April 28th, 2012 at 5:19:24 PM
permalink

Just ran across a new variation. Plays like a typical Vegas shoe game--6 decks, dealers stands H17, Double any 2, DAS, split 3 times except Aces with the following wrinkles. In addition to the normal double bet you also have the option to "double-up" which is an additional bet equal to the original but without taking an additional card. You can also do this after splitting. For example, if you split Aces and got a face card on each you could then double your bet on each or your 21s. You must win this additional bet, dealer takes ties. To make up for this gift to the player the dealers 16 (hard or soft) pushes with all players hands except 21 (won by player). Anybody have the software to figure house advantage on this game? On what hands should you "double up"? What are the variation to basic strategy? It seems to me that this game should be very vulnerable to counting with every increase in the true count adding more than usual to player advantage. I did pretty well against it using Hi-Lo.

April 28th, 2012 at 5:30:35 PM
permalink

I assume if a dealer 16 pushes with all hands, that the dealer stands on 16 AND 17 (or just hits soft 17?).

"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829

April 28th, 2012 at 5:47:52 PM
permalink

Quote:thecesspitI assume if a dealer 16 pushes with all hands, that the dealer stands on 16 AND 17 (or just hits soft 17?).

Here's a good YouTube video explaining the game. I see printed on the felt that the dealer hits soft 17. However, the dealer stands on any soft or hard 16.

And here is a report from Score Gaming's website also explaining the rules and reporting the house edge, which is very low at 0.313%!

An infinite-deck model shows the playing strategy is very similar to the regular H17 game, and Hi-Lo would be adequate for counting it. And here is the double-up strategy: Always double-up 21 and 20. Double-up 19 vs 2-8. Double-up soft 18 vs 7 and hard 18 vs 5 and 7.

May 19th, 2017 at 3:31:41 PM
permalink

Sorry for resurfacing this thread but I played this game last weekend and found it really enjoyable. It's been in Stockton for some time now.

I had a quick look at a strategy and came up (infinite deck) with this (where you've split Aces use the hard total to decide whether to Double Up your resulting score). This tables assumes UK rules except Double Up bets don't lose against BlackJack. Also you can re-split as many times as you like, which may be why my figure is slightly lower than that above.

NB Stockton does not hit soft 17, so I used this table.

This table same except dealer hits Soft 17 (but not Soft 16!)

I had a quick look at a strategy and came up (infinite deck) with this (where you've split Aces use the hard total to decide whether to Double Up your resulting score). This tables assumes UK rules except Double Up bets don't lose against BlackJack. Also you can re-split as many times as you like, which may be why my figure is slightly lower than that above.

NB Stockton does not hit soft 17, so I used this table.

A | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

HARD Hit/St/DD/DU | 21 | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU |

20 | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | |

19 | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | - | - | |

18 | - | - | - | DU | DU | DU | DU | - | - | - | |

17 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |

16 | H | - | - | - | - | - | H | H | H | H | |

15 | H | - | - | - | - | - | H | H | H | H | |

14 | H | - | - | - | - | - | H | H | H | H | |

13 | H | - | - | - | - | - | H | H | H | H | |

12 | H | H | H | - | - | - | H | H | H | H | |

11 | H | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | H | |

10 | H | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | H | H | |

9 | H | H | H | D | D | H | H | H | H | H | |

8 | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | |

SOFT Hit/St/DD/DU | 11 | du | du | du | du | du | du | du | du | du | du |

10 | du | du | du | du | du | du | du | du | du | du | |

9 | du | du | du | du | du | du | du | du | - | - | |

8 | h | - | d | d | d | du | du | - | h | h | |

7 | h | h | h | d | d | d | h | h | h | h | |

6 | h | h | h | h | d | h | h | h | h | h | |

5 | h | h | h | h | d | h | h | h | h | h | |

4 | h | h | h | h | d | h | h | h | h | h | |

3 | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | |

Split | 10 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |

9 | - | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | - | |

8 | H | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | H | |

7 | H | X | X | X | X | X | X | H | H | H | |

6 | H | H | X | X | X | X | H | H | H | H | |

5 | H | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | H | H | |

4 | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | |

3 | H | H | H | X | X | X | X | H | H | H | |

2 | H | H | X | X | X | X | X | H | H | H | |

A | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |

This table same except dealer hits Soft 17 (but not Soft 16!)

A | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

HARD Hit/St/DD/DU | 21 | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU |

20 | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | |

19 | - | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | DU | - | - | |

18 | - | - | - | - | DU | - | DU | - | - | - | |

17 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |

16 | H | - | - | - | - | - | H | H | H | H | |

15 | H | - | - | - | - | - | H | H | H | H | |

14 | H | - | - | - | - | - | H | H | H | H | |

13 | H | - | - | - | - | - | H | H | H | H | |

12 | H | H | H | - | - | - | H | H | H | H | |

11 | H | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | H | |

10 | H | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | H | H | |

9 | H | H | H | D | D | H | H | H | H | H | |

8 | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | |

SOFT Hit/St/DD/DU | 11 | du | du | du | du | du | du | du | du | du | du |

10 | du | du | du | du | du | du | du | du | du | du | |

9 | - | du | du | du | du | du | du | du | - | - | |

8 | h | - | d | d | d | d | du | - | h | h | |

7 | h | h | h | d | d | d | h | h | h | h | |

6 | h | h | h | h | d | h | h | h | h | h | |

5 | h | h | h | h | d | h | h | h | h | h | |

4 | h | h | h | h | d | h | h | h | h | h | |

3 | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | |

Split | 10 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |

9 | - | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | - | |

8 | H | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | H | |

7 | H | X | X | X | X | X | X | H | H | H | |

6 | H | H | X | X | X | X | H | H | H | H | |

5 | H | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | H | H | |

4 | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | |

3 | H | H | H | X | X | X | X | H | H | H | |

2 | H | H | X | X | X | X | X | H | H | H | |

HE=0.2628% | A | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |

May 25th, 2017 at 6:28:48 PM
permalink

I finally got around to analyzing this game. My numbers don't agree with Charlie's and we're trying to find our point of departure, but I'm pretty sure it has to do with the peeking rule. Please visit my new page on Double Up Blackjack and let me know what you think. As usual, all questions, comments, and especially corrections are welcome.

It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.

May 28th, 2017 at 11:17:03 AM
permalink

Quote:Wizard... corrections are welcome.

The two tables of "strategy after splitting aces, when the only options are to stand or Double Up" both have the same title, "Dealer Stands on Soft 17." From the previous information on the page, the reader will know that the table on the left should be "Dealer Hits on Soft 17."

Last edited by: ChesterDog on May 28, 2017

October 27th, 2017 at 1:53:26 AM
permalink

So, if a dealer hits to 16, and a player Doubled Up there 20. Does the main wager and the Double Up wager push? Or does the Double Up wager lose?

February 19th, 2018 at 9:22:33 AM
permalink

In your analysis at WoO you say “The effect of the dealer standing on a soft 17 is worth 0.43% the player's way, according to my calculations.” Does this make the game +0.11% (with hit soft 17 being -0.32%), or are you saying it is +0.43% overall? I wanted to be sure I was interpreting this correctly. Thanks!

February 19th, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM
permalink

My interpretation is that the rule S17 is worth .43% to the player. So if the game is -.32% + .43% then the game would be +.11% with a player advantage (using perfect strategy).Quote:kumaIn your analysis at WoO you say “The effect of the dealer standing on a soft 17 is worth 0.43% the player's way, according to my calculations.” Does this make the game +0.11% (with hit soft 17 being -0.32%), or are you saying it is +0.43% overall? I wanted to be sure I was interpreting this correctly. Thanks!

Playing it correctly means you've already won.

February 20th, 2018 at 6:22:19 PM
permalink

This game has an unusual aspect. The Double UP bet is lost if you tie the dealer even though your original bet is a push.

What follows is a rambling game theory discussion

Now consider the case when you are dealt a hard 20 and dealer has a 10. This happens about 2.85% of the time from a fresh shoe - the most commonly occurring hand in BJ.

Let's say Dealer checks for BJ and gestures for you to act. Wizard's strategy calls for you to DOUBLE UP your bet (which I agree with.)

But isolate the DOUBLE UP wager and consider. The dealers other card is not an Ace, because that would be BJ. If its a Ten-valued card (T,J,Q or K), you lose the DOUBLE UP wager! Damn! If its a 7,8, or 9 you win the DOUBLE UP wager. If its a 6 you push the DOUBLE UP wager. And if its a 2,3,4 or 5 it depends upon the third card drawn by the dealer (and on additional cards as needed). You will tie when any of those hands make a 16, and lose when they don't make 16 and do make a 20 or 21.

I've been too busy and lazy to do the math, but over all I think that the DOUBLE UP/STAND decision on 20v10 is a surprisingly close call -maybe an EV of +0.14 for DOUBLE UP. It therefore may be possible that 20v10 could be an index play (STAND when the deck is rich in Tens and, ideally, when its depleted in 7,8,and 9s).* Just kinda cute that the most frequently occurring hand is so affected by this unusual rule. And that the DOUBLE UP wager on 20v10 has a bit less benefit than one might initially think.

* I don't believe such an index play is of anything but theoretical interest. But I do note that that whenever the TC is positive and high, the 20v10 hand should occur more frequently than 2.85%. Also, given a high positive TC the expert player will have made higher wagers, thus increasing the potential significance of a DOUBLE UP index play on 20v10. Just saying.

What follows is a rambling game theory discussion

Now consider the case when you are dealt a hard 20 and dealer has a 10. This happens about 2.85% of the time from a fresh shoe - the most commonly occurring hand in BJ.

Let's say Dealer checks for BJ and gestures for you to act. Wizard's strategy calls for you to DOUBLE UP your bet (which I agree with.)

But isolate the DOUBLE UP wager and consider. The dealers other card is not an Ace, because that would be BJ. If its a Ten-valued card (T,J,Q or K), you lose the DOUBLE UP wager! Damn! If its a 7,8, or 9 you win the DOUBLE UP wager. If its a 6 you push the DOUBLE UP wager. And if its a 2,3,4 or 5 it depends upon the third card drawn by the dealer (and on additional cards as needed). You will tie when any of those hands make a 16, and lose when they don't make 16 and do make a 20 or 21.

I've been too busy and lazy to do the math, but over all I think that the DOUBLE UP/STAND decision on 20v10 is a surprisingly close call -maybe an EV of +0.14 for DOUBLE UP. It therefore may be possible that 20v10 could be an index play (STAND when the deck is rich in Tens and, ideally, when its depleted in 7,8,and 9s).* Just kinda cute that the most frequently occurring hand is so affected by this unusual rule. And that the DOUBLE UP wager on 20v10 has a bit less benefit than one might initially think.

* I don't believe such an index play is of anything but theoretical interest. But I do note that that whenever the TC is positive and high, the 20v10 hand should occur more frequently than 2.85%. Also, given a high positive TC the expert player will have made higher wagers, thus increasing the potential significance of a DOUBLE UP index play on 20v10. Just saying.

So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.