Lucky Charlie
Poll
 | 1 vote (8.33%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 9 votes (75%) | ||
| | 2 votes (16.66%) | ||
| | 4 votes (33.33%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 1 vote (8.33%) | ||
| | 6 votes (50%) | ||
| | 2 votes (16.66%) | ||
| | 1 vote (8.33%) |
12 members have voted
1. It can be played by itself (without having to make a blackjack wager)
2. It requires strategy, which would often be at a conflict with blackjack strategy
In other words, a player would be a fool to make this bet and a blackjack wager at the same time.
Briefly, the bet wins if the player gets to at least four cards and stands. Following is the pay table:
4 cards pays 2 to 1
5 cards pays 5 to 1
6 cards pays 25 to 1
7 cards pays 100 to 1
For the full rules and analysis, please see my new page on Lucky Charlie.
The question for the poll is would you bet the Lucky Charlie?
So your question is essentially this.... will you play a card game with a 10% house edge? I am hoping no one answers in the affirmative!
Quote: HunterhillSo it’s obviously countable, does the game shuffle after every round?
Yes.
Forgive my computer ignorance, but why 74.9 billion as opposed to an even 75?Quote: WOO ArticleThe strategy was developed mathematically, assuming infinite decks. Then, a simulation of 74.9 billion initial hands was performed to determine the odds in the table above.
Quote: GialmereForgive my computer ignorance, but why 74.9 billion as opposed to an even 75?
I tell the program how long to run. In this case I said ten hours. It just keeps playing until time expires and the count of hands is what it is.
The logic is if you stand you win 5 so receive a total of 6 units back.
If you hit you have three cards - Ace, Two or Three, which give you a 6-card hand - otherwise you lose. On an infinite deck the chance of this is 3/13. Thus you win 25, or receive a total of 26 units back. Since 3/13*26 = 6 - it is a either way decision.
With a finite number of decks there are two scenarios (ignoring the dealer's card at this stage).
(i) You only have one low card (e.g. 44442, 5444A ). So you have removed four losing cards and only one winning card. So your chance of winning is better than 3/13. So you would hit. (I suspect if the dealer has an A,2 or 3 you stand - ignoring peek effect).
(ii) You have two or more lows cards (e.g. 44433, 77AAAA). So you have removed a maximum of three losing cards and at least two winning cards. So your chance of winning is worse than 3/13 - so stand. (I suspect the dealer's card doesn't change this decision.)
Quote: charliepatrickJust having a quick look at this I have a feeling sometimes you wouldn't hit a 5-card 18.
The logic is if you stand you win 5 so receive a total of 6 units back.
If you hit you have three cards - Ace, Two or Three, which give you a 6-card hand - otherwise you lose. On an infinite deck the chance of this is 3/13. Thus you win 25, or receive a total of 26 units back. Since 3/13*26 = 6 - it is a either way decision.
With a finite number of decks there are two scenarios (ignoring the dealer's card at this stage).
(i) You only have one low card (e.g. 44442, 5444A ). So you have removed four losing cards and only one winning card. So your chance of winning is better than 3/13. So you would hit. (I suspect if the dealer has an A,2 or 3 you stand - ignoring peek effect).
(ii) You have two or more lows cards (e.g. 44433, 77AAAA). So you have removed a maximum of three losing cards and at least two winning cards. So your chance of winning is worse than 3/13 - so stand. (I suspect the dealer's card doesn't change this decision.)
I believe the game uses 8 decks shuffled each hand, so the EOR of 5 cards is not that significant.
Quote: charliepatrickJust having a quick look at this I have a feeling sometimes you wouldn't hit a 5-card 18.
Good point. The strategy was developed assuming an infinite deck, where it looks like the EV is the same either way. However, with the effect of removal, the odds should favor standing. Let me run another simulation overnight. I predict you will be proven right, but the difference will be negligible.
Event | Occurences | Probability | Pays | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Hands | 1 151 019 629 | -0.098 162 | ||
Four Card Charlie | 217 885 392 | 18.929 772% | 2 | 0.378 595 |
Five Card Charlie | 19 450 565 | 1.689 855% | 5 | 0.084 493 |
Six Card Charlie | 5 717 843 | 0.496 763% | 25 | 0.124 191 |
Seven Card Charlie | 1 178 310 | 0.102 371% | 100 | 0.102 371 |
Losers | 906 787 519 | 78.781 238% | -1 | -0.787 812 |
Interestingly splitting 3s or greater got 9.832%, 5s or greater 10.066%; so 4s is just the best decision. Also it might be possible to derive a marginal strategy based on the dealer's upcard.
Whatever, still a very sad House Edge.
Quote: WTflushI have played blackjack on one of these machines and it did not allow splitting of un-matched 10 value cards. I.e. you cannot split Queen/Jack, but you can split Jack/Jack or Ten/Ten. The casinos might be able to change this in the machine's configuration.
That is also a frequent problem with online blackjack games. I will try to return to the Suncoast today to verify this.
I assumed re-splitting is not allowed, but can you confirm or deny this?
Quote: charliepatrickJust having a quick look at this I have a feeling sometimes you wouldn't hit a 5-card 18.
Simulation results are in. Standing on a 5-card 18 lowers the house edge from 10.04% to 10.00%.
Quote: WTflushI have played blackjack on one of these machines and it did not allow splitting of un-matched 10 value cards. I.e. you cannot split Queen/Jack, but you can split Jack/Jack or Ten/Ten. The casinos might be able to change this in the machine's configuration.
I can confirm that re-splitting unlike tens is NOT allowed on the Suncoast games.
Another rule I had wrong is that if the player has blackjack, he must stand. In other words, a player blackjack is a Lucky Player loss.
A new simulation will be done in about three hours under these rule changes, but it's looking like around a 16% house edge.
In playing it, I must say it's a fun idea that I think would work as a stand alone game if the pay table were more generous, no dealer hand at all, and players may draw to a blackjack.
Quote: WizardThat is also a frequent problem with online blackjack games. I will try to return to the Suncoast today to verify this.
I assumed re-splitting is not allowed, but can you confirm or deny this?
The one I played did not allow resplitting of any cards but that is probably configurable as it would change the RTP of the base game, and I imagine the software has a few RTP options for the casinos to choose from.
16.7%!!! LOL ouch. That is offensive. Other than maybe the Big Six wheel this has got to be the worst bet in a casino right?
Next time I see these machines in a casino I'll snap a pick of the lucky charlie paytable and see if it differs
Quote: WTflushThe one I played did not allow resplitting of any cards but that is probably configurable as it would change the RTP of the base game, and I imagine the software has a few RTP options for the casinos to choose from.
That's possible. However, I think they probably allow for different pay tables only. Internet casinos are notorious for now allowing re-splitting unlike tens. I think they just don't understand proper blackjack rules. I assume the same is the case here.
Quote:16.7%!!! LOL ouch. That is offensive. Other than maybe the Big Six wheel this has got to be the worst bet in a casino right?
Oh, there are worse bets out there. Mostly side bets. I think Lucky Ladies (stingy version), Bonus Craps, and the Fire Bet are all worse.
In fact, the Lucky 99 bet on the same machines is worse at 17.42%.
Quote:Next time I see these machines in a casino I'll snap a pick of the lucky charlie paytable and see if it differs
Thanks!
Too bad about the large House edge and the automatic reshuffle. This could have been an interesting game.
