Quote:mipletQuote:NeilLCC

I've just been comparing some of the strategy charts and have noticed some subtle differences between the multiplier selections. I'm just wondering if you've accounted for that in the work you've done so far.

There is, for example, five strategy charts for the 2x multiplier, with each one potentially different depending on which "set" of multipliers, are in play.

I'd hate to think that you've done this work and maybe hadn't spotted that. The same is true of all multipliers, each one has 5 different versions - which is perhaps why Evolution presented them in the way they have?

Forgive me I haven't cross-referenced what you've done - my eyes just can't take it lol, just thought I'd flag it up to help.

link to original post

I noticed this too. With no active multiplier, but high potential multiplier, you don't double.

link to original post

The charts I have been supplying in the last two days are not at all connected to any earlier charts that charliepatrick, chesterdog or I have presented, They are a complete restructuring and reformatting of the evolutionary strategy presented here: Evolutionary Strategy and its taken me hours to accomplish this.

I don't understand what you mean by "5 different strategy charts for each multiplier." The chart are organized by Hard hands, Soft Hands, Pairs, and First split hand, so yes, each chart accounts for the different possible multipliers. Are those the "5 charts" that you are referring to?

Miplet, I agree with your statement but don't understand the issue you are raising. The only No Multiplier doubles I show on my tables are Double 10,11 vs 2-7 and Double S18 vs 5,6. Those are certainly reasonable doubles, aren't they?

Quote:gordonm888Quote:mipletQuote:NeilLCC

I've just been comparing some of the strategy charts and have noticed some subtle differences between the multiplier selections. I'm just wondering if you've accounted for that in the work you've done so far.

There is, for example, five strategy charts for the 2x multiplier, with each one potentially different depending on which "set" of multipliers, are in play.

I'd hate to think that you've done this work and maybe hadn't spotted that. The same is true of all multipliers, each one has 5 different versions - which is perhaps why Evolution presented them in the way they have?

Forgive me I haven't cross-referenced what you've done - my eyes just can't take it lol, just thought I'd flag it up to help.

link to original post

I noticed this too. With no active multiplier, but high potential multiplier, you don't double.

link to original post

The charts I have been supplying in the last two days are not at all connected to any earlier charts that charliepatrick, chesterdog or I have presented, They are a complete restructuring and reformatting of the evolutionary strategy presented here: Evolutionary Strategy and its taken me hours to accomplish this.

I don't understand what you mean by "5 different strategy charts for each multiplier." The chart are organized by Hard hands, Soft Hands, Pairs, and First split hand, so yes, each chart accounts for the different possible multipliers. Are those the "5 charts" that you are referring to?

Miplet, I agree with your statement but don't understand the issue you are raising. The only No Multiplier doubles I show on my tables are Double 10,11 vs 2-7 and Double S18 vs 5,6. Those are certainly reasonable doubles, aren't they?

link to original post

https://static.egcdn.com/frontend/fec/ring-test/optimalLightningBlackjackStrategy.html?gameType=lightningscalablebj&lang=en#openMenu

There are 5 different next hand multiplier groups each with their own strategy on your current multiplier.

gordonm888, taking your example -

Quote:

So, for example, at Hard 14 versus 4, the optimal strategy is:

Hit with No multiplier, (and with multiplier = 2)

With multiplier 3+: Double when possible otherwise Hit

Except, with Multipler 5+: Double when Possible otherwise Stand

The Evolution strategy tables actually say the following (if I've managed to transcribe it all correctly!) -

If the current set of multipliers on offer is 2x 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x, then

Hit with No multiplier, (STAND with multiplier = 2)

With multiplier 3+: Double when possible otherwise STAND

If the current set of multipliers on offer is 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 8x, then

Hit with No multiplier, (Hit with multiplier = 2)

With multiplier 3: Double when possible otherwise HIT

With multiplier 4+: Double when possible otherwise Stand

If the current set of multipliers on offer is 2x 3x 4x 5x 8x 12x, then

Hit with No multiplier, (Hit with multiplier = 2)

With multiplier 3,4: Double when possible otherwise HIT

With multiplier 5+: Double when possible otherwise Stand

If the current set of multipliers on offer is 2x 4x 5x 6x 10x 15x, then

Hit with No multiplier, (Hit with multiplier = 2)

With multiplier 3-6: Double when possible otherwise HIT

With multiplier 8+: Double when possible otherwise Stand

If the current set of multipliers on offer is 2x 5x 6x 8x 12x 20x, then

Hit with No multiplier, (Hit with multiplier = 2)

With multiplier 3-8: Double when possible otherwise HIT

With multiplier 10+: Double when possible otherwise Stand

If the current set of multipliers on offer is 2x 5x 8x 12x 15x 25x, then

Hit with No multiplier, (Hit with multiplier = 2)

With multiplier 3-12: Double when possible otherwise HIT

With multiplier 15+: Double when possible otherwise Stand

Quote:gordonm888Quote:mipletQuote:NeilLCC

I've just been comparing some of the strategy charts and have noticed some subtle differences between the multiplier selections. I'm just wondering if you've accounted for that in the work you've done so far.

There is, for example, five strategy charts for the 2x multiplier, with each one potentially different depending on which "set" of multipliers, are in play.

I'd hate to think that you've done this work and maybe hadn't spotted that. The same is true of all multipliers, each one has 5 different versions - which is perhaps why Evolution presented them in the way they have?

Forgive me I haven't cross-referenced what you've done - my eyes just can't take it lol, just thought I'd flag it up to help.

link to original post

I noticed this too. With no active multiplier, but high potential multiplier, you don't double.

link to original post

The charts I have been supplying in the last two days are not at all connected to any earlier charts that charliepatrick, chesterdog or I have presented, They are a complete restructuring and reformatting of the evolutionary strategy presented here: ml?gameType=lightningscalablebj&lang=en#strategies]Evolutionary Strategy and its taken me hours to accomplish this.

I don't understand what you mean by "5 different strategy charts for each multiplier." The chart are organized by Hard hands, Soft Hands, Pairs, and First split hand, so yes, each chart accounts for the different possible multipliers. Are those the "5 charts" that you are referring to?

Miplet, I agree with your statement but don't understand the issue you are raising. The only No Multiplier doubles I show on my tables are Double 10,11 vs 2-7 and Double S18 vs 5,6. Those are certainly reasonable doubles, aren't they?

link to original post

The link you should work from is one level up from the link you posted. Hit the back arrow at the top to see the rest.

This shows the six different multiplier sequences that can be selected for a game round. If you click on one of them it will reveal a strategy chart for that sequence of multipliers. Each Sequence has its own chart and each is different from the other sequence charts. I thought you might only be looking at one of the sequence charts, which I think is what you have done.

I have done all of my compilation, restructuring and reformatting for one specific multiplier group, namely:

2,3,4,5,8,12 (12-17 = 2x; 18 = 3x; 19 =4x; 20 = 5x; 21 = 8x, and BJ =12 X)

but I was unaware that there are 5 other multiplier groups:

2,2,3,4,5,6

2,3,4,5,6,8

2,4,5,6,10,15

2,5,6,8,12,20

2,5,8,12,15,25

So, the multiplier group I picked was the 3rd highest of 6, but one would need to repeat what I have done for another 5 multiplier groups to get a rigorously correct strategy that would produce the declared House Edge value.

That is absolutely bat-stool crazy. That is nuts. The strategy for any one multiplier group is already far too complicated, but to multiply that complexity by a factor of 6X? What were the game designers trying to achieve?

Quote:gordonm888That is absolutely bat-stool crazy. That is nuts. The strategy for any one multiplier group is already far too complicated, but to multiply that complexity by a factor of 6X? What were the game designers trying to achieve?

I think you are being a bit unfair on the game designers. I'm sure they are trying to appeal to typical gamblers, not to the likes of us, and they might well succeed. The complexity of the strategy is only an issue for people trying to follow it, and they will be very few in number! Its publication was probably mostly as a justification for the stated optimal-play house edge, rather than a guide for players.

They've released other 'Lightning' game variations - roulette, baccarat (and maybe some others), each with some kind of random multipliers applied after the betting closes. I guess this is to appeal to slot-player types who like the excitement of random big payouts (or opportunities for a big payout). E.g., in roulette, everyone who has placed a straight-up bet on one of the numbers that then gets a random multiplier has the thrill of then waiting to see if they are about to win unusually big.

This blackjack variant has the additional 'thrill' of the tension between the two conflicting aims of the game - maximise the payout from this round vs maximise the potential payout from the next round. I think the idea is that naive players should be left in a quandary about whether to hit and hope for a big multiplier in the next round or stand for fear of losing the current round's (multiplied) payout.

Quote:gordonm888Its a way to quote an attractively low house edge for a game, while having it play as 85-95% return to player.

link to original post

Indeed. Not trying to say I approve from a moral perspective. Just that I don't think they have in any way blundered in terms of meeting their likely goals.

The first thing I need to do is work on the splitting strategy, for instance at the lowest level I currently do not have any splitting 4s, so I am guessing it's worth it because of the advantage of having two attempts to get to 21.

Quote:charliepatrickI'm beginning to have another look at this but have worked out that the chances of each "Set" of multipliers cannot be equal (it makes it too advantageous to the player). Unless there are any better indications I'm going to guess the chances are 40%,25%,15%,10%,5%,5%; this gives an average of 2 2.9 4 5.2 7.05 9.95 which is close to the averages the wizard posted (another idea is 50% 15% 12.5% 10% 7.5% 5% which gives similar results). However without the exact ratios one isn't going to be able to derive a proper House Edge unless it happens to come out at exactly their figure!

The first thing I need to do is work on the splitting strategy, for instance at the lowest level I currently do not have any splitting 4s, so I am guessing it's worth it because of the advantage of having two attempts to get to 21.

link to original post

Charlie, no need to work out any strategy, just go to the Evolution Lightning Poker web site and you can find tables of all the strategy for all of the possible situations. The problem is that, given the six sets of multipliers, there are so many thousands of possible situations, that the problem becomes one of mapping the optimal decisions onto whatever structure/framework makes sense for your computational models.

Just for determining how to play the 2nd split 6 of a pair of sixes, you must consider:

12 possible values of active multipliers

6 possible sets of multipliers that you might earn

6 possible categories of outcome for the first split hand (Bust, 12-17, 18, 19, 20, 21)

12 possible totals (12-17, S13-S18) that you might have in your 2nd split hand for which the H/S decision is not fixed.

So that is 12*6*6*12 = 5,184 different possible situations for which one needs to define/know the optimum strategy just to play the second split 6 when dealt a pair of sixes!

Not to mention playing the first split 6 of a pair 66! Or how to draw to a split pair of 10's (TT is a very important hand because this situation occurs frequently). Or playing a S14 vs 14 or a hard 17 vs 8 or any of the >100 "hands" that need to be defined.

Pardon the pun, but I really believe that this game is an evolutionary dead end.