Evolution Lightning Blackjack
Quote: WizardQuote: ssho88Based on your defined game rules and average multiplier values, as well as conventional basic strategy, my 1 billion trials simulation results show that the house advantage is 18.09%. A little bit different from yours, I don't know where I went wrong.
I'm actually happy we are that close. This is a difficult game to simulate as there are lots of different game states. It is possible the error is on my end too.Quote:The current hand strategy largely depends on (current hand EV1 + next hand EV2), multiplier has a great influence on the basic strategy, and the correct basic strategy requires more accurate multiplier values.
I agree.Quote:Another question : Suppose you split, lose one hand and win the other. Is your multiplier still active in the next round ?
link to original post
I interpret the answer to that question as yes. You need just one win to earn a multiplier. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
link to original post
I found that in your Expected Return Table(https://wizardofodds.com/games/lightning-blackjack/), the probability of DOUBLE WIN and DOUBLE LOSS is slightly higher than my figures. I guess we are using different conventional basic strategy, should HIT for 11 vs T instead of DOUBLE ?
They don't peek on Dealer ten. Though Wizard says it makes no difference because one only loses original wager, I reckon you should NOT double on 11 vs Dealer 10Quote: ssho88
I found that in your Expected Return Table(https://wizardofodds.com/games/lightning-blackjack/), the probability of DOUBLE WIN and DOUBLE LOSS is slightly higher than my figures. I guess we are using different conventional basic strategy, should HIT for 11 vs T instead of DOUBLE ?
link to original post
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/questions-and-answers/advice/36630-evolution-lightning-blackjack/#post830953
What a brilliantly sneaky game this is. Looks like Blackjack, Plays like blackjack. 18% house edge if you play Blackjack strategy. Who would expect that?
Optimum strategy must be something like 'Maximise probability of a win to lock in the bonus', NOT 'maximise the EV on the base game'
That might even mean you should sacrifice classic +EV plays in favour of a higher probability, smaller win.
Whatever strategy changes can make so much difference?
Roll on with best strategy, someone?
Quote: OnceDearThey don't peek on Dealer ten. Though Wizard says it makes no difference because one only loses original wager, I reckon you should NOT double on 11 vs Dealer 10Quote: ssho88
I found that in your Expected Return Table(https://wizardofodds.com/games/lightning-blackjack/), the probability of DOUBLE WIN and DOUBLE LOSS is slightly higher than my figures. I guess we are using different conventional basic strategy, should HIT for 11 vs T instead of DOUBLE ?
link to original post
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/questions-and-answers/advice/36630-evolution-lightning-blackjack/#post830953
link to original post
Correct, I just HIT 11 vs T. May be that is the reason why my probability of DOUBLE WIN/LOSS is lower than WIZARD's figures.
Quote: OnceDearWouldn't it make a strategy difference? I.e. Peek on ten, you double an ace against 10, knowing he doesn't have blackjack. No peek, you would hit rather than double an ace against ten?Quote: Mission146RE: Peek Policy
Do you happen to know, based on the dealer not peeking when a ten is up, whether the player loses the full amount bet or just the original bet to a dealer natural? As I understand it, if the player would lose the original bet only, then it doesn't mathematically matter whether or not the dealer peeks.
link to original post
link to original post
That's why it matters whether or not you only lose the original bet. If it's no peek, but you double and lose, but it's also only lose the original bet...then the amount that you doubled for gets pushed back to you.
Quote: ssho88I found that in your Expected Return Table(https://wizardofodds.com/games/lightning-blackjack/), the probability of DOUBLE WIN and DOUBLE LOSS is slightly higher than my figures. I guess we are using different conventional basic strategy, should HIT for 11 vs T instead of DOUBLE ?
link to original post
I should have had the player hit 11 vs. 10, but I now see that I forgot to make that change. My bad. I don't think I will rerun the simulation over just this. I don't want to invest too much time into this if I don't have exact numbers for the average multipliers.
Quote: WizardI should have had the player hit 11 vs. 10, but I now see that I forgot to make that change. My bad. I don't think I will rerun the simulation over just this. I don't want to invest too much time into this if I don't have exact numbers for the average multipliers.
link to original post
After changing the strategy of 11 vs T to DOUBLE, my simulation results match all the numbers in your Expected Multiplier Table and Expected Return Table.
Even if you know the exact multiplier values, it is difficult to find correct basic strategy. When you change the strategy, the TOTAL EXPECTED MULTIPLIER and PROBABILITY OF HAND OUTCOME will change, this will affect your EXPECTED RETURN, then it will affect your stretegy.....I guess must use trial and error method to find correct basic strategy, what do you think ?
Quote: ssho88After changing the strategy of 11 vs T to DOUBLE, my simulation results match all the numbers in your Expected Multiplier Table and Expected Return Table.
link to original post
Thank you! I think I will rerun it again, out of respect for you.
