Twisted 21
Quote: DJTeddyBear
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.
3. Only A2234, A2235, A2236, A2334, A2335, A2346, A2445, A2344, 22345, not all of the same suit, qualify. I think this increases the house advantage beyond the 2.8%. Was this restriction included in your simulations? When you looked at the Twisted Stud, did you exclude the 2 Aces, the 2 pairs, the 3 and 4 of a kind, the straight, the flushes, the full house?
4. The supervisor was telling the dealer he was not doing the steps in the proper order, the dealer replied : "Don't tell me what to do, I know better", the supervisor came back with the manual and then said: "This is so poorly written!" :)
Quote: DJTeddyBear4 - 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.
When I played there was at least one supervisor on the game at all times, and sometimes two, to clarify the rules to the players and dealers as they went. At one point I questioned whether the Bust Bonus was a required bet, as the dealer said, quoting the rule card, "To begin the game, Player makes the mandatory Twisted 21 wager." The supervisor had to go to the podium and refer to something in writing to confirm I was correct.
I don't specifically keep track, but I can't think of a worse rack card I've ever seen in my 22 years in this business.
I'm eager to learn who their mathematician was. I can confirm it wasn't me or CrystalMath.
Quote: WizardI'm eager to learn who their mathematician was. I can confirm it wasn't me or CrystalMath.
It may have been Charles, based on a linkedin post I just saw.
Quote: billryanHow does something so ambiguous as that card pass muster? Doesn't the gaming commission have to approve them?
Yes, they do have to approve your rack cards for a game trial.
Quote: mrsuit31It may have been Charles, based on a linkedin post I just saw.
I should clarify that these problems are not necessarily the mathematician's fault. My clients don't listen to my advice all the time. My response is I can only lead a horse to water...
Quote: beachbumbabsMaking it up as they go. And every decision they make is worse for the player. Yeesh. What a mess.
My thoughts exactly on this game.
How could a game be cleared to go live in a casino with so many uncertainties ?
As it stands it's just bj with unfavorable rules coupled with a 5-card bonus side bet. To be fair, for a side bet the poker hand has a good HE.
Harrahs had a game where you did two card BJ, three card poker and Stud poker back around 2001. This game was pretty popular. They had it right inside the entrance.
However, for the staff, this game must be a huge headache.
Anyway this is the playing strategy it gives (so please accept there might be some small errors in it) but it must be fairly close to normal single deck strategy.
| Soft 19 | Double A8 vs 6 | |
| Soft 18 | Double A7 vs 3-6 | Hit AA24 vs 9 |
| Hit AAA5 vs A 9 10 | ||
| Hit Axx vs A 9 10 | ||
| Hit A7 vs A 9 10 | ||
| Soft 17 | Double A6 vs 2-6 | |
| Hard 16 | Some hit, some don't | |
| Soft 16 | Double A5 vs 4-6 | |
| Hard 15 | Stand a few vs 10 | |
| Soft 15 | Double A4 vs 4-6 | |
| Hard 14 | Stand 77 vs 10 | |
| Soft 14 | Double A3 vs 4-6 | |
| Hard 13 | Hit A2T, 49, 3T vs 2 | |
| Soft 13 | Double A2 vs 4-6 | |
| Hard 12 | Stand some vs 3 | |
| Hit 2T vs 4 | ||
| Soft 12 | Double AA vs 5-6 | |
| Hard 11 | Double | |
| Hard 10 | Double vs 2-9 | |
| Hard 9 | Double vs 2-6 | |
| Hard 8 | Double 44 or 35 vs 5-6 |
Quote: mrsuit31It may have been Charles, based on a linkedin post I just saw.
I did the math for the original game (I got 1.9148% house edge based on an exact calculation) and a number of sidebets. One of them was a straight poker-hand-on-a-paytable one very similar to the Bonus bet (most of the payouts are the same) but the "Twisted Stud" thing and the 16-point thing was a complete after-market addition and I have had absolutely no influence on that or any of the other confusion that seems to be around here. The end game from my analysis was certainly much cleaner, but that was at about 7 years ago.
Quote: CharlesMousseauI did the math for the original game (I got 1.9148% house edge based on an exact calculation) and a number of sidebets. One of them was a straight poker-hand-on-a-paytable one very similar to the Bonus bet (most of the payouts are the same) but the "Twisted Stud" thing and the 16-point thing was a complete after-market addition and I have had absolutely no influence on that or any of the other confusion that seems to be around here. The end game from my analysis was certainly much cleaner, but that was at about 7 years ago.
Thanks for chiming in Charles. Glad to hear you don't deserve any blame for the Twisted Stud fiasco.
Too bad Dan Lubin isn't around. I would have loved to see his comments on this game.
Quote: charliepatrickI'm still getting a slightly different answer but haven't got the hang of catering for peeking. For instance I guess you know there's a slightly higher chance of a picture when the player is playing their hand if the dealer with an Ace has already peeked. I'm getting 1.98% so there's probably a small bug in my program or logic somewhere.
