No U Blackjack

I'm not really about to try and market a game, even if I had confidence in one, but this is by far the most appropriate board to ask.

"No U" allows a player who doesn't like his blackjack hand to swap it with the dealer's before taking any other action. Should he win, a 50% commission is paid on the winnings. Player's former hand is played out the house way (S17 or H17) after the dealer's hand.

This is similar to surrender in function. I can't figure out the change in house edge, however. The new chance of winning is not the same as the original chance of losing, because your original hand's turn comes after the dealer - so dealer busting is an automatic loser for this player.
My guess is that the shift in odds should be moderate, but greater than with surrender. So if anyone could help with at least a semi-accurate estimate, I'd be interested.



Alternate variant: The player can choose to stand or hit after the hole card is revealed. If his action differs from the house way, it's indicated by a marker and only affects him. This is more true to the idea of swapping hands, but overly advantageous for the player, so I expect the odds to be non-viable. The name's a joke and obviously not marketable.

Quote: P90

Player's former hand is played out the house way (S17 or H17) after the dealer's hand.

This part is confusing to me. Isn't the players former hand now the dealer's hand?

I'm also confused about how this would work with multiple players...

Player 1 doesn't like his hand, so he swaps with dealer.

Player 2 is ok with his hand, he plays it out.

Player 3 likes the dealers new hand (formerly Player 1's hand), so he swaps with the dealer.

Player 4 doesn't like his hand but likes Player 3's old hand, now the dealer's, even less so he keeps his hand.

etc.?

Seems like it would give an advantage to sitting first base as they have first option on changing hands, and the others have to wait and potentially only get a hand that someone else didn't want.

if i understand it correctly, this is the stupidest game for the house.
every hand, someone will give the dealer a 12-16 hand. go figure the bust rate.

Nothing wrong with throwing some ideas around. But I would scrap these.

The problem is that once you've surrendered, you can't win. It sounds obvious, but what it means is that it's very easy to see when you should surrender: when your odds of winning are less than one in four. If you switch with the dealer, you can still win, so they're not at all comparable, commission or no. So you're going to have to set the rules to royally screw the player to get any money from this game, and then no one will play, since they won't see past the obvious bad rules to consider the subtler good one.

And that's assuming a single player - I don't know how you expect this to work with a full table, unless maybe the dealer maintains a different hand for each player, but that doesn't seem very fun.

Quote: 24Bingo

The problem is that once you've surrendered, you can't win. It sounds obvious, but what it means is that it's very easy to see when you should surrender: when your odds of winning are less than one in four. If you switch with the dealer, you can still win, so they're not at all comparable, commission or no. So you're going to have to set the rules to royally screw the player to get any money from this game, and then no one will play, since they won't see past the obvious bad rules to consider the subtler good one.

Bingo! - and as is also your name. Exactly right.
If you surrender, you cannot lose again, but if you play, you CAN INDEED lose again. And if you win, it ain't much of a win. Might not be fun or "gambling juice" to a real casino player. For a game to have a shot, it has to be both fun to play and dealable, in addition to be profitable for the casino house. To be honest, this just does not sound like that.

Quote: 24Bingo

And that's assuming a single player - I don't know how you expect this to work with a full table, unless maybe the dealer maintains a different hand for each player, but that doesn't seem very fun.

It would be a tactical or logistical Fiasco to implement this as a real table game in a real casino. Cannot be reasonably dealt or managed by casino operations, IMHO.

Perhaps it is logistically possible as an online game, in house banked heads up play, which you can do online. AND IF enough players find it a sexy enough idea. Big if right there. Considering that so MANY Blackjack variants have already been done and failed...

And You all have got to admit here, straight-up Blackjack is as damn near a perfect game invention as is!! there is VERY little wrong with Standard Blackjack, which has been a public "free-to-license" game for ages, and it makes up the majority of BJ base games, aside from some dirt-cheat side bets here and there.

- I could not see any new one Blackjack ever again coming along - that is, prior to Free Bet Blackjack, which is as close to perfect and as "out of left-field novel and brilliant" as you can get, and so I only think is that is the exception that proves the rule, and I also say this as a moderately successful game designer also.