If the multipliers are randomised at each round, is it true to say that the optimal strategy will change for every hand. That would make it impossible for a human to play optimal strategy. The 99.56% would be a pipe dream.Quote: ssho88Quote: WizardI should have had the player hit 11 vs. 10, but I now see that I forgot to make that change. My bad. I don't think I will rerun the simulation over just this. I don't want to invest too much time into this if I don't have exact numbers for the average multipliers.
link to original post
After changing the strategy of 11 vs T to DOUBLE, my simulation results match all the numbers in your Expected Multiplier Table and Expected Return Table.
Even if you know the exact multiplier values, it is difficult to find correct basic strategy. When you change the strategy, the TOTAL EXPECTED MULTIPLIER and PROBABILITY OF HAND OUTCOME will change, this will affect your EXPECTED RETURN, then it will affect your stretegy.....I guess must use trial and error method to find correct basic strategy, what do you think ?
link to original post
Quote: OnceDearIf the multipliers are randomised at each round, is it true to say that the optimal strategy will change for every hand. That would make it impossible for a human to play optimal strategy. The 99.56% would be a pipe dream.
link to original post
We should record the multipliers of hundreds/thousands of hands, and then only apply a fixed set of average multipliers.
Some thoughts:
- This seems to be much higher variance than normal blackjack.
- So, my intuition is that it is very exploitable. It would be very interesting to find out the change in EV per true count. With regular blackjack at about 0.5% per true count, I would not be surprised if this game had a change of 2% per true count. Maybe it's even higher? It's fun to dream.
- There is no penalty for increasing your bets when the count is high, though you only get the multiplier for the amount of your previous bet. So, easy to vary bets. It's probably good camouflage since it appears suboptimal to the casino.
- Although reducing your bet when you have a multiplier active and the count goes negative is costly, there is probably no need to do that since the multiplier is likely to make the next bet positive EV even with the negative count. Wait for a losing hand to reduce your bet or walk away.
- It will take a while for the casino to notice it is getting exploited, especially since this game will have such a huge edge against most players. Playing optimal (at least at first glance) and varying bets will make us look like a lucky fool.
- Memorizing a basic strategy for this game would be comparable to memorizing several basic strategies for regular blackjack.
- A strategy with index numbers based on the multiplier (similar to how a counter uses indices based on the count) might get pretty close.
- Memorizing a single table of index numbers is comparable in difficulty to what a counter does fairly early in their training.
- Memorizing several different basic strategies based on the multipliers seems much easier than learning a bunch of different VP games. I would guess it is similar to getting some proficiency at Ultimate X. I would think it not much different than memorizing different strategies for carnival games based on hole card information.
I should add that I don't play carnival games or video poker, so these observations may be way off base.
I see Mission already made a comment on shoe penetration and countability here: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/questions-and-answers/advice/36630-evolution-lightning-blackjack/#post830453 Good news/bad news:
- Good: Since there is mention of shoe penetration, it's not played against a CSM (or online a new shuffle each hand) so exploit possible.
- Good: Poor penetration might not matter if the variance is high enough. How often have you had a true count of +2 or +3 early in a shoe?
- Bad: Very simple casino counter measure after all that work/study to exploit the game: use a CSM or (online) shuffle every hand.
Thanks! Great post and I also theorized about countability in the article that I wrote about the game. As you mentioned, counting would almost certainly add something, though you would need to have a base starting strategy for the game to begin with. The nice thing about counting this is that the count would correlate to normal Blackjack counting due to the multipliers on the highest hand totals simultaneously being the highest (average and in fact) multipliers.
As to this:
Quote: RideTheEdge- Although reducing your bet when you have a multiplier active and the count goes negative is costly, there is probably no need to do that since the multiplier is likely to make the next bet positive EV even with the negative count. Wait for a losing hand to reduce your bet or walk away.
(Quote clipped, relevance)
The site referenced by both myself and Wizard in our writings would have it that you don't necessarily have to use the multiplier right away, if you stop playing and that it will remain useable for up to 180 days until you decide to play again. Rather than play the next hand, you could simply wait for the count to go back to positive or you could just wait for the start of a new shoe and a neutral count. The neutral count would effectively be advantageous (unless your multiplier is small) because you will already be making a base bet that will be multiplied on a win.
I agree with what you have said about memorizing strategies. Of course, by varying bets with the count, you might not even need multiple strategies, but they would increase your value and opportunities, of course.
Good point about possibly only needing a single strategy. If it turns out that a single basic strategy has a return of 98.5 or so and the EV per true count is over 2%, then one can get started playing just basic strategy with bet variation. Add indices as you get practice if it ends up worthwhile.
At first glance your intuition that normal blackjack counting would work makes sense to me. I have no insight into how much is lost, if anything, using hi-lo vs. a count optimized for this game.
I just gave it a try. £100 bankroll flat betting £1 (+£1 lightning fee)Quote: WizardOkay, I've spent the good part of the week on this game. That said, please see my analysis of Lightning Blackjack. Warning, my analysis is based on conventional basic strategy, which is not appropriate for this game. If you do play basic strategy, expect to lose 17.63% of your original bet, on average.
I welcome all comments.
link to original post
One time while I had the multiplier active, I increased to £2, and it showed me that the multiplier was only applying to £1. So no strategy of raising bet while you have a multiplier.
I tried varying strategy to hit 12, 13, or 14 to try to activate some bigger multipliers. It didn't help.
The bankroll attrition to the lightning fee was relentless. Very quickly I was down to £70. I saw hardly any benefit from the multiplier, on those few times it worked.
I had a couple of back to back winning blackjacks, but they only recovered about £15 of my losses. Then back to losing steadily.
My first inclination is to say No Way is there a strategy that returns 99% I just can see no strategy variation that would increase the usefulness of the Lightning side bet. It's a complete mystery to me.
Card counting would have its work cut out, because penetration is about 50%
So.... I quit when my bankroll fell to £70 and switched to RNG AC blackjack. Won my way up to £101 to give me my 23rd consecutive winning session $;o)
Quote: OnceDearIf the multipliers are randomised at each round, is it true to say that the optimal strategy will change for every hand. That would make it impossible for a human to play optimal strategy. The 99.56% would be a pipe dream.
link to original post
There should need to be only as many strategies as possible multipliers. Same with Ultimate X Gold.
Quote: OnceDearI just gave it a try. £100 bankroll flat betting £1 (+£1 lightning fee)
link to original post
Did you collect any data on the multipliers?
Quote: RideTheEdgeThis game seems like a good opportunity for someone with the motivation to exploit it.
link to original post
Outstanding post. I won't elaborate, lest I get accused of killing the play.
No, I didn't collect data. I could record a video in spectator mode if it helps.Quote: WizardQuote: OnceDearI just gave it a try. £100 bankroll flat betting £1 (+£1 lightning fee)
link to original post
Did you collect any data on the multipliers?
The bankroll attrition was relentless. I reckon a few months down the road, someone will disprove Evolutions claim of a possible 99.56% RTP. I sure as heck won't be playing it again.
Quote: OnceDear
No, I didn't collect data. I could record a video in spectator mode if it helps.
The bankroll attrition was relentless. I reckon a few months down the road, someone will disprove Evolutions claim of a possible 99.56% RTP. I sure as heck won't be playing it again.
link to original post
You could probably just set it and forget it. How long can you go without making a bet before being booted from the game feed? I've never tried on any of them, so I don't know.
Some online gaffs boot you out to 'the lobby' after 5 mins or so. But I think my place would let it run 30 mins or more.Quote: Mission146Quote: OnceDear
No, I didn't collect data. I could record a video in spectator mode if it helps.
The bankroll attrition was relentless. I reckon a few months down the road, someone will disprove Evolutions claim of a possible 99.56% RTP. I sure as heck won't be playing it again.
link to original post
You could probably just set it and forget it. How long can you go without making a bet before being booted from the game feed? I've never tried on any of them, so I don't know.
link to original post
Thinking back to RTP claims. If the strategy is significantly different to Basic strategy, then one would be getting a sub optimal RTP on the base part of the game. The more I think about it, the less I buy it. 99.56 in a pigs eye!
I just read the rules again. I see "All Payouts with a multiplier are included in the multiplier. For example, if you have a BlackJack and a multiplier, then only the multiplier will be applied."
To me, that means Blackjack is only being paid 1:1 x the multiplier.That's damned mean if it's true.
So, having wagered $1 (+$1 fee) with a multiplier of 2x coming forward from the previous round, you would only get $1 x 2 + $1 stake =$3. Thats just 50c 'benefit' from the multiplier that cost you a $1 fee to buy.
I do hope someone figures an exploit to whup this evil game!
Quote: OnceDearAnother DIRTY RULE?
I just read the rules again. I see "All Payouts with a multiplier are included in the multiplier. For example, if you have a BlackJack and a multiplier, then only the multiplier will be applied."
To me, that means Blackjack is only being paid 1:1 x the multiplier.That's damned mean if it's true.
So, having wagered $1 (+$1 fee) with a multiplier of 2x coming forward from the previous round, you would only get $1 x 2 + $1 stake =$3. Thats just 50c 'benefit' from the multiplier that cost you a $1 fee to buy.
I do hope someone figures an exploit to whup this evil game!
link to original post
I'm pretty sure the Base Game win and Lightning Win are accounted for separately.
Oh, no, never mind...I think you might be right...or maybe I am. I don't know. I always took it as they are accounted for totally separately.
Quote: OnceDearAnother DIRTY RULE?
I just read the rules again. I see "All Payouts with a multiplier are included in the multiplier. For example, if you have a BlackJack and a multiplier, then only the multiplier will be applied."
To me, that means Blackjack is only being paid 1:1 x the multiplier.That's damned mean if it's true.
So, having wagered $1 (+$1 fee) with a multiplier of 2x coming forward from the previous round, you would only get $1 x 2 + $1 stake =$3. Thats just 50c 'benefit' from the multiplier that cost you a $1 fee to buy.
I do hope someone figures an exploit to whup this evil game!
link to original post
Thanks for finding that additional rule!
The game's designers should have allowed blackjacks to pay 1.5 times the multiplier. To compensate for that, they would just have to have lower average multipliers, which we would hardly notice.
By the way, don't their rules say that blackjack pays 3:2? If so, when you don't have a multiplier, you probably get 3:2.
Regarding how badly you are losing at the game--CrystalMath pointed out that the players should do a lot more doubling-down and splitting: even doubling stiff hands should be considered.
Even a 2x multiplier makes a big difference in the doubling and splitting strategies. And those strategies are easy to find for each multiplier (if future multipliers are ignored.)
I'm going to take one for the team. Play a hundred hands or less to see how it really pays.Quote: Mission146Quote: OnceDearAnother DIRTY RULE?
I just read the rules again. I see "All Payouts with a multiplier are included in the multiplier. For example, if you have a BlackJack and a multiplier, then only the multiplier will be applied."
link to original post
I'm pretty sure the Base Game win and Lightning Win are accounted for separately.
Oh, no, never mind...I think you might be right...or maybe I am. I don't know. I always took it as they are accounted for totally separately.
link to original post
Quote: OnceDearAnother DIRTY RULE?
I just read the rules again. I see "All Payouts with a multiplier are included in the multiplier. For example, if you have a BlackJack and a multiplier, then only the multiplier will be applied."
To me, that means Blackjack is only being paid 1:1 x the multiplier.That's damned mean if it's true.
So, having wagered $1 (+$1 fee) with a multiplier of 2x coming forward from the previous round, you would only get $1 x 2 + $1 stake =$3. Thats just 50c 'benefit' from the multiplier that cost you a $1 fee to buy.
I do hope someone figures an exploit to whup this evil game!
link to original post
I'll be the first to say the rules could be written better. In the case of your sentence, I think what it means is only the winnings get multiplied, not the original wager.
In your example, if the player would win (before deducting the Lightning fee) $1*1.5*2= $3. After the fee, the net win is $2. If someone has evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.
Quote: OnceDearNo, I didn't collect data. I could record a video in spectator mode if it helps.
link to original post
Please do.
I just gave it some time and money. Played with a strategy of 'Aspire to get a big multiplier* and if I had a big multiplier active, get as much money down as possible.**Quote: WizardQuote: OnceDearAnother DIRTY RULE?
I just read the rules again. I see "All Payouts with a multiplier are included in the multiplier. For example, if you have a BlackJack and a multiplier, then only the multiplier will be applied."
To me, that means Blackjack is only being paid 1:1 x the multiplier.That's damned mean if it's true.
So, having wagered $1 (+$1 fee) with a multiplier of 2x coming forward from the previous round, you would only get $1 x 2 + $1 stake =$3. Thats just 50c 'benefit' from the multiplier that cost you a $1 fee to buy.
I do hope someone figures an exploit to whup this evil game!
link to original post
I'll be the first to say the rules could be written better. In the case of your sentence, I think what it means is only the winnings get multiplied, not the original wager.
In your example, if the player would win (before deducting the Lightning fee) $1*1.5*2= $3. After the fee, the net win is $2. If someone has evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.Quote: OnceDearNo, I didn't collect data. I could record a video in spectator mode if it helps.
link to original post
Please do.
link to original post
So, since 20 and 21 gave bigger multipliers than 4-17, I'd hit 4-17. I'd also split anything and everything and double soft hands. One time I had a pair of fives against a six and I split them. because my multiplier was 12, it was one of my best hands.
I managed to get ahead briefly, but eventually I'd lost £50 and quit.
I never did get a blackjack to see what it paid.
Will do a video cap tomorrow, IF I can do so without revealing personal info to the forum.
I think (or hope) we have the rules nailed down - but we definitely need more data on the multipliers. I don't trust the information from the 19 hands on the marketing video - it may not be a sincere sample, i.e., it may be a biased selection of multipliers to make the game look attractive.
Its pretty clear that their will be basic strategy changes for
a) when you have no active multiplier (flip close call stand vs hit decisions and flip close call double vs hit to increase chances of getting higher multipliers in ensuing hands )
b) when you have active multipliers (winning has a bigger payoff but pushing does not) and will be a function of the size of the multiplier (i.e., minimum multiplier needed to flip a decision)
but both sets of decisions depend upon the average multiplier expectation as a function of the 'rank" of your winning hand.
I think I can work up a basic strategy fairly quickly - but I want better data on multipliers before I put in the work.
Quote: gordonm888
Its pretty clear that their will be basic strategy changes for
a) when you have no active multiplier (flip close call stand vs hit decisions and flip close call double vs hit to increase chances of getting higher multipliers in ensuing hands )
b) when you have active multipliers (winning has a bigger payoff but pushing does not) and will be a function of the size of the multiplier (i.e., minimum multiplier needed to flip a decision)
Totally agree. I guess the current strategy should be something like this :-
Current strategy = f (current total, current multiplier, next hand average multiplier).
However, next hand average multiplier = f(current total, win rate of each winning point), to simplify it further, we may use a fix value for next hand multiplier = 2.609(calculated by WIZARD.) or a pre-determined fixed value.
Instead of normal true count index table, we may come out with a "multiplier index" table. LOL
digging for the patent ... if any?
https://www.livecasinocomparer.com/live-casino-software/evolution-live-casino-software/evolution-live-blackjack/lightning-blackjack/
I created a little program that takes into account a multiplied pay-out for winning but not for winning any bonus for the next hand. I think, perhaps falsely, that I assumed that when doubling both the parts are paid the multiple so I might need to revisit that, but the split ignored the effect of knowing the other hand or allowing subsequent doubling.
NOTE: This ignores the effect of winning and getting a multiplier for the next hand.
Ace : D 11-10; d s18; Split A234 6789
Two : D 12-8; d s20-s13; Split A23 6789X
Three: D 12-7 then as above
Four: D 12-6 then as above
Five: D 12-5 then as above
Six: as five
Seven: D 13-8; d s19-s13; Split A234 6789X
Eight: D 11-9: d s18-s14; Split A234 6789
Nine: D 11-9; d s18-s16; as above
Ten: D 11-10; d s18; Split A23 789
Quote: charliepatrickI created a little program that takes into account a multiplied pay-out for winning but not for winning any bonus for the next hand. I think, perhaps falsely, that I assumed that when doubling both the parts are paid the multiple so I might need to revisit that
It does multiply both hands from a split or any double. I'm unsure how blackjacks get multiplied.
Quote:
Splitting like crazy seems to be the way, and I think hitting 14-17
We really need to aspire to catch big multipliers. 4-17 always seem to be x2 but 20 and 21 can be x10 or x12. Worth getting your hand up to 20 or 21 if possible.
Where you already have a good multiplier, favour doubling or splitting. I did well even splitting 5s against a six
Quote: charliepatrickThe sole purpose of this post is to say it looks like it might be worth splitting when you have a multiplier coming in. I've not checked the results (except the no effect strategy matches regular BJ).
I created a little program that takes into account a multiplied pay-out for winning but not for winning any bonus for the next hand. I think, perhaps falsely, that I assumed that when doubling both the parts are paid the multiple so I might need to revisit that, but the split ignored the effect of knowing the other hand or allowing subsequent doubling.
NOTE: This ignores the effect of winning and getting a multiplier for the next hand.
Ace : D 11-10; d s18; Split A234 6789
Two : D 12-8; d s20-s13; Split A23 6789X
Three: D 12-7 then as above
Four: D 12-6 then as above
Five: D 12-5 then as above
Six: as five
Seven: D 13-8; d s19-s13; Split A234 6789X
Eight: D 11-9: d s18-s14; Split A234 6789
Nine: D 11-9; d s18-s16; as above
Ten: D 11-10; d s18; Split A23 789
link to original post
Using the infinite-deck model, I get your strategy exactly. (This is the strategy for a multiplier of 2.)
This strategy maximizes the EV of the present hand, and it ignores the possible multipliers on subsequent hands, as you pointed out.
Since this strategy ignores the effects of multipliers on the following hand, the true strategies for 18, 19, and 20 are probably quite different from it.
Edit: I also get soft double 21 vs 5 and 6 assuming blackjack pays only 1 times instead of 3/2 times the multiplier. But of course, the subsequent multiplier from standing on BJ would surely override this.
Thanks for confirming my idea. I also got d s21 but I suspect you're not allowed to double or hit any 21s. (I asked my local once where it was correct to split 10s and double).Quote: ChesterDog[Edit: I also get soft double 21 vs 5 and 6 assuming blackjack pays only 1 times instead of 3/2 times the multiplier. But of course, the subsequent multiplier from standing on BJ would surely override this.
link to original post
They won't let you hit or double soft 21.Quote: charliepatrickThanks for confirming my idea. I also got d s21 but I suspect you're not allowed to double or hit any 21s. (I asked my local once where it was correct to split 10s and double).Quote: ChesterDog[Edit: I also get soft double 21 vs 5 and 6 assuming blackjack pays only 1 times instead of 3/2 times the multiplier. But of course, the subsequent multiplier from standing on BJ would surely override this.
link to original post
link to original post
1 | -0.007 920 921 |
2 | 0.499 344 556 |
3 | 1.089 821 499 |
4 | 1.724 816 958 |
5 | 2.374 416 059 |
6 | 3.031 364 592 |
8 | 4.351 834 756 |
10 | 5.678 450 178 |
12 | 7.005 559 030 |
15 | 8.996 807 367 |
25 | 15.638 537 737 |
Towards the end (25x) you Split A234 6789X (except double 44vs6 and 7), and Double 17- (except 16- vs 5 and 6).
With lower multipliers you stop doubling on 6 or less vs good Dealer's cards,
By 3x and 2x you're not doubling quite so madly, but still splitting 10s (except vs A,9,10)
Of course your EV with no multiplier is actually -1.008, or similar, plus the value of any value carried forward.
When you have an active multiplier (particularly a large multiplier), you want to make deviations from basic strategy that increase your chance of winning, with a lesser incentives to gain a push. On Stand/hits, one might stand a little more often.
When you don't have an active multiplier, your deviations from active strategy should be incentivized by the desire to gain a higher multiplier. So, hitting more often.
2. I do agree with the poster (OnceDear?) who said an opinion that no amount of strategy deviations will make up for an 18% house edge. Unless the multipliers are higher than implied by the game video, I don't see how this game can have a house edge under 10%. Unless we've missed something fundamental: something like, maybe, doubling down on hard 12 and13 vs 2-6 whenever you have a high multiplier ???
(a) the exact multipliers for the specific hand might affect some of the decisions
(b) when splitting you know what the first hand did - in this case I assume the first hand plays as if there wasn't a second hand, and the second plays without regard to any carry over. (If running a simulation then one might assume the first hand acts as per this, but the second hand plays differently unless the first hand busted.)
These above two factors might also reduce the calculated House Edge (from about 6%).
Thus please take this with a pinch of salt at this stage, but I do get you hit and split more often than usual and double less. Also note when you hit soft 18.
Ace | H17 noD | A 8 9 | st s18 |
2 | H16 D11,10 | A 2 3 7 8 9 | h s18 |
3 | H16 D11,10 | A 2 3 7 8 9 | h s18 |
4 | H16 D11,10 | A 2 3 6 7 8 9 | h s18 d s18 |
5 | H16 D11,10 | A 2 3 6 7 8 9 | h s18 d s18 |
6 | H16 D11,10 | A 2 3 6 7 8 9 | h s18 d s18,s17 |
7 | H17 noD | A 2 3 7 8 9 | st s18 |
8 | H17 noD | A 2 3 7 8 9 | h s18 |
9 | H17 noD | A 8 9 | h s18 |
10 | H17 noD | A 8 9 | st s18 |
Quote: gordonm8881. I have a strategy thought, namely that it might prove wise to only place the Lightning Bet on hands where you do not have a multiplier.
When you have an active multiplier (particularly a large multiplier), you want to make deviations from basic strategy that increase your chance of winning, with a lesser incentives to gain a push. On Stand/hits, one might stand a little more often.
(edited for relevance)
link to original post
AFAIK, the lightning bet is not optional. It's not a side bet, it's built into the game.
Quote: charliepatrickI'm not totally convinced, so haven't gone into too much detail why my EV is slightly different but it's in the right ballpark, as I get the following EVs (ignoring the value of outgoing multipliers).
Towards the end (25x) you Split A234 6789X (except double 44vs6 and 7), and Double 17- (except 16- vs 5 and 6).
With lower multipliers you stop doubling on 6 or less vs good Dealer's cards,
By 3x and 2x you're not doubling quite so madly, but still splitting 10s (except vs A,9,10)
Of course your EV with no multiplier is actually -1.008, or similar, plus the value of any value carried forward.
link to original post
At casinobloke.com https://www.casinobloke.com/live-dealer/evolution-lightning-blackjack-live/ it says the payout is capped at 36.5:1. Do you think this is correct, and it is included in your EV calculation and basic strategy for doubles and splits when the multiplier is 20 or 25?
But the lightning bet is mandatory. and you don't see the multipliers till after you paid!Quote: gordonm8881. I have a strategy thought, namely that it might prove wise to only place the Lightning Bet on hands where you do not have a multiplier.
When you have an active multiplier (particularly a large multiplier), you want to make deviations from basic strategy that increase your chance of winning, with a lesser incentives to gain a push. On Stand/hits, one might stand a little more often.
When you don't have an active multiplier, your deviations from active strategy should be incentivized by the desire to gain a higher multiplier. So, hitting more often.
link to original post
Quote: gordonm888I do agree with the poster (OnceDear?) who said an opinion that no amount of strategy deviations will make up for an 18% house edge. Unless the multipliers are higher than implied by the game video, I don't see how this game can have a house edge under 10%. Unless we've missed something fundamental: something like, maybe, doubling down on hard 12 and13 vs 2-6 whenever you have a high multiplier ???
link to original post
Here's my calculated values of EV for 12 vs 5 for Stand/Hit/Double as a function of the size of the multiplier that is active!
| Multiplier | Stand | Hit | Double | 1 | -0.1646 | -0.1923 | -0.3846 | 2 | 0.2531 | 0.189123077 | 0.378246154 | 3 | 0.6708 | 0.570546154 | 1.141092308 | 4 | 1.0885 | 0.951969231 | 1.903938462 | 5 | 1.5062 | 1.333392308 | 2.666784615 | 6 | 1.9239 | 1.714815385 | 3.429630769 | 7 | 2.3416 | 2.096238462 | 4.192476923 |
|---|
This is the missing EV! When you have an active multiplier >1 your best play will often be to Double on some non-traditional hands such as 3 - 13, With a multiplier, you are in a favorable situation, and it makes sense to increase the amount of your wager by doubling (or splitting).
