: AxelWolfThat rule change was implemented within hours of this discussion. Coincidence? You decide.
To quote Bugs Bunny, I think it's a coinkydink (sp?)
Said the guy who thought luscious sweets obscure Pine Street reference was all just a big coincidence.Quote: WizardTo quote Bugs Bunny, I think it's a coinkydink (sp?)
Quote: AxelWolfSaid the guy who thought luscious sweets obscure Pine Street reference was all just a big coincidence.
I said might have been. That one was filed under "reasonable doubt."
Key word is REASONABLEQuote: WizardI said might have been. That one was filed under "reasonable doubt."
The poppies were actually lined up to play it. People are arguing over who was next. People were actually crowding in front of you just so they could get a look at the game. Again these people are ploppies not AP's. One guy hit a 200 to 1, 4 of a kind for 1k.
While I was waiting for a seat I noticed one guy texting with his wife or girlfriend and she was super pissed off he wouldn't leave the game. Her, "I HAD ENOUGH!"
If your recreational player that doesn't mind giving up a little EV, I definitely would play this game if you're looking for something fun to play.
Any information about who made it or the company?
Quote: WizardAs to the Stud Bonus side bet, I learned that a Twisted Stud is ranked as the LOWEST paying hand. For example, AA234 would pay as a high pair, not a Twisted Stud with 13 points. With that understanding, I redid my analysis and get a house edge of 2.49% on the side bet. My Twisted 21 page I believe to now have the correct rules and analysis.
I thank all who helped with this page, either doing math or helping determine the actual rules.
I played this game tonight. I had A4 then hit A then 3. At this time my BJ hand was worh 19 and I should have stopped, but then the dealer mislead me that if the 5th card were a 7 or less, I would win 20:1 on the side bet. So I turned the 5th card and it was a 3, rendering my blackjack hand a 12, against the dealer's 19. The dealer then handed me 100$ in chips for my 5$ side bet, but then a player at the table argued that he was wrong to award me 20:1 when he should have only awarded me a 3:1 for the 2 pair. The supervisor got involved, he said that I should get 3:1 but, at my insistence that the dealer had msinformed me about the rules, my blackjack hand stands at 19 (he cancelled turning the 5th card).
Anyways, the 20:1 stud bet is only awarded if there is no other lower paid combination (JoB, 2 pair, 3 of a kind, straight, flush). Also, all 5 cards must be turned for the player to receive it. With a four card 12 against the dealer's 6 you should stand, but if you think the 5th card is a 4 or less, you must hit. It depends on how much you bet on your 21 hand versus the stud bet. There were players who just paid the 10$ minimum for the blackjack and wagered way more for the poker hand.
Quote: skyscannerI played this game tonight. I had A4 then hit A then 3. At this time my BJ hand was worh 19 and I should have stopped, but then the dealer mislead me that if the 5th card were a 7 or less, I would win 20:1 on the side bet. So I turned the 5th card and it was a 3, rendering my blackjack hand a 12, against the dealer's 19. The dealer then handed me 100$ in chips for my 5$ side bet, but then a player at the table argued that he was wrong to award me 20:1 when he should have only awarded me a 3:1 for the 2 pair. The supervisor got involved, he said that I should get 3:1 but, at my insistence that the dealer had msinformed me about the rules, my blackjack hand stands at 19 (he cancelled turning the 5th card).
Anyways, the 20:1 stud bet is only awarded if there is no other lower paid combination (JoB, 2 pair, 3 of a kind, straight, flush). Also, all 5 cards must be turned for the player to receive it. With a four card 12 against the dealer's 6 you should stand, but if you think the 5th card is a 4 or less, you must hit. It depends on how much you bet on your 21 hand versus the stud bet. There were players who just paid the 10$ minimum for the blackjack and wagered way more for the poker hand.
When I played on Thursday and others played on Friday, the player didn't have to hit into all five cards for the Stud Bonus hand to count, the player got use all of them for the poker hand all the time. Either this is a new rule, the dealers were dealing it incorrectly before, or they were dealing it incorrectly to you.
Whatever the case, I would have been angry in your shoes for two reasons:
1. Bad advice from the dealer caused you to lose the blackjack hand.
2. That other player should have kept his mouth shut. I can see correcting a perceived error to help another player, but not to hurt him.
In your shoes, I think I would have complained to Gaming to get the 20 to 1 payout.
Quote: skyscannerAlso, I find it inconsistent that the aces forming the Super 16 are counted as 1, but then they are counted as being better then the pair of Jacks which are worth 10 each.
So do I. Not the best example of good game design, but it does seem to get played well, I give the game that.
Quote: WizardHere is the rule card, for what it's worth. It doesn't do a good job of clearing up the ambiguous rules.
Having finally had a chance to read everything, here's my take.
1 - To say the card is "Ambiguous" is being kind. I hold no punches. The rules card sucks. It not only give no indication what a Twisted Stud is, it seems to imply that in the BJ play, you don't pick which card(s) to hit, but must pick how many cards to hit. It seemingly implies that after hitting one card, you could not hit again.
2 - All five cards count towards the Twisted Stud hand, regardless of being used for the BJ hand. First, the Stud Bonus section states, "If your five card hand is ..." Also, consider the alternative. If only shown cards counted, you would never hit your BJ hand. If you've got 16 or less, you'd sacrifice that hand (or hope the dealer busts), just to take the 20-1 payout. If it's 17 or more, basic strategy says to stand.
3 - Aces must count as 1, otherwise, there would be only one very specific hand that qualified for the Twisted Stud payout: 22345=16. Even with aces counting as 1, there aren't a lot of hands that make the Twisted Stud hand.
4 - Players may like the game, but I can see the dealers hating it due to all the additional movements required deal into specific spots for each player, then to turn cards to hit, and then to turn over unhit cards. And I'm sure there will occasionally be confusion and floor intervention required when a player claims the wrong card was flipped over.