The problem on designing NEW Blackjack games is that:
1. Free Bet Blackjack will be the nail in the coffin to ALL other aspiring and semi-successful BJ game designers - if it becomes a massive hit, which is where I am TAKING the odds, not fading it. [This scenario would just lead the "following wanna-be BJ designer Salmon" to their deaths trying to duplicate it, when it seems now impossible, but such attempts will make money for mathematicians such as CRM, Eliot, and Steve How, and some patent attorneys in the process. Think about that. Most of the money that gaming mathematicians and patent attorneys make is on games that never make it when there was little competition. Now the playing field has changed tremendously. It IS a huge gamble!]

2. Free Bet Blackjack is the nail in the coffin to ALL other BJ game designers - if it becomes a abject failure. [As it would make Salmon say, "why be a Salmon now, if the King of all modern BJ designers is shot down on a fantastic effort, after creating an obscenely gorgeous game that is fantastic to play, and is fully backed by the AT&T of Gaming, Shufflemaster..."] One of the problems of being a successful game designer on your first go-around is failing on "album release' #2," - the Sophmore effect, so to speak, which you MAY be allowed from game distributors AFTER proving your mettle on go-around #1, and after it looks REALLY good, which FB-BJ does. I think this applies here, because if BJ Switch was Mr. G.H.'s "Freshman effort," then his Free Bet Blackjack is some Harvard/Oxford grad-school level shit. But getting game #1 out is next to impossible without a unamimous "Dude, your game is AWESOME" vote on a gamblers' forum BEFORE you try to impress an experienced game distributor, so a majority negative vote from us here is a "seriously, don't get your hopes up at all" kind of thing. This is not being rude, it is being frank. Table Game design is a brutal business, and anything less than a "sure shot" is no shot to take.

3. the third scenario is "what if G.H.'s new BJ game does only moderately well, and in a piddling/mediocre fashion?" So then the new BJ game market has been poisoned by other factors, - as a tremendously inspired and sharp effort new BJ effort by one of the best BJ game designers, - and fully supported by the largest of table games distributors, would only show that the BJ market is declining, in spite of the very best of efforts - and by the very top experts in the business.

Currently, there are something like two dozen sharp Blackjack variants, - MANY of which are public domain, as well as about 45 usable side bets for casino Blackjack to boot - many of which are free, or dirt cheap to license. The only real players in the BJ market are Blackjack Switch as a basic game, and Lucky ladies, 21+3, Lucky Lucky, and Bust-it as side bets. People may look at the Casino Table Games Pit and an Endless Frontier, but it really needs to be looked at as an extremely limited and finite area of immense competition.

If you haven't developed a Blackjack game or side bet that makes people say:
1. "Wow, Dude that game is just freakin' AWESOME," - coming from serious Blackjack Players [like at this forum] - and...
2. A gaming patent attorney, like Richard Newman or John Muskin to say, "There is NO obstacle on your patent," and
3. A professional gaming mathematician to say, "Your game's mathematical numbers line up just perfectly, in terms of house edge and table hold...", and:
4. A game distributor like Shufflemaster or DEQ to say, "Yes, we think that the Blackjack game that you developed in your garage [or on your kitchen table] during your weekends will indeed revolutionize the table games gaming industry...."

Then it might an expensive expedition that might not make it to the promised land in the long run.

You have submitted your idea, here and now, - to a world-wide Internet Forum of serious gamblers; consider the voting feedback before you contact Roger S. or Steve J., to refine your idea, if you wish to go forward, to to cut losses before patent attorneys or gaming math is involved.

Do take a look at two items here:
1. The thread of Free Bet Blackjack, which is a NEW blackjack game that has a great shot at making it, at https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gaming-business/game-inventors/10284-free-bet-blackjack-intro-golden-nugget/

and

2. The story of game developers [of "WhoopAss Poker"] - who followed through for too long, at: http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Nov-20-Mon-2006/business/10854748.html

Quote: P90

I'm not really about to try and market a game, even if I had confidence in one, but this is by far the most appropriate board to ask.

"No U" allows a player who doesn't like his blackjack hand to swap it with the dealer's before taking any other action. Should he win, a 50% commission is paid on the winnings. Player's former hand is played out the house way (S17 or H17) after the dealer's hand.