I'd be happy to discuss the peeking math with you. Maybe I'll make a separate thread for it. I pretty much use a Bayesian approach: EV(hand | no dealer BJ) = EV(hand and no dealer BJ)/Prob(no dealer BJ). However, its easier said than done.
I'm pretty confident in my figure. I hope he won't mind me saying, but CrystalMath agreed with it and Charles is 0.01% off (or we're off from him).
Quote:Anyway this is the playing strategy it gives (so please accept there might be some small errors in it) but it must be fairly close to normal single deck strategy.
btw one advantage of giving the players their five cards is their hands cannot be affected by other players standing or hitting. An easier way is to deal the cards out as you go, but face down if the player has already stood.
Soft 19 Double A8 vs 6 Soft 18 Double A7 vs 3-6 Hit AA24 vs 9 Hit AAA5 vs A 9 10 Hit Axx vs A 9 10 Hit A7 vs A 9 10 Soft 17 Double A6 vs 2-6 Hard 16 Some hit, some don't Soft 16 Double A5 vs 4-6 Hard 15 Stand a few vs 10 Soft 15 Double A4 vs 4-6 Hard 14 Stand 77 vs 10 Soft 14 Double A3 vs 4-6 Hard 13 Hit A2T, 49, 3T vs 2 Soft 13 Double A2 vs 4-6 Hard 12 Stand some vs 3 Hit 2T vs 4 Soft 12 Double AA vs 5-6 Hard 11 Double Hard 10 Double vs 2-9 Hard 9 Double vs 2-6 Hard 8 Double 44 or 35 vs 5-6
Thanks. I wrote a combinatorial program, so can't comment, other than your strategy looks very reasonable out of its similarity to single deck H17 blackjack.
Quote: WizardThanks for chiming in Charles. Glad to hear you don't deserve any blame for the Twisted Stud fiasco.
Too bad Dan Lubin isn't around. I would have loved to see his comments on this game.
Heck, I half expected you mentioning the potential of a player edge or the "don't correct the dealer if they're mispaying in the player's favor" comment to bring him back from the grave :)
I miss that little lowering-the-head gesture when he got on a roll about one of his pet crusades.
Incidentally, if you've ever watch the GLOW TV show on Netflix, there's a character (Sam Sylvia) that is an absolute dead ringer for him. Like I watched the show with the good lady and when I saw him she had to pause the show cause I was almost on my knees with laughter.
Thanks - I agree a thread would be good, it's fun trying to develop a method of working it out.Quote: WizardI'd be happy to discuss the peeking math with you. Maybe I'll make a separate thread for it. I pretty much use a Bayesian approach: EV(hand | no dealer BJ) = EV(hand and no dealer BJ)/Prob(no dealer BJ). However, its easier said than done....
It's a new program for me and I haven't yet checked the 999 decks against an infinite deck spreadsheet, but it's probably my method to cater for BJs that's wrong. Personally I did use something like EV(player|no DBJ)-Pr(DBJ)+Pr(DBJ)*Pr(PBJ)|Pr(DBJ) but suspect there's a small bug somewhere.
Interestingly there was a -.008% difference taking account in the cards left in the deck because of peeking. For instance opposite and Ace my original method when picking the chances of player's hands was to assume the deck had 3 Aces, 4 of everything else and 16 tens (minus what the player already had), but actually shouldn't it be 3-1/9 Aces, 4-1/9 everything else and 16 tens as you know the dealer has a non-10.
As you say it's complicated and getting what seems a viable strategy implies I'm on the right course, although I was surprised you hit 3-card soft-18 vs A.
Quote: superbriThank you for your excellent work. However I do not know how a strategy can be developed until the dealer and pit bosses are being consistent. eg the earlier example re 3:1 or twisted stud @ 20:1.
The strategy is for the base game. If the player always gets to use all five cards for the Stud Bonus, that bet has no affect on the strategy.
Quote: CrystalMath....I am now at 1.925% with 1 deck....
At last I've got 1.9248% but it needed to cater for peeking by adjustments such as 3/35 4/35 when working out which hands the player can make by hitting/doubling.Quote: Wizard...After correcting for that, we agree....
Interestingly the sim got 1.974%-2.005% for single deck shuffling after every hand, slightly higher if you deal multiple hands from each deck, up to 2.72% for 999 decks.
Player got dealt 10 and 2 against the dealer's 5, so he stayed. The dealer only had small cards and his total from the 5 cards was 16, meaning that he did not hit soft 17. They decided that the player lost the hand, as 12<16, and took his money.
Quote: skyscannerPlayer got dealt 10 and 2 against the dealer's 5, so he stayed. The dealer only had small cards and his total from the 5 cards was 16, meaning that he did not hit soft 17. They decided that the player lost the hand, as 12<16, and took his money.
According to my understanding of the rules, that is what is supposed to happen. Both sides are capped at five cards. It doesn't surprise me they were not sure at this late stage of the field trial.
This goes to show why I say a game inventor has to baby a game through the field trial, observing it for hours for situations like this.
