New BJ variant - bet 'em all Blackjack
Poll
 | 13 votes (76.47%) | ||
| | 2 votes (11.76%) | ||
| | 2 votes (11.76%) |
17 members have voted
It's Blackjack, BUT any player can back bet any or ALL the other players at the table, or just bet the minimum on your own hand, - or vary in between the two at will.
In other words, it seems to be designed to be played with your friends.
I found this game quite interesting. I'm certain it'll generate a lot of action.
This is an interesting concept, but rife for problems between players in my opinion.
House gets more dollar volume through the game mechanism in this variant. It seems that they can just raise the table minimum and avoid the potential inter-player problems to get the same result. Unless you believe a $5 player is more likely to bet $30 on six different hands than $30 on his own hand......and that may be true.
But can't a player just find a table with open spots and play two or three hands and get to control the action as opposed to abdicating game decisions to the ploppie on your left & your right?
Not convinced.......but the jury is still out!
There are pluses and minuses, and I think there are more aspects and player advantages to the game than meets the eye.
Quote: tringlomaneIt will be interesting to see what arguments come of this when a ploppy "ruins the hand" for someone who bet big on them.
"The idiot hit 12, took the dealer's break card, and caused everyone (including the idiot) to lose six bets each!"
I voted that I'll play it. I think it will be a lot of fun.
When the dealer busts his hand, all remaining bets win - as many as 36 bets. When the dealer makes a hand, it's usually split decisions among the hands.
Yeah, it does.Quote: Paigowdan...it seems to be designed to be played with your friends.
And if it's successful in that regard, where a bunch of friends are all playing on each other's hands, dealers AND casinos will hate it.
Imagine a typical hand where there are six buddies all playing on everyone's hand. Before any cards are dealt, the dealer will need to move THIRTY bets all over the table. Hands per hour will drop. Will the increased betting be good enough to offset that? Doubtful.
But let's say the casino is ok with it. Dealers will hate it. How many dealers hate Let It Ride because of all that mindless chip pushing? You think and of them will like the chip moving here? No way!
And what does this really do? Enable / encourage betting behind? There's a reason that casinos discourage it. This game *may* fix that reason, but at the expense of new issues.
Here the player behind doesn't have to split (but has to pick which hand to play on) and doesn't have to double (but will only get one card). The only exception is the back player doesn't have to take even money (in theory they are not forced to make the insurance bet) - so technically they can affect the run of cards.
The problem I see with the layout on your link is what happens with splits or doubles and the dealer moves bets.
Quote: PaigowdanIt's totally new here. Players here make their own calls all the time, but now may trust the expertise of the player who seems to be winning more.....
There are pluses and minuses, and I think there are more aspects and player advantages to the game than meets the eye.
Nothing new even "here". Card rooms in CA allow players to bet on others' hands. U could argue the layout design is new, but then it looks crowded. New is not good or interesting in thid case.
2. Also note: for back-betting to be codified onto the layout - and into the game's official specification in detail - is pretty novel.
I am not particularly optimistic on the game, but gave it a small amount of notice for the attempt to formalize back-betting.
I do believe it has some game protection issues, as it can be a wonger's paradise. You can more easily wong into the count, right at the table, by flat-betting your own hand and chunking the other player positions, particular if you like how someone else is handling his game. An AP player can argue, "What are these betting spots for but to back bet my fellow players??!!" Betting these side bets are the reason for these side bets, and they can't let you NOT bet them as offered, if they offer it.
Quote: Dalex64Sounds good for a team of counters. No need to spread 1-10 on your own hand alone when you can just spread 1-2 and bet 2 on all of your counting friends.
I'll almost guarantee you'll see a CSM along with this game.
I couldn't watch the video yet - the webpage kept crashing the browser on my ancient ipod touch.
This sounds wrong - in the UK (and I guess elsewhere) when the front splits you can (but don't have to) split as well.Quote: Paigowdan...splits don't apply, as the back bet applies to the first hand of the split...
I assumed from your description of "back-bet" then it is a bet on another player's box and identical to making a bet behind their box. If you couldn't split (with them), then my personal feeling is the casino would have to make it perfectly clear that it is a "sidebet" on the first player's hand on someone else's box, rather than a normal Blackjack back-bet.Quote: Paigowdan...any player can back bet any or ALL the other players at the table
The site and its video (link in the first post) describes the game.
In this game, what would stop a player from betting $5 on his own hand and $100 behind everyone else. If the players have offensive splits, put the money up and split. On defensive splits, just let your money ride on the first hand. Worst case your 16 vs. T is now 8 vs. T.
How much of an advantage is this for the player?
Optimal splitting for less adds about 0.15% to 0.20% to the player side (depending on the number of decks and game rules).Quote: FCBLComishIn Blackjack there are offensive splits (AA vs. 6) and defensive splits (88 vs. T).
In this game, what would stop a player from betting $5 on his own hand and $100 behind everyone else. If the players have offensive splits, put the money up and split. On defensive splits, just let your money ride on the first hand. Worst case your 16 vs. T is now 8 vs. T.
How much of an advantage is this for the player?
Quote: FCBLComishIn Blackjack there are offensive splits (AA vs. 6) and defensive splits (88 vs. T).
In this game, what would stop a player from betting $5 on his own hand and $100 behind everyone else. If the players have offensive splits, put the money up and split. On defensive splits, just let your money ride on the first hand. Worst case your 16 vs. T is now 8 vs. T.
How much of an advantage is this for the player?
There are casinos that allow the people playing in the back this option. If the player seated at the table bets small and uses a strategy to maximize the EV of the people playing in the back, I calculate their EV improves by a difference of 0.199% assuming H17 and no re-splitting. (By the way, the player would split all hands except these: 5's and 10's, 9's vs 7, and 4's vs 2-4 and 7-ace.)
In Bet 'em All Blackjack, the bettors on other hands don't have the option of putting up money on the second hand of the splits. This is good for the defensive splits but hurts for the offensive splits. But there is an overall improvement in EV, although the difference is only 0.005% on the big bets. But with all the extra splitting, it would be fun to play with a table full of friends.
Gee, and I though Ahigh was a little over optimistic...
http://www.casinojournal.com/articles/90185-spotlight-on-non-slot-products-at-g2e
Gee, where is Galaxy Gaming in the article? It's publicly traded and the 2nd largest table game distributor in the world.Quote: muleyvoice
Gee, and I though Ahigh was a little over optimistic...
http://www.casinojournal.com/articles/90185-spotlight-on-non-slot-products-at-g2e
To me this game is for the casual player who wants more action and more fun, not for us serious guys. I saw people betting on their friends or on the spots that were running hot and they were having real laugh even though they were losing. Not for me but I think this idea will become more popular.
Quote: Tony21I've found 3 casinos now with this game in Vegas and Sandiego, they all have a limit per player per hand so you can never get more money on the table as compared to your normal spot limit - meaning that of the spot limit is $500 then the total your bets on your own hand and other player's hands cannot go over $500. The player edge is always worse on the multi bets by a long way because of the no split rule so it's never in our advantage to play on another player's hand, always better off to load up on our own hand when it's good. Depending on number of decks and re-split rules the house edge on the multi bets is sometimes more than double your own bet.
To me this game is for the casual player who wants more action and more fun, not for us serious guys. I saw people betting on their friends or on the spots that were running hot and they were having real laugh even though they were losing. Not for me but I think this idea will become more popular.
tony21,
Welcome to the forum, and thanks for the well-informed observations and critique! I would request that you use the "quote" button when you're answering or elaborating on specific posts by other members ( a couple of your later posts would benefit from it ).
I had not seen a game like this until I played in London in early 2013, where (I think) they allowed it at all tables. I found it very uncomfortable at first, but it seemed to be the standard there and people didn't mess with my bets unduly, or argue with my decisions even though they had money on me, so I relaxed after a bit. I can see where it would introduce an extra bit of camaraderie, but I also think it might emphasize the negative trend of table bullies arguing with other players' decisions that they (erroneously) think will impact their hands. Time will tell.
Quote: beachbumbabstony21,
Welcome to the forum, and thanks for the well-informed observations and critique! I would request that you use the "quote" button when you're answering or elaborating on specific posts by other members ( a couple of your later posts would benefit from it ).
I had not seen a game like this until I played in London in early 2013, where (I think) they allowed it at all tables. I found it very uncomfortable at first, but it seemed to be the standard there and people didn't mess with my bets unduly, or argue with my decisions even though they had money on me, so I relaxed after a bit. I can see where it would introduce an extra bit of camaraderie, but I also think it might emphasize the negative trend of table bullies arguing with other players' decisions that they (erroneously) think will impact their hands. Time will tell.
Hey thanks for the welcome and the tip on using the Quote button, now I know why my comments didn't go along with the posts that I was referring to!
Yeah I think it's just a matte of time for this game to get a hold from what I've seen. Players warmed to the idea of the extra action and betting on their friend's hands after a short while at the table, especially when their being dealt crappy cards on their own hand. I like the fact that the dealer does all the bet placing and other players don't go near my spot or money, much more comfortable that way. Yep.....time will tell for sure!
Quote: DJTeddyBearYeah, it does.
And if it's successful in that regard, where a bunch of friends are all playing on each other's hands, dealers AND casinos will hate it.
Imagine a typical hand where there are six buddies all playing on everyone's hand. Before any cards are dealt, the dealer will need to move THIRTY bets all over the table. Hands per hour will drop. Will the increased betting be good enough to offset that? Doubtful.
But let's say the casino is ok with it. Dealers will hate it. How many dealers hate Let It Ride because of all that mindless chip pushing? You think and of them will like the chip moving here? No way!
And what does this really do? Enable / encourage betting behind? There's a reason that casinos discourage it. This game *may* fix that reason, but at the expense of new issues.
I just watched the game in action at the Valley View Casino on and off over about 4 hours and most players were placing only 1 additional bet on someone else's hand, sometimes 2. The dealers were moving their chips as soon as they hit the layout so surprisingly there was hardly any time lost at all. I asked the dealers what they thought and most of them said Bet'em All has really changed the atmosphere on BJ, they actually enjoy dealing it, much more interesting and they're getting more tips. One of the dealers told me that they need more Bet'em All tables because they only have one and it's always full, he said management are adding more soon.............says it all really, the data MUST be good but we'll see what happens when they have a few more tables in play.
Quote: Paigowdan1. I was talking about the Las Vegas area, where back-betting is essentially not practiced.
2. Also note: for back-betting to be codified onto the layout - and into the game's official specification in detail - is pretty novel.
I am not particularly optimistic on the game, but gave it a small amount of notice for the attempt to formalize back-betting.
I do believe it has some game protection issues, as it can be a wonger's paradise. You can more easily wong into the count, right at the table, by flat-betting your own hand and chunking the other player positions, particular if you like how someone else is handling his game. An AP player can argue, "What are these betting spots for but to back bet my fellow players??!!" Betting these side bets are the reason for these side bets, and they can't let you NOT bet them as offered, if they offer it.
The problem is that even as a wonger, when you chunk up on other player's hands the house edge is possibly double depending on the rules of the game, maybe even more, difficult to beat. Also anyone suddenly chunking up across the table will immediately attract unwanted attention.
Quote: Tony21Quote: Paigowdan1. I was talking about the Las Vegas area, where back-betting is essentially not practiced.
2. Also note: for back-betting to be codified onto the layout - and into the game's official specification in detail - is pretty novel.
I am not particularly optimistic on the game, but gave it a small amount of notice for the attempt to formalize back-betting.
I do believe it has some game protection issues, as it can be a wonger's paradise. You can more easily wong into the count, right at the table, by flat-betting your own hand and chunking the other player positions, particular if you like how someone else is handling his game. An AP player can argue, "What are these betting spots for but to back bet my fellow players??!!" Betting these side bets are the reason for these side bets, and they can't let you NOT bet them as offered, if they offer it.
The problem is that even as a wonger, when you chunk up on other player's hands the house edge is possibly double depending on the rules of the game, maybe even more, difficult to beat. Also anyone suddenly chunking up across the table will immediately attract unwanted attention.
True. But this Wonging aspect is a big part of the game's design: change your "luck" by betting more, and on more spots, without mid-round entry concerns. You're supposed to chunk up across the table in this game by its very design. Team play may make it an AP issue.
It's a pretty juicy concept in terms of game play, and I can see this game more safely offered or played with 6:5, or on a CSM machine.
Quote: nodummy57Seems a border line insult. Will Babs give you a pass ?
I really don't give a $%&# anymore!
no harm intended.
Quote: nodummy57Hey I was just kidding. Only been here a few days and seems Buzz is persona not grata. Also sorta disappointed in game feedback threads. Been fooling with an idea for too long, am 57 now and would like to get a royalty check before I get social security check.
no harm intended.
Feedback on an actual game is very different than feedback on an idea. Part of the problem is people asking for feedback when they're not actually ready for it, or don't understand what to do with it if they get it. There are a few regulars here who have actually gone all the way from game idea to royalty check (including me) and others who have worked at casino game vendors (also including me). It's much, much harder to succeed when someone doesn't have either the background in gaming or connections in the industry. And it's almost impossible to succeed when they haven't even taken the time to learn the marketplace and the history of product development in the space, including what has and has not been successful before. I used to handle external idea submissions for a gaming vendor and I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone "invent" the idea of combining two existing casino games. It's not like Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. Trying to combining craps and roulette will not make a better game.
Quote: charliepatrickIn the UK you can always bet behind someone else (most places even have spaces on the layout). More often than not the player also makes the side-bets (typically Pairs or 21+3 bets). It seems easy for players to bet on other people's boxes, usually the ones next door. Usually there's a maximum of three, but on the continent they sometimes use circles and have five positions.
Here the player behind doesn't have to split (but has to pick which hand to play on) and doesn't have to double (but will only get one card). The only exception is the back player doesn't have to take even money (in theory they are not forced to make the insurance bet) - so technically they can affect the run of cards.
The problem I see with the layout on your link is what happens with splits or doubles and the dealer moves bets.
The way I've seen this dealt is the back bet players aren't allowed to split and their double down bets are handed to the dealer who places them in front of their multi bet.
