Quote:Paradigmthe main & Lucky Stiff bets win together, lose together or Push together.

Hmm, so that makes it sound like basic strategy is ALWAYS correct. Can you give the examples when you should deviate from BS because of the sidebet? Thanks!

Somebody said sth like "now it needs to prove it is making more money than a regular table". Incorrect, unless casino management are morons: Let's say you have 4 tables with the Lucky Lady side bets. Let replace just one with the new sidebet and see what happens. PPL who like Lucky Ladies (less than 75% of all players is safe to assume) will still be able to make their sidebet. Ppl like me, who would never touch that terrible bet, but would consider a fun 4% HE bet, would start to sidebet. They otherwise wouldn't. End of story - they collect that extra 4% from a certain group of ppl without sacrificing anything. (Simplified example, but still true enough I suppose.)

Quote:McDemonHit soft 17, ouch..thankfully dealer stands on s17 in the UK, wouldn't get away with that here

The 'Hit Soft 17' rule was approved a while ago along with the approval of 3CP in the UK.

Thankfully most (if not all) casinos have stayed with the 'Stand Soft 17' version. They hold higher in the UK anyway due to players not playing as well over here.

Quote:SwitchThe 'Hit Soft 17' rule was approved a while ago along with the approval of 3CP in the UK.

The 'Hit Soft 17' rule was approved a while ago in the UK, but not 3CP.

3CP was approved years ago in the UK.

1) Stand on a hard 12 vs. a 3

2) Stand on a hard 12 that is not a T-2 vs. a 2

3) Stand on a hard 15 vs. T

4) Stand on a hard 16 vs. a 9 or T

The HE rises by 0.3% - 0.4% from the base 6 deck house edge of 4.05% if these adjustments to basic strategy are not followed. However, following these changes gives up 0.1% - 0.2% on your main BJ wager. Otherwise you may want to change BS in these 5 situations (out of 360 possible beginning hands).

If your base wager is at least twice the size of your Lucky Stiff wager, correct strategy to minimize the HE over all all your bets will be to play basic strategy.

Other than hard core BJ players (which probably aren't playing any side bets to begin with), 99% of players will simply play basic strategy and be looking at a slightly higher 4.35% to 4.45% HE on Lucky Stiff. Of course that assumes that they are playing basic strategy to start which is not always a reasonable assumption.

WHY is there a change in basic strategy? At the relevant point of decision, all bets are made, and I am doing whatever is best to maximize my chances of winning the hand. The sidebet doesn't seem to change that...

In those 5 situations mentioned above, the best move for your Lucky Stiff is contrary to basic BJ strategy (e.g the best decision for your main BJ wager).

In situation 3) above, if you have a hard 15 against a dealer Ten up card, basic strategy would tell you to take a hit to minimize the negative EV in that hand. For Lucky Stiff, your best play is not to take a hit. So there is a conflict in the 5 particular hands above between what to do to minimize the HE on your main BJ wager vs. minimizing the HE on your Lucky Stiff wager.

You would run into one of these scenarios approximately once every 72 hands and the difference in HE between the two strategies is one that we don't believe will be significant for the majority of players participating in Lucky Stiff.

Bottom line is we recommend to players (and dealers to tell players) "play basic strategy" and accept a slightly higher HE (e.g. 4.35% vs. 4.05%) on Lucky Stiff.

What would happen if your game was played in a casino that offers surrender?Quote:ParadigmThe non-basic BJ strategy moves to minimize the Lucky Stiff HE on a "hit soft 17" set of rules is as follows (per our report from Charles Mousseau):

1) Stand on a hard 12 vs. a 3

2) Stand on a hard 12 that is not a T-2 vs. a 2

3) Stand on a hard 15 vs. T

4) Stand on a hard 16 vs. a 9 or T

The HE rises by 0.3% - 0.4% from the base 6 deck house edge of 4.05% if these adjustments to basic strategy are not followed. However, following these changes gives up 0.1% - 0.2% on your main BJ wager. Otherwise you may want to change BS in these 5 situations (out of 360 possible beginning hands).

If your base wager is at least twice the size of your Lucky Stiff wager, correct strategy to minimize the HE over all all your bets will be to play basic strategy.

Other than hard core BJ players (which probably aren't playing any side bets to begin with), 99% of players will simply play basic strategy and be looking at a slightly higher 4.35% to 4.45% HE on Lucky Stiff. Of course that assumes that they are playing basic strategy to start which is not always a reasonable assumption.

Quote:CanyoneroThx Paradigm, but I should have phrased my question differently:

WHY is there a change in basic strategy? At the relevant point of decision, all bets are made, and I am doing whatever is best to maximize my chances of winning the hand. The sidebet doesn't seem to change that...

I can answer this one.

In regular blackjack, if you traded a 2% extra chance of pushing for a 1% extra chance of winning and a 1% extra chance of losing, it would net break even.

On the lucky stiff wager, this would obviously be much to your advantage, since that 1% extra chance of winning pays at greater than even money.

To give an example of 16 vs 10 from an infinite deck model:

Standing:

Win: 22.98%

Lose: 77.02%

Push: 0%

Hitting:

Win: 20.05%

Lose: 74.03%

Push: 5.92%

In regular blackjack, the results are +1 for win, 0 for push and -1 for loss. This gives:

Standing: -54.04%

Hitting: -53.98%

... so here you can see that hitting is marginally better.

However, when wins pay 5:1, and your EV = (5 * %WIN - %LOSS), the fact that you're likelier to win the hand (versus non-wins) now makes standing correct, to wit:

Standing: +37.87%

Hitting: +26.20%

Long story short: the changes are a result of the increased value of winning the hand at any cost; if a push was as bad as a loss, you'd naturally stand on more stiffs. Well, the Lucky Stiff rule makes the pushes 5 times closer to being as bad as a loss, so a lot of that reflects in the basic strategy here.

And just to be finicky, I have to point out that my findings for AP play were about 1/20th, not 1/100th. 75% pen on 6 and 8 deck shoes, perfect use of a count (1 unit with any edge, 0 units with no edge) and no count-based adjustments to play strategy yielded an overall player edge of 0.09% - 0.15%, which I put relative to a 2-3% range in regular blackjack under similar conditions.

Stephen How just did a review on Lucky Stiff's AP factor.... (www.discountgambling.net)

Of course I tipped him off.....good game....