13 vs 2 as a function of the active multiplier
| Multiplier | Stand | Hit | Double | 1 | -0.2952 | -0.309092308 | -0.618184615 | 2 | 0.0572 | 0.011453846 | 0.022907692 | 3 | 0.4096 | 0.332 | 0.664 | 4 | 0.762 | 0.652546154 | 1.305092308 | 5 | 1.1144 | 0.973092308 | 1.946184615 | 6 | 1.4668 | 1.293638462 | 2.587276923 | 7 | 1.8192 | 1.614184615 | 3.228369231 | 8 | 2.1716 | 1.934730769 | 3.869461538 | 9 | 2.524 | 2.255276923 | 4.510553846 | 10 | 2.8764 | 2.575823077 | 5.151646154 |
|---|
Again, the message is : Double, double double when you have an active multiplier.
Here is 14 vs 2.
| Multiplier | Stand | Hit | Double | 1 | -0.2948 | -0.363169231 | -0.726338462 | 2 | 0.0578 | -0.069653846 | -0.139307692 | 3 | 0.4104 | 0.223861538 | 0.447723077 | 4 | 0.763 | 0.517376923 | 1.034753846 | 5 | 1.1156 | 0.810892308 | 1.621784615 | 6 | 1.4682 | 1.104407692 | 2.208815385 | 7 | 1.8208 | 1.397923077 | 2.795846154 | 8 | 2.1734 | 1.691438462 | 3.382876923 | 9 | 2.526 | 1.984953846 | 3.969907692 | 10 | 2.8786 | 2.278469231 | 4.556938462 |
|---|
So for a 14v2 you should double with a multiplier 3 or higher, otherwise stand
| Multiplier | Stand | Hit | Double | 1 | -0.2948 | -0.417415385 | -0.834830769 | 2 | 0.0578 | -0.151023077 | -0.302046154 | 3 | 0.4104 | 0.115369231 | 0.230738462 | 4 | 0.763 | 0.381761538 | 0.763523077 | 5 | 1.1156 | 0.648153846 | 1.296307692 | 6 | 1.4682 | 0.914546154 | 1.829092308 | 7 | 1.8208 | 1.180938462 | 2.361876923 | 8 | 2.1734 | 1.447330769 | 2.894661538 | 9 | 2.526 | 1.713723077 | 3.427446154 | 10 | 2.8786 | 1.980115385 | 3.960230769 |
|---|
For 16v2 you should double with a multiplier of 7 or more, otherwise, Stand
| Multiplier | Stand | Hit | Double | 1 | -0.2948 | -0.471661538 | -0.943323077 | 2 | 0.0578 | -0.232392308 | -0.464784615 | 3 | 0.4104 | 0.006876923 | 0.013753846 | 4 | 0.763 | 0.246146154 | 0.492292308 | 5 | 1.1156 | 0.485415385 | 0.970830769 | 6 | 1.4682 | 0.724684615 | 1.449369231 | 7 | 1.8208 | 0.963953846 | 1.927907692 | 8 | 2.1734 | 1.203223077 | 2.406446154 | 9 | 2.526 | 1.442492308 | 2.884984615 | 10 | 2.8786 | 1.681761538 | 3.363523077 |
|---|
The rules for '12-16 versus 3,4,5 or 6' are probably very similar for "12-16 versus 2." I'll calculate those next.
Minimum multiplier needed to Double, otherwise play conventional strategy*
| Player Total | v2 | v3 | v4 | v5 | v6 | 16 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 8 | 15 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 14 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 13 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
|---|
*"Conventional strategy may be the no-multiplier strategy that CharliePatrick and others are working through.
Several of the 16vX table entries are quite close to being a different number, such as 16v4 and 16v6, so the minimum multiplier needed to double may change by one unit when a more rigorous calculation is done. My technique is a hybrid between 8 deck composition dependent and infinite deck, so it is better than simple infinite deck.
Quote: gordonm888This is what I calculate for the minimum multiplier needed to Double for a player stiff hand versus a dealer 2-6.
Minimum multiplier needed to Double, otherwise play conventional strategy*
Player Total v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 16 7 7 8 10 8 15 5 5 5 4 5 14 3 3 4 4 3 13 2 3 3 3 3 12 2 2 2 2 2
*"Conventional strategy may be the no-multiplier strategy that CharliePatrick and others are working through.
