GWAE
GWAE
Joined: Sep 20, 2013
  • Threads: 93
  • Posts: 9854
Thanks for this post from:
mrsuit31
December 16th, 2019 at 2:31:40 PM permalink
I am the sucker that likes side bets. I get disappointment when there is a side bet that has 1 payout where it is either 9 to 1 or nothing.
Although I do like the rummy side bet
My favorite is in between
But I would play this I think.

I like games like in between and rummy where you still have a live side bet after you get your first card no matter what. In between you are live on almost all hands right up until the dealer gets their card.
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed. I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 82
  • Posts: 1325
December 16th, 2019 at 3:51:49 PM permalink
Quote: GWAE

I am the sucker that likes side bets. I get disappointment when there is a side bet that has 1 payout where it is either 9 to 1 or nothing.
Although I do like the rummy side bet
My favorite is in between
But I would play this I think.

I like games like in between and rummy where you still have a live side bet after you get your first card no matter what. In between you are live on almost all hands right up until the dealer gets their card.



I appreciate that GWAE.

Hopefully youíll have an opportunity to make the decision in real time at some point soon...
.
Doubleluck1
Doubleluck1
Joined: Jun 29, 2019
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 21
Thanks for this post from:
mrsuit31
December 18th, 2019 at 6:55:42 AM permalink
Címon Dave....you know thatís not what insurance is for! Insurance is for one thing ó- suckers! 😊
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1419
  • Posts: 24211
December 18th, 2019 at 7:20:17 AM permalink
I'm sure Charles warned you it would be very vulnerable to card counters, thus I would put it on CSM games only. I would change the name to just "Empty the Rack." I know it rhymes with "blackjack," but I'm big on keeping names short.

I would also remove the 1 to 1 pay. People don't make side bets to win even money, they want to "empty the rack."
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 215
  • Posts: 13249
Thanks for this post from:
mrsuit31
December 18th, 2019 at 7:39:46 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I'm sure Charles warned you it would be very vulnerable to card counters, thus I would put it on CSM games only. I would change the name to just "Empty the Rack." I know it rhymes with "blackjack," but I'm big on keeping names short.

I would also remove the 1 to 1 pay. People don't make side bets to win even money, they want to "empty the rack."



My observations differ. About half the " winning " hands in video poker pay even money and it hasn't hurt that game. Many people who " win" 6 coins on a slot spin that cost them 15 coins seem happy. I think frequent small wins will satisfy the herd more than an occasional big one. The trick is getting the mix right. Maybe tweak a 4-1 payout to 3.5-1 and add the difference to the highest payout.
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 82
  • Posts: 1325
December 18th, 2019 at 7:42:07 AM permalink
Iím going to let Charles speak to the vulnerability concern directly, as his opinion differs from yourís Mike.
.
mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 82
  • Posts: 1325
December 18th, 2019 at 7:45:24 AM permalink
Quote: billryan

My observations differ. About half the " winning " hands in video poker pay even money and it hasn't hurt that game. Many people who " win" 6 coins on a slot spin that cost them 15 coins seem happy. I think frequent small wins will satisfy the herd more than an occasional big one. The trick is getting the mix right. Maybe tweak a 4-1 payout to 3.5-1 and add the difference to the highest payout.



I can mess with the payouts a bit. I had mentioned in a previous post that I can add top end pays in a few way, but that will also increase the countability (I will still likely have a few options that do have a higher end pays at the top).
.
gordonm888
Administrator
gordonm888
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 54
  • Posts: 3619
Thanks for this post from:
mrsuit31GialmereMrCasinoGames
December 18th, 2019 at 9:35:13 AM permalink
Quote: mrsuit31

Hi All,

Happy to introduce my newest and first BJ side wager release, "Empty The Rack Blackjack".

This BJ side wager pays according to the following pay table (Player hands apply ti the player's initial 2 cards dealt):

Suited BJ vs Suited BJ .......... 40 to 1
BJ vs BJ ...................................... 15 to 1
Player 20 vs Dealer BJ ......... 11 to 1
Player BJ ...................................... 4 to 1
Player 10 & 11 or 88/AA ...... 3 to 1
Player 20 (including A/9) ...... 1 to 1

25.4% hit rate

HA:
8 Deck = 7.2213%
6 Deck = 7.3170%



The resistance to card counting is due to the fact that these combinations

Player 10 & 11 or 88/AA ...... 3 to 1

represent a significant fraction of the sidebet equity and almost all of that equity originates from cards that are 2-9. Especially given that there is a >7% HA to overcome.

The wager has player equity of 0.927. The cards 2-9 influence approximately 0.3 of that equity and the cards A,T influence 0.627.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
mrsuit31
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
  • Threads: 82
  • Posts: 1325
December 18th, 2019 at 9:40:31 AM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

The resistance to card counting is due to the fact that these combinations

Player 10 & 11 or 88/AA ...... 3 to 1

represent a significant fraction of the sidebet equity and almost all of that equity originates from cards that are 2-9. Especially given that there is a >7% HA to overcome.



Thank you for confirming this Gordon, I apparently did a bad job at explaining that in an earlier post I believe.

As I tried to explain, that is why so much return is built into those pay events and the 20 is 1-1. Those were specific counter measure to try and reduce as much as possible.

One additional side note, in order to piggyback the main game and side wager, two separate counts are required, which further prevents any serious AP potential (notwithstanding any other measure like slightly increased deck cut off or the usual max bet on such a wager).
.
Romes
Romes
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 5552
Thanks for this post from:
MrCasinoGamesmrsuit31
December 18th, 2019 at 9:52:11 AM permalink
I think Charles did a pretty good assessment of the side bet. Similar to lucky ladies the target points and advantages based on a count system will be much different per 1d, 2d, 6d, and 8d shoes. Penetration of course plays a roll, but I wouldn't suggest telling them to have short penetration as that would actually cost the casino money against 99/100 players in the room. They should be dealing more hands and as many as possible. The typical $25 max for the side bet should stiffle any serious AP play against the bet as it would come in around $12-$15 per hour, which to a $5 red chip player sounds great, but that's about it... someone who's under funded/bankrolled and just starting out (which they may or may not even find the proper AP count to target).

Another counter-point if asked about vulnerability... It would require it's own specialized count to make ~$12-$15/hour, as shown by Charles. This would require to also play the blackjack hand, which at a standard .5% HE game, 80 hands per hour, $5 bet, and playing PERFECT BASIC STRATEGY would cost the player ~$2/hour. Now take in to account that even wannabe card counters don't play "perfect" basic strategy and any normal joe who even tries to count this side bet will probably be hemorrhaging at least 33% of their profits to the main game, let alone being under funded, etc, etc. Basically even though this side bet can be targeted with a specialized count, it is FAR from vulnerable, in my opinion. It would take a large maximum bet, above average hands per hour, and someone whom is both bankrolled and good enough in blackjack to actually beat it long term. Anyone that good won't be targeting your side bet, they'll be targeting the main game, or something much more advanced.

So while I agree with the MATH of the vulnerability, I actually do not see this as a very vulnerable side bet. Even in my red chip starting days I wouldn't be able to attack this without my teammate running the side count for it while I did the main game count for the blackjack, it wouldn't have been worth our time otherwise (to make a whole $25/hr each) =D. So math wise, technically vulnerable. Reality wise, not so much in my opinion as far as discussed with the guidelines above.
Playing it correctly means you've already won.

  • Jump to: