nezbit
LOBO Reverse Blackjack: GAMING EDGE CONCEPTS: Lucky 8 Baccarat: GALAXY GAMING: Lucky Ladies: GALAXY GAMING: Lucky Lucky Blackjack: BALLY TECHNOLOGIES (SHFL ENTERTAINMENT) Lucky Stiff Blackjack: PARADIGM TABLE GAMES, INC. Match 'Em High Lo: BALLY TECHNOLOGIES: Match Jack: BALLY TECHNOLOGIES (SHFL ENTERTAINMENT) Match The Dealer Blackjack. The Lucky Lucky blackjack side bet is played with your first two dealt cards, and the dealer upcard. On these three cards, you get paid for various ways to make 21, and for any 20 and 19 total. My BlackJack is due here on Friday. I just got a Lucky D delivered yesterday and it has a mid mallet cover with two magnets for the closure, but they included a poker chip with it to show that you could stick. Mulligan 21 offers an optional side bet referred to as Lucky Stiff. A player that receives 66, 77 or 88 on the first two cards automatically wins 7-1, regardless of the results of the hand. These are referred to as “Stiff Pairs”. A natural blackjack. Blackjack Forum is a friendly community where Blackjack players of all skill levels are welcome. Discuss basic strategies to card counting and advanced techniques like shuffle tracking in the Blackjack forums. Lucky Stiff There is no available content written by Lucky Stiff Blackjack.
seems like then if you ever get a hard 12-16 you should always stay, ( i guess it depends on size of stiff bet)
http://casinogambling.about.com/od/blackjack/a/bjbust.htm
dealer busts when showing:
2 - 35%
3 - 37%
4 - 40%
5 - 42%
6 - 42%
7 - 26%
8 - 24%
9 - 23%
10 - 23%
A - 17%
so looks like hit vs the ace only if you stiff bet is even to your original wager.
EDIT: this cant be correct since you must in fact take the size of the wager bet on the hand...hmmmm interesting.
http://casinogambling.about.com/od/blackjack/a/bjbust.htm
dealer busts when showing:
2 - 35%
3 - 37%
4 - 40%
5 - 42%
6 - 42%
7 - 26%
8 - 24%
9 - 23%
10 - 23%
A - 17%
so looks like hit vs the ace only if you stiff bet is even to your original wager.
EDIT: this cant be correct since you must in fact take the size of the wager bet on the hand...hmmmm interesting.
Paigowdan
Lucky Stiff Blackjack Poker
You can look at 15 & 16 as a stay vs. 10 without guilt.Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
Paradigm
I can answer this one
Thanks Charles, I was hopeful the expert would step in....please correct me if I have misstated any of the previous facts.
CRMousseau
Thanks Charles, I was hopeful the expert would step in....please correct me if I have misstated any of the previous facts.
Everything else looks absolutely correct to me. And congratulations on getting the game in this far. I wish you nothing but success, and like the Wizard said, you got this far, which is already far ahead of the game.
Hunterhill
The non-basic BJ strategy moves to minimize the Lucky Stiff HE on a 'hit soft 17' set of rules is as follows (per our report from Charles Mousseau):
1) Stand on a hard 12 vs. a 3
2) Stand on a hard 12 that is not a T-2 vs. a 2
3) Stand on a hard 15 vs. T
4) Stand on a hard 16 vs. a 9 or T
The HE rises by 0.3% - 0.4% from the base 6 deck house edge of 4.05% if these adjustments to basic strategy are not followed. However, following these changes gives up 0.1% - 0.2% on your main BJ wager. Otherwise you may want to change BS in these 5 situations (out of 360 possible beginning hands).
If your base wager is at least twice the size of your Lucky Stiff wager, correct strategy to minimize the HE over all all your bets will be to play basic strategy.
Other than hard core BJ players (which probably aren't playing any side bets to begin with), 99% of players will simply play basic strategy and be looking at a slightly higher 4.35% to 4.45% HE on Lucky Stiff. Of course that assumes that they are playing basic strategy to start which is not always a reasonable assumption.
You say to stand on 16 vs 9, discount gambling says to hit 16 vs 9 so it must be a very close play.1) Stand on a hard 12 vs. a 3
2) Stand on a hard 12 that is not a T-2 vs. a 2
3) Stand on a hard 15 vs. T
4) Stand on a hard 16 vs. a 9 or T
The HE rises by 0.3% - 0.4% from the base 6 deck house edge of 4.05% if these adjustments to basic strategy are not followed. However, following these changes gives up 0.1% - 0.2% on your main BJ wager. Otherwise you may want to change BS in these 5 situations (out of 360 possible beginning hands).
If your base wager is at least twice the size of your Lucky Stiff wager, correct strategy to minimize the HE over all all your bets will be to play basic strategy.
Other than hard core BJ players (which probably aren't playing any side bets to begin with), 99% of players will simply play basic strategy and be looking at a slightly higher 4.35% to 4.45% HE on Lucky Stiff. Of course that assumes that they are playing basic strategy to start which is not always a reasonable assumption.
Don't teach an alligator how to swim.
Canyonero
I can answer this one.
In regular blackjack, if you traded a 2% extra chance of pushing for a 1% extra chance of winning and a 1% extra chance of losing, it would net break even.
On the lucky stiff wager, this would obviously be much to your advantage, since that 1% extra chance of winning pays at greater than even money.
To give an example of 16 vs 10 from an infinite deck model:
Standing:
Win: 22.98%
Lose: 77.02%
Push: 0%
Hitting:
Win: 20.05%
Lose: 74.03%
Push: 5.92%
In regular blackjack, the results are +1 for win, 0 for push and -1 for loss. This gives:
Standing: -54.04%
Hitting: -53.98%
... so here you can see that hitting is marginally better.
However, when wins pay 5:1, and your EV = (5 * %WIN - %LOSS), the fact that you're likelier to win the hand (versus non-wins) now makes standing correct, to wit:
Standing: +37.87%
Hitting: +26.20%
Long story short: the changes are a result of the increased value of winning the hand at any cost; if a push was as bad as a loss, you'd naturally stand on more stiffs. Well, the Lucky Stiff rule makes the pushes 5 times closer to being as bad as a loss, so a lot of that reflects in the basic strategy here.
And just to be finicky, I have to point out that my findings for AP play were about 1/20th, not 1/100th. 75% pen on 6 and 8 deck shoes, perfect use of a count (1 unit with any edge, 0 units with no edge) and no count-based adjustments to play strategy yielded an overall player edge of 0.09% - 0.15%, which I put relative to a 2-3% range in regular blackjack under similar conditions.
In regular blackjack, if you traded a 2% extra chance of pushing for a 1% extra chance of winning and a 1% extra chance of losing, it would net break even.
On the lucky stiff wager, this would obviously be much to your advantage, since that 1% extra chance of winning pays at greater than even money.
To give an example of 16 vs 10 from an infinite deck model:
Standing:
Win: 22.98%
Lose: 77.02%
Push: 0%
Hitting:
Win: 20.05%
Lose: 74.03%
Push: 5.92%
In regular blackjack, the results are +1 for win, 0 for push and -1 for loss. This gives:
Standing: -54.04%
Hitting: -53.98%
... so here you can see that hitting is marginally better.
However, when wins pay 5:1, and your EV = (5 * %WIN - %LOSS), the fact that you're likelier to win the hand (versus non-wins) now makes standing correct, to wit:
Standing: +37.87%
Hitting: +26.20%
Long story short: the changes are a result of the increased value of winning the hand at any cost; if a push was as bad as a loss, you'd naturally stand on more stiffs. Well, the Lucky Stiff rule makes the pushes 5 times closer to being as bad as a loss, so a lot of that reflects in the basic strategy here.
And just to be finicky, I have to point out that my findings for AP play were about 1/20th, not 1/100th. 75% pen on 6 and 8 deck shoes, perfect use of a count (1 unit with any edge, 0 units with no edge) and no count-based adjustments to play strategy yielded an overall player edge of 0.09% - 0.15%, which I put relative to a 2-3% range in regular blackjack under similar conditions.
Thanks a lot CRMousseau, that was the explanation I was looking for!
Now all that's left is to get it to Vegas before my next trip... Main Street or California or Mirage would be nice. ;-)
Lucky
And just to be finicky, I have to point out that my findings for AP play were about 1/20th, not 1/100th. 75% pen on 6 and 8 deck shoes, perfect use of a count (1 unit with any edge, 0 units with no edge) and no count-based adjustments to play strategy yielded an overall player edge of 0.09% - 0.15%, which I put relative to a 2-3% range in regular blackjack under similar conditions.
Thanks for correcting my AP vulnerability mistake and for your thorough explanation of the basic strategy changes, Charles.
And let me thank ALL of you who have taken the time to review the Lucky Stiff bet and offer your much valued opinions and/or well wishes.
'Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.' -- Winston Churchill
AcesAndEights
I believe H17 is the norm in WA as well so I imagine all Lucky Stiff tables will be H17
I've yet to see a S17 game in WA state. I haven't played everywhere, probably not even 25% of the casinos (card rooms + tribal), but I would seriously doubt they exist it all.
'So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust.' -ontariodealer
Paradigm
Unfortunately our initial installation of Lucky Stiff ran into some bad variance and due to the resulting overall poor hold percentages during the 35 days of operations, the game was removed.
The table drop and level of player participation in the side bet were well within the property's expectations, but the hold was not.
It would have been great to get a little bit more 'runway' with the install so that the long term math could have taken over, but you don't always get what you want in this business.
Lucky & I were pleased with the reports of player & dealer acceptance of the game at 7 Cedars and are currently looking for a longer term trial opportunity in WA.
The table drop and level of player participation in the side bet were well within the property's expectations, but the hold was not.
It would have been great to get a little bit more 'runway' with the install so that the long term math could have taken over, but you don't always get what you want in this business.
Lucky & I were pleased with the reports of player & dealer acceptance of the game at 7 Cedars and are currently looking for a longer term trial opportunity in WA.
UCivan
Unfortunately our initial installation of Lucky Stiff ran into some bad variance and due to the resulting overall poor hold percentages during the 35 days of operations, the game was removed.
The table drop and level of player participation in the side bet were well within the property's expectations, but the hold was not.
The table drop and level of player participation in the side bet were well within the property's expectations, but the hold was not.
Sorry to hear this, but it sounds like you're still quite optimistic, still congratulate you!
Lucky Stiff is a BJ side bet, isn't it? How did you separate the hold of the main from the hold of the side bet? Did U have two BJ tables next to each other to make the comparison?
- Page 6 of 9
Lucky Stiff BJ Side Bet @ 7 Cedars, WA
Paigow Dan told me about the new Lucky Stiff side bet his friend recently placed at the 7 Cedars Casino in WA. It looks fun, because you’re paid 5:1 when your initial 12-16 hard total ends up winning the main hand. Also, blackjack pays even-money on the side bet, and an initial pair of 8-8, 7-7, and 6-6 instantly wins 10:1. Anyways, I ran the bet through my BJ analyzer, to see if it was interesting in any way. I understand that 7 Cedars lets you bet $5 on the main hand, and up to $25 on the side bet. So I ran the analysis for a 5:1 side-to-main ratio on a 6-deck, H17, SP4, SPA4 game. The return showed a house edge of 3.5% of the combined (main+side) wager. The optimal strategy for the 5:1 side-to-main ratio only has a few differences with basic strategy.
Hand | Dealer Upcard | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | A | |
Soft Totals | ||||||||||
soft 21 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
soft 20 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
soft 19 | S | S | S | S | D | S | S | S | S | S |
soft 18 | D | D | D | D | D | S | S | H | H | H |
soft 17 | H | D | D | D | D | H | H | H | H | H |
soft 16 | H | H | D | D | D | H | H | H | H | H |
soft 15 | H | H | D | D | D | H | H | H | H | H |
soft 14 | H | H | H | D | D | H | H | H | H | H |
soft 13 | H | H | H | D | D | H | H | H | H | H |
Hard Totals | ||||||||||
hard 20 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
hard 19 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
hard 18 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
hard 17 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
hard 16 | S | S | S | S | S | H | H | H | S | H |
hard 15 | S | S | S | S | S | H | H | H | S | H |
hard 14 | S | S | S | S | S | H | H | H | H | H |
hard 13 | S | S | S | S | S | H | H | H | H | H |
hard 12 | H | S | S | S | S | H | H | H | H | H |
hard 11 | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D |
hard 10 | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | H | H |
hard 9 | H | D | D | D | D | H | H | H | H | H |
hard 8 | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H |
hard 7 | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H |
hard 6 | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H |
hard 5 | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H |
Pairs | ||||||||||
A-A | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P |
10-10 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
9-9 | P | P | P | P | P | S | P | P | S | S |
8-8 | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P |
7-7 | P | P | P | P | P | P | H | H | H | H |
6-6 | P | P | P | P | P | H | H | H | H | H |
5-5 | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | H | H |
4-4 | H | H | H | P | P | H | H | H | H | H |
3-3 | P | P | P | P | P | P | H | H | H | H |
2-2 | P | P | P | P | P | P | H | H | H | H |
The EORs are fairly small for the 5:1 side-to-main ratio. They’re about only 1/3rd as effective as the EORs for a standard 6-deck shoe main game. So it’s not worth your time to count this side bet. For a single card removed in a 6-deck game, the EORs are as follows:
Card Removed | Return | EOR |
---|---|---|
None | 3.5009% | |
Ace | 3.1324% | 0.3685% |
Deuce | 3.3055% | 0.1954% |
Trey | 3.3723% | 0.1285% |
Four | 3.4423% | 0.0585% |
Five | 3.5247% | -0.0238% |
Six | 4.0443% | -0.5434% |
Seven | 3.7864% | -0.2856% |
Eight | 3.7654% | -0.2845% |
Nine | 3.3903% | 0.1106% |
Ten/Face | 3.4194% | 0.0815% |
Lucky Stiff Blackjack Shoes
This bet looks like fun. If you bet an equal main and side bet (1:1 side-to-main ratio), the house edge is 4.66% on the combined 2 unit bet (2.33% element-of-risk). That’s not too bad for a carnival-like odds. If you make a small side bet 1/5th of your main bet (e.g., a $1 side bet to a $5 main bet), then the house edge on the combined 1.2 unit bet is 1.38%. That’s not bad for a little bit of fun.