This is similar to surrender in function. I can't figure out the change in house edge, however. The new chance of winning is not the same as the original chance of losing, because your original hand's turn comes after the dealer - so dealer busting is an automatic loser for this player.
My guess is that the shift in odds should be moderate, but greater than with surrender. So if anyone could help with at least a semi-accurate estimate, I'd be interested.



Alternate variant: The player can choose to stand or hit after the hole card is revealed. If his action differs from the house way, it's indicated by a marker and only affects him. This is more true to the idea of swapping hands, but overly advantageous for the player, so I expect the odds to be non-viable. The name's a joke and obviously not marketable.

The casino's exposure to team play would be demoralizing. You would always pass the dealer the worst known hand. Five people could play as a team, not counting, and be fully within the Rules. If three players have x>18, for example, and one player has 18, and the other has x<17 give the dealer the 18 and guarantee the team +1 bet, minimum.

Would the dealer still peek for BJ? I suppose not because it woud violate the trade option unless it is stated that a dealer dealt BJ ends the hand immediately. If the dealer is not going to be peeking for BJ, then if one of the players has a moderately good hitting hand, I say he trades for the dealer ten. It's better to play against a known result. In fact, you could simply count up how many hands beat one player, and if it's 3/5, you trade.

The game has to be heads-up, absolutely no other choice. If it were a heads-up game, I'd probably rather surrender, at least I know I am getting half of my money back that way. I don't actually know the dealer's hand, so I might be pulling a hand that is as bad as mine.

I'm confused by the player losing if the dealer busts and the dealer plays first. That's not my hand, anymore, it's the dealer's hand. If I switch places with the dealer, the dealer should automatically lose if he is playing first and busts.

The only conceivable way this could work would be in an online setting, where you could play heads up and determining half of an odd-sized bet would be done instantly.

You would definitely take this option more often than you would take surrender, because it's more valuable in most cases. In most cases I can think of, instead of having the other 50% returned to you, it now rides on a hand where your first card is a good one and the dealer is known to have a stiff. Basic strategy gets really extreme when you know the dealer is holding a 16. Swap a 16 for a 10, your second card is also a ten, it's time to split. Swap a 16 for a nine, get an ace with your nine, you're doubling. And so forth.

This rule would easily be worth more than even early surrender, which is 0.2% IIRC. Would probably completely eradicate the house edge at a normal game, which means you'd need a new source of house advantage.

Quote: Mission146

The casino's exposure to team play would be demoralizing. You would always pass the dealer the worst known hand. Five people could play as a team, not counting, and be fully within the Rules. If three players have x>18, for example, and one player has 18, and the other has x<17 give the dealer the 18 and guarantee the team +1 bet, minimum.

The game has to be heads-up, absolutely no other choice.

I think you're confusing this with player banking in Pai Gow where ALL the players play against the new player banker, and the "swap" occurs before the cards are dealt.


As I see it, in No U, each player has the option of swapping. Anyone who doesn't swap, plays against the dealer's original hand.

But therein lies a new problem. If multiple players swap, do they all now have the options to split and double their dealer's hand? What if there isn't a concensus on how to play it?

Quote: CRMousseau

The only conceivable way this could work would be in an online setting, where you could play heads up and determining half of an odd-sized bet would be done instantly.

You would definitely take this option more often than you would take surrender, because it's more valuable in most cases. In most cases I can think of, instead of having the other 50% returned to you, it now rides on a hand where your first card is a good one and the dealer is known to have a stiff. Basic strategy gets really extreme when you know the dealer is holding a 16. Swap a 16 for a 10, your second card is also a ten, it's time to split. Swap a 16 for a nine, get an ace with your nine, you're doubling. And so forth.

This rule would easily be worth more than even early surrender, which is 0.2% IIRC. Would probably completely eradicate the house edge at a normal game, which means you'd need a new source of house advantage.

You would not be able to accomplish the middle paragraph, the OP has stated that you would be automatically playing House hitting Rules if you swap.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I think you're confusing this with player banking in Pai Gow where ALL the players play against the new player banker, and the "swap" occurs before the cards are dealt.


As I see it, in No U, each player has the option of swapping. Anyone who doesn't swap, plays against the dealer's original hand.

But therein lies a new problem. If multiple players swap, do they all now have the options to split and double their dealer's hand? What if there isn't a concensus on how to play it?

First Sentence: I am not.

Second Sentence: I would have to say that makes the game almost unplayable. It would simply get too confusing as to who was playing against what if there are multiple swaps. Complete mess. I guess the alternative would be ALWAYS swap with the dealer's starting hand only (as opposed to the new starting hand) but the gameplay would still be a disaster. You would also almost always want to be sitting at first base so as not to have to trade the garbage first base swapped for or keep your hand, unless you always swap for the dealer's starting hand.

Now the Rules are too confusing. I don't even know what I am typing anymore. I'm moving on to the third sentence.

Third Sentence: No. I believe the OP stated that, if you swap, you play according to House Rules. You may not split/double.

15 to Zero. Almost makes me want to put my latest game idea up. I mean i could easily gEt 14 to 1, I think.
It is a new version of Action Blackjack. Just have a little problem with the name. I mean FREE BET says it all.
As does SWITCH.

Both tell you what to expect. That's why I feel the need to shorten up this name :

ACES WILD DOUBLE DOUBLE BONUS MEGA JACKPOT ACTION BLACKJACK.

ANY SUGGESTION GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANKS IN ADVANCE.

Not really aspiring to get this anywhere, it's more of a theoretical. Is it good, is it bad? I don't know (or didn't - though if the assessment was based on misinterpretation, I still don't). But it looks like a variation on BJ that is not a hybrid with another game, hasn't been tried before, and is really simple in concept, so I had to ask.

Quote: Mission146

The casino's exposure to team play would be demoralizing. You would always pass the dealer the worst known hand.

I guess my explanation was heavily misleading. The hands aren't actually switched, the dealer's hand never changes.
Instead, the player gets a marker indicating that he has "switched" and is now playing the dealer's hand against his old hand. If multiple players "switch", they always do so with the original dealer's hand.

My rough estimates suggest that the effect on HA without free choice (have to S17 or H17) should be moderate, although stronger than early surrender. You would still do it with 16v10, where you believe you'll lose, but now you hope for your hand to lose.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

As I see it, in No U, each player has the option of swapping. Anyone who doesn't swap, plays against the dealer's original hand.
But therein lies a new problem. If multiple players swap, do they all now have the options to split and double their dealer's hand? What if there isn't a concensus on how to play it?

My guess is that a split or double is always wrong in this situation. Due to getting only 50% of the win, investing any more money is unprofitable - even if the dealer has 16. As such, with rational play they don't need to be an option at all.

If free choice with hits, splits and doubles is offered, additional cards would be dealt to each player individually. Offering free choice is a strong advantage to the player, and would only work with a compensating rule. In that case a lot of hands would involve switching.
(A stronger HA mechanism for that case could be paying half your bet for the switch right away (like how you pay insurance), but keeping all your winnings. In that case splits and doubles start making sense.)

Quote: P90

Not really aspiring to get this anywhere, it's more of a theoretical. Is it good, is it bad? I don't know (or didn't - though if the assessment was based on misinterpretation, I still don't). But it looks like a variation on BJ that is not a hybrid with another game, hasn't been tried before, and is really simple in concept, so I had to ask.

Very true, and a good point. As a novice start, it's a very good idea; as a serious game idea to an established gaming industry and playing public, it might be very bad. WTF. Do not let the initial feedback of the gamblers at this forum deter you. I will say in no uncertain terms it is a good start, as bad as it looks, because a LOT of people wouldn't throw idea #1 against feedback, regardless of the first feedback result. Forget about Shufflemaster's first new game showcase, which was a fantastic learning experience for all.

The most genius and novel of ideas - and game concepts - started with a most off-the-wall "here goes nothing" type of Blackjack idea - as a lob to the knowledable public - to get going.
So you tossed out idea lob #1 or #2. Okay. That's how the ball gets rolling.

Attempt #14 might be really decent and worthwhile, and we are still here for you.

It might take attempt #491 to beat a Blackjack Switch level concept, and attempt #6,791 to beat Free Bet BJ.