Several of the 16vX table entries are quite close to being a different number, such as 16v4 and 16v6, so the minimum multiplier needed to double may change by one unit when a more rigorous calculation is done. My technique is a hybrid between 8 deck composition dependent and infinite deck, so it is better than simple infinite deck.
link to original post
For comparison, using simple infinite deck, here is what I get for the minimum multiplier for stiffs vs 2-6, ignoring subsequent multipliers:
| Player Total | v2 | v3 | v4 | v5 | v6 | 16 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 8 | 15 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 14 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 13 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
|---|
And here's my full table for stiff doubles:
Quote: gordonm888Quote: gordonm888I do agree with the poster (OnceDear?) who said an opinion that no amount of strategy deviations will make up for an 18% house edge. Unless the multipliers are higher than implied by the game video, I don't see how this game can have a house edge under 10%. Unless we've missed something fundamental: something like, maybe, doubling down on hard 12 and13 vs 2-6 whenever you have a high multiplier ???
link to original post
Here's my calculated values of EV for 12 vs 5 for Stand/Hit/Double as a function of the size of the multiplier that is active!
Multiplier Stand Hit Double 1 -0.1646 -0.1923 -0.3846 2 0.2531 0.189123077 0.378246154 3 0.6708 0.570546154 1.141092308 4 1.0885 0.951969231 1.903938462 5 1.5062 1.333392308 2.666784615 6 1.9239 1.714815385 3.429630769 7 2.3416 2.096238462 4.192476923
This is the missing EV! When you have an active multiplier >1 your best play will often be to Double on some non-traditional hands such as 3 - 13, With a multiplier, you are in a favorable situation, and it makes sense to increase the amount of your wager by doubling (or splitting).
link to original post
I agree with all your figures(ignoring next round multipliers).
Suppose the current hand is 12 vs 5 and active multiplier is 1, your proposed strategy is STAND(ev= -0.1646) instead of HIT(-0.1923). HIT is only 2.77% worse than STAND. However, HIT will increase the chance of getting higher multiplier for next round. After weighing these two factors, may be HIT is better ?
Quote: ChesterDogQuote: gordonm888This is what I calculate for the minimum multiplier needed to Double for a player stiff hand versus a dealer 2-6.
Minimum multiplier needed to Double, otherwise play conventional strategy*
Player Total v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 16 7 7 8 10 8 15 5 5 5 4 5 14 3 3 4 4 3 13 2 3 3 3 3 12 2 2 2 2 2
*"Conventional strategy may be the no-multiplier strategy that CharliePatrick and others are working through.
Several of the 16vX table entries are quite close to being a different number, such as 16v4 and 16v6, so the minimum multiplier needed to double may change by one unit when a more rigorous calculation is done. My technique is a hybrid between 8 deck composition dependent and infinite deck, so it is better than simple infinite deck.
link to original post
For comparison, using simple infinite deck, here is what I get for the minimum multiplier for stiffs vs 2-6, ignoring subsequent multipliers:
Player Total v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 16 7 7 8 10 8 15 5 5 5 5 5 14 3 3 4 4 3 13 3 3 3 12 2 2 2 2 2
And here's my full table for stiff doubles:
link to original post
Great work, I didn't have the time tonight to do all that.
I agree with you that the min. multiplier for 15v5 is a 5, not a 4 as I had listed. That was just a typo on my part when I posted the table.
I also agree with you that the min. mult. for 13v2 is 3. I apparently just misread my value for Double EV when I calculated it and compared it to the EV for Stand .
I suspect that double may also be optimal strategy for some 7,8,9 vs X (with multipliers) that we would not conventionally Double, if you or anyone else have time to evaluate that.
Quote: ssho88Quote: gordonm888
link to original post
Here's my calculated values of EV for 12 vs 5 for Stand/Hit/Double as a function of the size of the multiplier that is active!
Multiplier Stand Hit Double 1 -0.1646 -0.1923 -0.3846 2 0.2531 0.189123077 0.378246154 3 0.6708 0.570546154 1.141092308 4 1.0885 0.951969231 1.903938462 5 1.5062 1.333392308 2.666784615 6 1.9239 1.714815385 3.429630769 7 2.3416 2.096238462 4.192476923
This is the missing EV! When you have an active multiplier >1 your best play will often be to Double on some non-traditional hands such as 3 - 13, With a multiplier, you are in a favorable situation, and it makes sense to increase the amount of your wager by doubling (or splitting).
link to original post
I agree with all your figures(ignoring next round multipliers).
Suppose the current hand is 12 vs 5 and active multiplier is 1, your proposed strategy is STAND(ev= -0.1646) instead of HIT(-0.1923). HIT is only 2.77% worse than STAND. However, HIT will increase the chance of getting higher multiplier for next round. After weighing these two factors, may be HIT is better ?
link to original post
Thanks, ssho88! Yes, I suspect that the No-multiplier strategy would probably be Hit for 12 vs 5. I haven't run the numbers, but the multipliers for getting a 21 are so large that they must surely flip the decision on all the borderline stand/hit decisions (incl. 13v2, various soft 18s, etc.) for no-multiplier scenario.
Quote: gordonm888...
I suspect that double may also be optimal strategy for some 7,8,9 vs X (with multipliers) that we would not conventionally Double, if you or anyone else have time to evaluate that.
link to original post
Ignoring multipliers on subsequent hands, infinite deck calculations find these minimum multipliers to hard double:
