The game Fu Bacc has begun a field trial at the Hard Rock in Lake Tahoe. It also seems to have passed muster in Washington state.

Essentially, it's a fusion of blackjack and baccarat with 3CP-ish betting...

Quote:ssho88A deck of card ? cards to be shuffled after each round ?

That seems to be the case. Whether this is done to keep the math simple or to defeat counting (or both) I couldn't say (although I imagine a player at third base on a busy table could glean some information if people are mucking their cards face up).

There's another section detailing how the game is dealt. While it says it can be done by hand, it seems to assume that a standard CSM will be used spitting out three cards for each player (à la 3CP or LiR). Two of the cards are placed in front of the player to form the starting hand and the third is placed above the hand acting as the optional draw card.

Still, to english speaking people, FU might strike them the wrong way.

Quote:Gialmere

Essentially, it's a fusion of blackjack and baccarat with 3CP-ish betting...

I'm intrigued.

The game already feels slow, but I think this is not a problem.

The betting limits don't seem to be clearly specified.

Ante is 1, play is 2, but... limit on the tie? Lucky Monkey?

It does sound like it's built for a single deck carnival shuffler, like a Shark Trap or an iDeal.

With the ante losing on a tie, one would think the tie should pay 8 to 1.

Quote:DieterWith the ante losing on a tie, one would think the tie should pay 8 to 1.

Except that the rules say you can bet on Tie without betting on the hand itself, so there is not necessarily an Ante at risk.

Quote:ThatDonGuyExcept that the rules say you can bet on Tie without betting on the hand itself, so there is not necessarily an Ante at risk.

I don't have a computer handy, but 7 to 1 sounds like the kind of edge you might see on an eight zero roulette wheel.

Quote:DieterI don't have a computer handy, but 7 to 1 sounds like the kind of edge you might see on an eight zero roulette wheel.

Maybe if you're assuming perfect strategy on the Ante bet, but what if you're "playing for the tie"? Again, this assumes you don't have to make an Ante bet in order to make a Tie bet, which, if you ask me, doesn't make that much sense.

Quote:Gialmere

Still, to english speaking people, FU might strike them the wrong way.

Someone who just lost on regular baccarat might sit down at this game just because they appreciate the sentiment. "FU bacc!"

Quote:ThatDonGuyMaybe if you're assuming perfect strategy on the Ante bet, but what if you're "playing for the tie"? Again, this assumes you don't have to make an Ante bet in order to make a Tie bet, which, if you ask me, doesn't make that much sense.

The rules did say "at casino's discretion" to play the tie without the ante; thanks for making me go back and read it again. I pessimistically assume that the ante will be commonly required to get cards.

Quote:gordonm888How is this game like blackjack? It seems to be a baccarat variant.

Multiple player hands vs 1 dealer hand.

Each player may decide if they fold (surrender), hit, or stand.

The hand reckoning is like baccarat.

Can anyone confirm?

Quote:gordonm888This is what I get for Fu Bacc Basic Strategy. In a few spots, namely 5v5, 1v5 and 0v4 the basic strategy depends upon the composition of the player's 2 card hand.

Can anyone confirm?

Did you check in against the strategy card in the OP?

Quote:unJonQuote:gordonm888This is what I get for Fu Bacc Basic Strategy. In a few spots, namely 5v5, 1v5 and 0v4 the basic strategy depends upon the composition of the player's 2 card hand.

Can anyone confirm?

Did you check in against the strategy card in the OP?

D'oh. No, I didn't. Checking that (hard-to-read) figure, I see I missed a few things. I'll keep working.

I'm not re-inventing the wheel. My Fu Bacc spreadsheet allows me to remove cards from the deck that are seen in other players' hands. And with <50 cards remaining and a Play bet that raises the wager to 3X, the influence of individual cards is occasionally. . ahem! . . non-trivial.

Example : for 2v5

2,0 vs 5 HIT EV= -0.2175

7,5 vs 5 HIT EV = -1.0879

I mean, that a crazy difference!

Any thoughts on the HE?

Quote:Gialmere

Any thoughts on the HE?

Not yet. It may take me a while.* I am hoping that someone in the forum will be inspired to run a simulation to calculate HE now that the correct basic strategy is posted in a clear fashion.

* this game has approximately 550 (3-card) starting hands, and at least 11 different player outcomes for each of those hands (to evaluate Hit and Stand options.) And then of course there are 10 different dealer "2nd-cards" for each of those and 10 "dealer 3rd cards" for over half of the those. So there is a lot of hands. I think I have rigorously evaluated all of the player and dealer outcomes for about 20-25% of the 550 different starting hands.

Quote:gordonm888Okay, I have calculated the various options for many more combinations, and I now get this as the Basic Strategy.

Very nice work.

It would seem that if there are other cards exposed, there may be a more refined optimal strategy.

The dealing procedure is not entirely unambiguous on which cards are to be face up and when; there may be some variation house to house.

Quote:DieterVery nice work.

It would seem that if there are other cards exposed, there may be a more refined optimal strategy.

The dealing procedure is not entirely unambiguous on which cards are to be face up and when; there may be some variation house to house.

You may sit at Box 5 and change the strategy according to the cards show on the table( it is single deck game !). It depends on how high the house edge.

Based on Gordon’s basic strategy and combination analysis, the house edge is 3.0516%

Quote:ssho88You may sit at Box 5 and change the strategy according to the cards show on the table( it is single deck game !). It depends on how high the house edge.

Based on Gordon’s basic strategy and combination analysis, the house edge is 3.0516%

Thank you so much, ssho88. You are one of the unheralded math geniuses in the WOV forums.

Quote:gordonm888Thank you so much, ssho88. You are one of the unheralded math geniuses in the WOV forums.

I like to analyze casino games, it’s just a simple combination analysis, it’s not a big deal.

By the way, removing two each cards "5" and card "6" will give the player an approximately +1% advantage. However, this only applicable if dealer not shuffle cards after each round.

Quote:ssho88You may sit at Box 5 and change the strategy according to the cards show on the table( it is single deck game !). It depends on how high the house edge.

Based on Gordon’s basic strategy and combination analysis, the house edge is 3.0516%

Is that the house edge based on ante? What do you get for the Element of Risk?

Quote:unJonIs that the house edge based on ante? What do you get for the Element of Risk?

House edge based on ante.

If not raise when TAKE PAY or FOLD, average bet per round = 2.5703 units, element of risk = -1.1873%

Quote:UCivanDO you think this is a fun game? Why would you / someone play it? Just because it's there? Thanks, would like to know.

Not my style, but I can see it appealing to some baccarat players.

Allows player decision, like chemin de fer, is house banked like punto banco / mini baccarat.

With the ante/play base and side bets, it may draw in some carnival game players.

It's got potential, and I'd definitely observe if I saw it.

I'd be willing to play 3 deals to get a feel for it before making a decision.

First, I calculated the diagrams below, which are the margins, in units of ΔEV, between Hit/Stand and Hit/Fold for all cases where the ΔEV is < 0.10. In other words, the images below show all the 'close call' strategy decisions that I have found and provide a numerical indication as to how close those decisions are. So, the smaller the number on the charts below, the closer the decision is (and the easier it will be to find situations where the decision is overturn. The sign on the numbers refers to the change in the HIT EV that would need to occur to flip the baseline strategy.

Ex: for 96v0 the baseline strategy is Hit with an EV of -0.3085 which is better than the Stand EV of -0.3155, so the diagram shows that the Hit EV is larger than the Stand EV by 0.007.

Altogether about 18% of all situations are a close call and thus susceptible to flipping the optimal baseline decision because of the removal of cards from the deck.

Because the cards removed from the deck will only be in the direction of flipping the decision with a probability < than 50%, that means that only <18%/2 or <9% of the time will the player even have a chance of flipping the decision. In order to overcome an HE of 3.0 %, you would need to improve the EV of all 9% of those decisions by an average of 0.33. This is NOT going to be possible, not even close. IMO, this Fu Bacc game does not appear to be an AP opportunity. However, my SWAG is that a player might be able to reduce the HE by as much as 0.3% or more by taking into account the cards you see on the table when considering how to play some of these close call situations.

When I get a moment, I will post some of the EOR coefficients I have calculated for some of these decisions. (unless someone objects.)

Quote:gordonm888Because the cards removed from the deck will only be in the direction of flipping the decision with a probability < than 50%, that means that only <18%/2 or <9% of the time will the player even have a chance of flipping the decision. In order to overcome an HE of 3.0 %, you would need to improve the EV of all 9% of those decisions by an average of 0.33. This is NOT going to be possible, not even close. IMO, this Fu Bacc game does not appear to be an AP opportunity. However, my SWAG is that a player might be able to reduce the HE by as much as 0.3% or more by taking into account the cards you see on the table when considering how to play some of these close call situations.

When I get a moment, I will post some of the EOR coefficients I have calculated for some of these decisions. (unless someone objects.)

What a good and detailed analysis of the close call situations !

You mentioned : Because the cards removed from the deck will only be in the direction of flipping the decision with a probability < than 50% . . .

Are you saying that cards removed from the deck will lower the house edge(favor to the players) < 50%(close to 48.5% ?) of the time ? So player will ONLY have a chance to alter the strategy under lower house edge(due to the removal of cards) + close call situations ?

When the removed card reduces the house edge, close call situations of depleted shoe may more than 18%(based on full deck) of the time ? In any case, I agree with you that this will not help players overcome the huge 3% house advantage.

Quote:ssho88What a good and detailed analysis of the close call situations !

You mentioned : Because the cards removed from the deck will only be in the direction of flipping the decision with a probability < than 50% . . .

Are you saying that cards removed from the deck will lower the house edge(favor to the players) < 50%(close to 48.5% ?) of the time ? So player will ONLY have a chance to alter the strategy under lower house edge(due to the removal of cards) + close call situations ?

When the removed card reduces the house edge, close call situations of depleted shoe may more than 18%(based on full deck) of the time ? In any case, I agree with you that this will not help players overcome the huge 3% house advantage.

What I meant is that, for example, if you need low cards to be removed from the deck in order to flip a particular decision that about 50% of the time the cards in other player's hands will, on average, be high cards - 50% of the time they will influence the math in the direction of creating a larger incentive to stay with the basic strategy.

Quote:gordonm888What I meant is that, for example, if you need low cards to be removed from the deck in order to flip a particular decision that about 50% of the time the cards in other player's hands will, on average, be high cards - 50% of the time they will influence the math in the direction of creating a larger incentive to stay with the basic strategy.

Thank you, I've now understood.

For a particular close call situation, say the basic strategy is HIT, however, with card counting, 50% of the time will alter the strategy to STAND and 50% of the time will create a LARGER INCENTIVE to HIT(remain same as basic strategy), which does not help to improve the player edge at all !

What this FU Bacc reminds me of, is how some players at Baccarat ask the dealer to “Open 1” as in open just 1 card on the opposing side as they start to examine their own hand. Now, if the opened card happens to be a 9, people start quaking in their boots and hoping that the face down card is like a 2, or 4, or something other than a face or ten.

I suppose to some extent, in that there are so many tens and face cards in the deck – more than any other single type of card – there is some justification to assuming that a face up 9 (or 8) on the opposing side is worse than any other face up card in Baccarat, but the key difference here versus blackjack, is that for example in blackjack, when the face up card is a 10 or face, there is justification for both that the face down card might also be a face or ten, making the hand a pat 20, and justification for that it might be an ace, making a blackjack.

In other words, in blackjack, there are certain face up cards that have a higher probability to add up instantly to the two highest hands – 20 or 21, and at a minimum, have a possibility of adding up instantly to the two highest hands. On the other hand, most face up cards in Blackjack have no possibility of adding up to a 20 or 21, for example a face up 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 – no chance of adding up to a two card 20 or 21.

In Baccarat though, there is absolutely no single card, as displayed face up, that could not add up with the right second card, to equal the two highest hands, 8 or 9. 1 could add with 7 or 8, 2 with 6 or 7, 3 with 5 or 6, 4 with another 4 or a 5, and so on. Even a 0 (ten or face) could have an 8 or 9 under it.

And this, without any complex analysis, is why knowing the face up card of the dealer doesn’t create as much of an insight into the possible hand that you’re playing against in Baccarat, as it does in Blackjack, which would in and of itself, limit the range of FU Bacc strategies that could be utilized to gain any kind of edge.

If you’re trying to compare this against regular American Baccarat played with no edge 😉 – fine. But it’s not comparable to Blackjack for the reason iterated above. And if it has a house edge of 3% then it’s not even as good as regular American Baccarat played with no edge.

Quote:MDawgToo much overthinking.

(...)

And if it has a house edge of 3% then it’s not even as good as regular American Baccarat played with no edge.

I don't think the math is going to get anyone excited to play. Those who do choose to play will find some other aspect more interesting than the math.

I am curious as to your opinions on the game tempo of "regular" (whichever you like) vs Fu Baccarat.

Quote:DieterQuote:MDawgToo much overthinking.

(...)

And if it has a house edge of 3% then it’s not even as good as regular American Baccarat played with no edge.

I don't think the math is going to get anyone excited to play. Those who do choose to play will find some other aspect more interesting than the math.

I am curious as to your opinions on the game tempo of "regular" (whichever you like) vs Fu Baccarat.

Not really, what if players can use counting/other advanced techniques to reduce the house edge to 2%, so the element of risk is only about 0.8%. Player may still can get +ve ev with other rebate program/promotions.

Quote:ssho88Player may still can get +ve ev with other rebate program/promotions.

Anything is possible, but I think that the game is more likely to appeal to people who like baccarat, but think that they shouldn't be bound by the standard drawing rules on the player hand.

Over the years many Baccarat players have approached me with different versions of Baccarat they wanted me to finance, and I haven’t found one that I would want to play myself, which is why I have declined. Most of the proposed versions of Baccarat I have seen center around special high payout side bets. Let’s see how FU Bacc spreads, if it does.

Quote:MDawgWhatever rebate programs/promotions people like me get we'd want to apply to a lower house edge game than one starting with 3%. FU Bacc will probably appeal to those same Baccarat players who think that so much information is imparted by “Opening 1” card on the opposing side.

Over the years many Baccarat players have approached me with different versions of Baccarat they wanted me to finance, and I haven’t found one that I would want to play myself, which is why I have declined. Most of the proposed versions of Baccarat I have center around special high payout side bets. Let’s see how FU Bacc spreads, if it does.

People approached you to finance???? This is EPIC!!!!!!!!!

Again, I am listing this info because apparently this game exposes the first two cards that have been dealt to each of the other players at the table.

Removed Card | 0v1 | 0v3 | 0v4 | 0v5 | 3v6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 0.0093 | 0.0204 | 0.0238 | 0.0375 | 0.0288 |

2 | 0.0048 | 0.0194 | 0.0374 | 0.0458 | 0.0395 |

3 | 0.0064 | 0.0294 | 0.0428 | 0.0540 | 0.0354 |

4 | 0.0060 | 0.0302 | 0.0468 | 0.0622 | -0.0598 |

5 | 0.0105 | 0.0284 | 0.0410 | -0.0314 | -0.0770 |

6 | 0.0080 | 0.0284 | -0.0554 | -0.0433 | -0.0953 |

7 | -0.0001 | -0.0687 | -0.0661 | -0.0601 | 0.0213 |

8 | -0.0063 | -0.0806 | -0.0744 | -0.0727 | 0.0183 |

9 | -0.1102 | -0.0931 | -0.0855 | -0.0895 | 0.0079 |

0 | 0.0122 | 0.0209 | 0.0239 | 0.0256 | 0.0185 |

0v1: The EOR coefficient for 9 is -0.11, the rest of the EOR coefficients are <0.02. Basically a 9 is desirable because it gives player a total of 9 or, if drawn by dealer, it makes dealer draw a third card to a 0. So, if a 9 is seen, you should probably fold a 0v1.

0v3: The EOR coefficients for 7,8 and 9 are in the range -0.068 to -0.0931, so if you see these cards on the table they are reducing your HIT EV by a significant amount and should influence you to fold.

0v4: If you see 2 cards and both are in the range of 6-9, you should fold; if they are in the range of 0-5 you should Hit. The EOR coefficients are huge: removing just one 9 from the deck reduces your HIT EV by 0.085!

0v5: Understandably, the EOR coefficients for all ranks here are either hugely positive or hugely negative. Player's 0 hopes to draw a 6,7,8 or 9, whereas Dealer hopes to draw a 4,3,2 or 1.

3v6: Basic Strategy for 3v6 is always to fold, but if you see two cards in the range of (0,1,2,3,6,7) then you should hit a 30v6 or a 21v6. With a Player hand that totals 3 you hope to draw a card in the range of 4-6, so if you see those (4,5,6) cards on the table (in another player's hand) it is a strong incentive to fold.

Removed Card | 5v0 | 5v1 | 5v2 | 5v5 | 4v7 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | -0.0004 | 0.0034 | 0.0086 | -0.0543 | 0.0299 |

2 | -0.0133 | -0.0123 | -0.0037 | -0.0606 | 0.0368 |

3 | -0.0204 | -0.0243 | -0.0538 | -0.0680 | -0.0486 |

4 | -0.0356 | -0.0703 | -0.1074 | -0.0769 | -0.0737 |

5 | 0.0394 | 0.0007 | 0.0112 | 0.0440 | -0.0905 |

6 | -0.0115 | 0.0026 | 0.0160 | 0.0446 | 0.0172 |

7 | -0.0061 | 0.0065 | 0.0223 | 0.0443 | 0.0140 |

8 | -0.0005 | 0.0155 | 0.0237 | 0.0434 | 0.0089 |

9 | 0.0081 | 0.0219 | 0.0227 | 0.0438 | 0.0189 |

0 | 0.0097 | 0.0157 | 0.0173 | 0.0044 | 0.0192 |

5v0: The EORs here are not huge, but note that the EOR coefficient of 4 is -0.036 and 5 is approximately +0.04. And 5v0 is one of the closest calls of all of the decisions, so this one is worth studying.

5v1: Another set of decisions that is very close. The removal of of a 4 influences you strongly away from HIT and towards STAND because the EOR coefficient is -0.07

5v2: Similar to the above, much of your HIT equity lies in the chance of drawing a 4 because the 4s in the deck have the potential to give you a 9 and to give the Dealer a 6, which is favored to beat your 5 (plus a drawn card.) The EOR coefficient for 4 is -0.107 and the removal of a 4 from the deck strongly influences you to stand.

5v5 Both Player and Dealer are drawing to a 5. If you see two other cards that are in the range 1-4 you should stand, if the two cards are in both in the range 5-9 you should HIT. Its easy peasy.

4v7 Basic Strategy says to fold these 4v7 hands except HIT when your 4 is an 86 or 77. However, if you see that a 5 or 4 has been removed from the deck, it will strongly influence you to fold those hands. Similarly, a 31v7 is a FOLD in Basic Strategy, but only by a margin of 0.035, so if you see (only) two removed cards and they are in the range of (1,2,8,9) you should HIT that hand.

I hope this post helps general readers to understand the mathematics underlying the use of other available information at the table.

I've only just started looking at this. I get the same strategy but needed to make the assumption either party can take a 3rd card even if the other has a Natural (i.e. not as per regular Baccarat).Quote:gordonm888...Ex: for 96v0 the baseline strategy is Hit with an EV of -0.3085 which is better than the Stand EV of -0.3155, so the diagram shows that the Hit EV is larger than the Stand EV by 0.007...

I get slightly different figures for Player having 9 6 vs 0. The stand is -.0328231, which I also worked out by looking at all the possible next two cards for the dealer (e.g. 0-5 and another ... 6-9 then stand) and got Player Win 986, Tie 184, Lose 1182. Hit is still better as -0.310501, but I haven't checked that figure. It's late here so I'm calling it a night.

The spreadsheet suggested an HE of 3.05%, but as I get a weird figure adding "Natural" logic, I'm not so sure of that figure.

*** Math at Wizard of Odds: LuckyDrawBaccaratWoO.com

"Lucky Draw Baccarat could be loosely described as a cross between Baccarat and Blackjack."

Lucky Draw Baccarat® ©2010. Invented by Stephen Au-Yeung. LuckyDrawBaccarat.com

*** EXCLUSIVE-Distributor: TCS-JohnHuxley. LuckyDrawBaccaratTCS.com

* GLI Approved: http://bit.ly/2I04WTT

** Basic Strategy & EORs: http://bit.ly/2Uwehc0

* Australia Gambling Commission Approved. https://bit.ly/3vwv2mE

* UK Gambling Commission Approved. http://bit.ly/2YPwsMO

I've played it in the UK (Reading and Manchester 2011-12).Quote:UCivanStephen, do you have any placement of your fine "Lucky Draw Baccarat" any where in USA, UK or Africa?

Thanks for asking.

It was never in the USA and Africa.

it was in Australia for a few years.

it was in a few Casinos in the UK be for the covid-19.

BTW, 2 of my My New Table Games are Play-in USA Online-Casino (Casino Hold'em®) and (Unlimited-21 Blackjack Auto-Split®):

Game-1 (Casino Hold'em®): There are 25+ USA Online-Casinos Using Casino Hold'em®: https://bit.ly/372rXAf

*** THE FIRST Live-Dealer Poker Play-in USA in 2017. CasinoHoldemUSA.com

FREE-Play Casino Hold'em®: PlayCasinoHoldem.com

FREE Live-Dealer Casino Hold'em®: LiveCasinoHoldem.com

FREE Live-Dealer 2-Hand Casino Hold'em®: LiveCasinoHoldem2.com

Game-2 (Unlimited-21 Blackjack Auto-Split®): There are 9+ USA Online-Casinos Using Live-Dealer Unlimited-21 Blackjack Auto-Split®: https://bit.ly/3l1q3bq

*** THE FIRST Live-Dealer Unlimited-21 Blackjack Auto-Splits® Play-in USA in 2018. UnlimitedBlackjackUSA.com

FREE Live-Dealer Unlimited-21 Blackjack Auto-Splits®: LiveUnlimitedBlackjack.com

As for Land-Based Casinos, I have Africa's Number-1 and THE FIRST Triple-Pot Progressive® for Casino-Poker Table-Games: https://bit.ly/2TBuVZh

*** Raise'em Poker Plus® (aka Raise'em Poker Xtra®) Invented by Stephen Au-Yeung ©2012. RaiseemPoker.com

* THE Number-1 Poker-Progressive Table-Game in Africa. http://bit.ly/2u1qy90

* THE FIRST Triple-Pot Progressive® for ANY Casino-Poker Table-Games. RaiseemPoker.com

*** Exclusive-DISTRIBUTOR: TCS-JonHuxley. RaiseemPokerTCS.com

TCS-JonHuxley's Info-Sheet: https://bit.ly/3zqALgj

** Math at Wizard of Odds: RaiseemPokerWoO.com

*** Also in Africa Land-Based Casinos:

* Blackjack Block Bonus® ©2003. BlackjackBlock.com

** Math at Wizard of Odds: BlackjackBlockWoO.com

* Block-Pro® Blackjack-Progressive (THE FIRST Triple-Pot Progressive® for Blackjack) ©2008. BlockProBlackjack.com

** Math at Wizard of Odds: BlockProWoO.com

* Baccarat Power® 8s™ (aka Rapid 8's®) Progressive™. THE FIRST Triple-Pot Progressive® for any Baccarat-Games ©2013. Power8sBaccarat.com

** Math at Wizard of Odds: Power8sWoO.com

Switzerland Land-Based Casinos: Contrast® Bonus-Baccarat™ with Switzerland Gaming-Commission Approved. ContrastBonus.com

THE FIRST Baccarat Side-bet based on the Contrast-Color of the Player's and the Banker's TOTAL Dealt-cards.

** Math at Wizard of Odds: ContrastBonusWoO.com

Ireland Land-Based Casinos: Ten-20® Bonus-Blackjack™ with USA-NEVADA Gaming-Commission Approved. https://bit.ly/3f17eRC

THE FIRST Baccarat Side-bet based on the Contrast-Color of the Player's and the Banker's TOTAL Dealt-cards.

** Math at Wizard of Odds: Ten20WoO.com

* Blackjack Block Bonus® ©2003. BlackjackBlock.com

** Math at Wizard of Odds: BlackjackBlockWoO.com

FYI, More New Table Games has been Signed and will be launched this Year. I Will up-date them at: NeverEndingNews.com

For more about Me, my NEW Table Games inventions, and Other creations Go-to: NeverEndingNews.com

Thanks for reading. Over and Out.

Legend of New Table Games® LegendOfNewTableGames.com

Quote:charliepatrickI've only just started looking at this. I get the same strategy but needed to make the assumption either party can take a 3rd card even if the other has a Natural (i.e. not as per regular Baccarat).

I get slightly different figures for Player having 9 6 vs 0. The stand is -.0328231, which I also worked out by looking at all the possible next two cards for the dealer (e.g. 0-5 and another ... 6-9 then stand) and got Player Win 986, Tie 184, Lose 1182. Hit is still better as -0.310501, but I haven't checked that figure. It's late here so I'm calling it a night.

The spreadsheet suggested an HE of 3.05%, but as I get a weird figure adding "Natural" logic, I'm not so sure of that figure.

For some reason, I transferred the wrong numbers to my diagram for the 5v0 hands. Here is the corrected diagram.

32v0 is very interesting. I get HIT = -0.528846432 and STAND = -0.528911565

I agree with the stand number but got Hit=-.547 148 647. These are the first numbers I got.Quote:gordonm888...32v0 is very interesting. I get HIT = -0.528846432 and STAND = -0.528911565

The denominator is 56598528 = 512*49*48*47 and numerators 29935616 or 30967808.

P: 3 2 D: 0

StWin: 21946368 StTie: 4090880 SLose: 30561280

DrWin: 21385216 DrTie: 5258240 DLose: 29955072

Act'n: Stand

EVStd: -0.5289115646258503

EVDrw: -0.5471486466927197

I have yet to work through all the possibilities.

NDX: 1 CanNatDraw: 1 P1: 3 P2: 2 D1: 0

Player:329 09- dsL(4-9) 288768

Player:329 08- dsL(4-8) 385024

Player:329 07- dsL(4-7) 385024

Player:329 06- dsL(4-6) 385024

Player:329 059 ddT(4-4) 24576

Player:329 058 ddW(4-3) 32768

.....

Player:320 005 ddT(5-5) 430080

Player:320 004 ddW(5-4) 430080

Player:320 003 ddW(5-3) 322560

Player:320 002 ddW(5-2) 322560

Player:320 001 ddW(5-1) 430080

Player:320 000 ddW(5-0) 1397760

Player:32- 09- ssL(5-9) 4620288

Player:32- 08- ssL(5-8) 4620288

Player:32- 07- ssL(5-7) 4620288

Player:32- 06- ssL(5-6) 4620288

Player:32- 059 sdW(5-4) 385024

Player:32- 058 sdW(5-3) 385024

Player:32- 057 sdW(5-2) 385024

....

Player:32- 003 sdW(5-3) 1082880

Player:32- 002 sdW(5-2) 1082880

Player:32- 001 sdW(5-1) 1443840

Player:32- 000 sdW(5-0) 5053440