Quote: P90

I guess my explanation was heavily misleading. The hands aren't actually switched, the dealer's hand never changes.
Instead, the player gets a marker indicating that he has "switched" and is now playing the dealer's hand against his old hand. If multiple players "switch", they always do so with the original dealer's hand.

Impossible to do in a casino easily. Easier to do online. Still awkward as hell, though. Not a natural and fluid idea for actual game play, in spite of being a novel concept. A novel game concept doesn't necessarily mean a good game concept, although it is one of many characteristics needed for the consideration of a game idea.

Quote: P90

My rough estimates suggest that the effect on HA without free choice (have to S17 or H17) should be moderate, although stronger than early surrender. You would still do it with 16v10, where you believe you'll lose, but now you hope for your hand to lose.

And you'd be right on that. (what would the new hand-hitting rules be??) But what casino would fade that hand switch? You would not be able to pay 2:5 on a win after the switch with a viable BJ game.
The game Blackjack Switch gave a decent advantage to players by playing two "switchable" hands, but with a hefty house advantage by pushing on a dealer's 22, which also cause dealer problems in game play. You need to detil the logistics of dealing and game play to make this happen. Try writing a dealing procedure that would work for a game like this, and present it here. Another great and very interesting exercise in game dsign...

Here is my idea. This will make me rich when someone on this board takes my idea, becomes rich, and sends me a check. (Hasn't happened with any of my other ideas yet)

Trade Blackjack!

If you don't like your blackjack hand, you can pick one of the cards and discard it, and get the next card in the deck.

However, if you make this trade, which will be symbolized by a lammer, a dealer 22 is a win for the dealer.

Now I just sit and wait for the millions to roll in....

EDIT - You can't trade if you have an Ace in your hand. And trading and getting a 21 is no longer an automatic winner. All other standard rules apply.

good luck...any day now...
did you get a patent on it?
Math work done?
For those who did go that route, it was both a ton of work,

and a ton worth it....ask Geoff...

Quote: Paigowdan

good luck...any day now...
did you get a patent on it?
Math work done?
For those who did go that route, it was both a ton of work,

and a ton worth it....ask Geoff...

I respect game designers a lot. The time and effort you put in to creating a game is just way too much than I could ever commit. You need to make sure the math is right, then patent it, then get it approved in each state, then get casinos to implement it. And I'm sure there are tons of steps I didn't mention.

And not only is it time and effort, it's also the money you're investing on to what really amounts to a long shot.

There's a lot of people on this board who talk about the games they design, and I take my hat off to everyone who has actually tried, even if you didn't succeed.

Me, too...absolutely.

It is NOT an easy gig!.......................................................................................................................................................

" even if you didn't succeed. "

Put me in that category. But I met a lot of nice guys and even got a free prime rib. It was a winning trip to Vegas both ways.

Depends on how HARD you had actually tried to fail - instead of succeed.

If you slapped something together without a cursory math or "dealing it out" review, - no less if it is a "viable and fun game to play by gamblers' standards with friends-n-family - as LOW as that is," ..... then you might deserve some punishment.

If you work very hard to cobble together some decent games, like Statcy F., me, Roger S., Geoff H., Mike S., Eliot J., and a few others, did some research and ad-hoc field-testing....then at LEAST you'd have a valid failed field test, or a successful field trial, that SAW the light of a casino games pit, then you have something to present.

Now THAT means a real lot.

Now, Charles (and please note: - I am now calling you "Sir Charles" instead of "charlie.."),

if you MADE it to THE FIRST Shufflemaster Showing...

to stand butt naked under the cruel whip of Roger and Todd, (and Todd #2, - Todd S.),

to accept a reasonably accurate assessment of your game that was presented in a harsh light (as per new games show-case #1), or in a much kinder and gentler light (as in show-case #2, - much better, by the way...)

then okay, sir, we ALL salute you.

But if you toss out some wacky game idea without any thought or research as to its merit, and slap it up on our board, then we may vote 15-and-zero on it.

You gotta do SOME homework before presenting here in this class.

Tough crowd, I tell ya.

That's when I log in as Buzz. Anytime someone addresses me as Charles, I am usually in trouble. LOL

Seriously, the lessons learned in Focus 1 were invaluable. And despite rumors to the contrary, I did not sulk away
defeated.