Is this game beatable?

SD shuffled, 1/2 cut and put in discard tray. The rest dealt to the bottom, if last card dealt in mid-hand, all discards shuffled, cut in half again, and the game proceeds form that point on, 1/2 going into the discard tray, the remainder dealt to the bottom, and so on.

Rules H17, double any 2 cards, no DAS or surrender. BJ pays 3:2, but insurance pays 2.5:1, but is not allowed for bets kept "en prise.". A weird variation is that pushes are kept "en prise" - and the player has to make a subsequent bet with new money, and the push bet gets paid or taken depending on a win or a loss. If there is another push, that bet is also put "en prise" as well, and a player might have one hell of a stack of chips sitting on the table next to his regular bet. "En prise" bets cannot be doubled or insured, nor will they receive the 3:2 premium on a natural. They are strictly win-lose.

Also, the game offers the over/under side bet for up to your entire wager.

Players standing behind the table may "add on" to another player's wager, but may not participate in over-under or an insurance bet or make any decision on the playing of the hand. A player taking insurance may not insure the "add-on" wager at all. However, in an effort to induce more action from behind the table, the "add-on" players get 2:1 on all blackjacks. If a backline player has a push, his bet is also kept "en prise" and the same rules apply with respect to naturals and doubling.

Bonus plays include 3:1 payout on 6-7-8 suited, and a 3:2 payout for split 10s, where you receive another 10 suited and connected to the original 10 - e.g. you have 20 with a K diamonds/10 clubs and split them. If for example you receive the Q of diamonds on the K of diamonds for another 20, you either receive 3:2 if you win, a bet kept "en prise" if you push, and your bet taken if dealer draws to 21. This spurs 10 splitting by a lot of people. To further entice 10 splitting, backliners can participate in the bonus payout for 10s, so its a sream to hear somebody with a stack of greens on top of a $10 bet yelling at the red chipper to split the goddamn 10s. It works too! A lot of people get intimidated into splitting in some of the most hideous negative counts imagineable. Further, often they split into situations where their suited, connected card has been played already!

Saw the most hilarious situation where a know-it-all husband was telling his wife not to split, despite pressure from a guy with $500 on top of her $15 bet. She had 2 kings, and both suited queens were in different hands on the board - which he loudly and sarcastically pointed out to her. She gave into the guy behind her and split anyway! Turns out both queens busted their hands, the cards ran out before she got her cards - got reshuffled and she ended up connecting 1 of her kings anyway! Talk about a hoot!!! Oh my goodness, the husband's red face was enough to make you think you were watching a Seinfeld episode instead of in a casino playing this crazy game.

Now it gets worse. The dealer turns over a 13, and now the husband stands up and starts yelling for the dealer to make a 21! To save face, he's rooting for the dealer so his wife loses! "EIGHT, EIGHT, EIGHT" he starts chanting. Now the whole table starts yelling at him, including 3 orientals standing behind the backliners, who were't ever playing!!!They started calling the husband "MONKEY, MONKEY" - then the whole table, including the guy's wife start chanting "MONKEY, MONKEY." The dealer, who can't believe what he's seeing, can't contain himself and starts laughing so hysterically, he drops the deck. Now the pit comes over, the people are still chanting, the PC is laughing so hard he's crying!! The entire pit stops, everbody at every other table is watching this nutty scene, with their mouths open! Dealers, waitresses, players, backliners, everbody! Now the PC has to act - what to do? Because the cards were dropped and have to be re-shuffled, he offers everybody a chance to get out of the hand - nobody takes the PC's offer up - except the husband. Now the guy behind the husband starts yelling at him and they start arguing and cursing at one another security is brought in to separate them. The people watching from across the pit start chanting "ASSHOLE, ASSHOLE" which the whole table start yelling as well, including the guy's wife! Undaunted, the husband starts yelling "EIGHT, EIGHT" the table is yelling "ASSHOLE, ASSHOLE" - the dealer is still laughing hard enough to cry, hands shaking, totally unable to compose himself. The PC takes over, as now he's gotta restore some order to this ridiculous scene. Lets the wife cut the cards, burns a card, and hits himself with a F**KING 8!!!!! "NO" sceams the table in unison, "YES" screams the husband - and now he starts yelling at his backliner who gave him a hard time for getting out of the hand. He wants half the backliner's bet he "saved" him. Security comes in again. Unbelievable! Never seen anything like it!

Anyway, can this game be beaten?

What a circus, sounds like the house is trying to get a ridiculous amount of action out of a cheap wooden table and low-wage dealers.

It looks like there is only 50% pen at its greatest depth. Lousy.

No DAS or surrender? That hikes the house edge up considerably. Do you really want to give up the option of tossing a 16 v 10 in a high-count? Or splitting 8,8 v 7 and getting a 3 on each hand and all you can do is hit? A split is two new hands, and should have the benefit of playing them as an original hand.

The insurance sounds nice in a high count. But how often can you take advantage of it? I take that back, dealer Ace up in a high count sucks, period.

Do you want your max bet to sit on the table after a push when the count just tanked? En Prise sounds like French for "In Prison". I prefer to have greater control over my BR than that, as I'm sure most counters would agree. In a negative EV game, theoretically, the house makes a percentage of every bet, even pushes. Therefore, they should give that money back, because they have already taken a cut from it.

Side bets are for suckers, the only casino that should have them is preferably one that I own. Don't I wish. No casino will ever interrupt the game of BJ for a sidegame that returns them less money than the game itself.

Splitting 10's? Rarely is there a situation that ever calls for that. Especially at a crowded SD game with only 50% pen. I could care less what the jacka...er, mule behind me wants to do with his money, its my hand and I'm gonna do what returns the most amount of money to my hand. If I got a $50 bet out and he wants me to split cause he adding purple to it, I'm charging him $100 (guaranteed win for me) and he can have the fifty on the table and decide what to do with it, so long as he's paying.

This place sounds like a 3-ring circus and waaaay too distracting to count. It can be difficult to count with just one moron at the table, but hey, he's gotta deal the cards, right?

...O/U up to bet size, 2:1 backbet naturals, and they encourage ten splitting? Also, some minor end play techniques could be employed. The no insuring "en prise" hands will be offset by the 2.5:1 payout, and to top it off the 6,7,8 and ten split bonuses. Inuitively, I presume this game to be very much so beatable.

ANS

This is the first that I have heard of some of these rules. The "En prize" rules obviously hurts. After a push, you are forced to re-bet the money, with poor rules. This is not nearly the same as having the House keep pushes, but it does add to their edge.

The bonus on splitting 10s is interesting. It will lower the index number some. It may depend on whether or not you can pay attention to other cards of the same suit. For example, if you have the K Diamonds, and 10 of clubs, you would want to look around the table and see if there were any other club 10s or diamonds 10s out. If this is a face-down game, then it may be harder to get this info.

A big advantage of this rule is that it gives you built in cover for splitting 10s, and play most counters have to avoid.

If this casino is in the United States, I might be willing to do a little analysis for you. Don't post the location here, but let me know if you are interested. It sounds to me like this is probably overseas.

and it's another example of reality being stranger than fiction (if this was in a Puzo novel you wouldn't believe it) - moreover, it shows all the characteristics of human nature at their worse - actually, regardless of whether this game is beatable, all of the variables and options makes for an entertaining and interesting game, which is what most casino patrons are seeking - now, for the rest of the story, query, what's the odds against the husband getting "lucky" with his wife later that night

"What's the odds of the husband getting lucky with his wife that night?"

I would think it would be good, since he saved her some money. But... knowing women, that won't factor into her thinking.

BTW, it was an entertaining story.

Neko

Think about this situation. The count is +5 and you put out your max bet. All face cards come out and you have 20, but so does the dealer and all the other ploppies for a push. Now the count is extremely negative and instead of pulling back your max bet and betting your minimum, you have to leave the max bet out and make a minimum bet to boot. Would you really want to play this game? Maybe the other favorable rules can offset this, but I would tend to doubt it. Didn't he also say insurance bets won are also "en prise"?

"Think about this situation. The count is +5 and you put out your max bet. All face cards come out and you have 20, but so does the dealer and all the other ploppies for a push. Now the count is extremely negative and instead of pulling back your max bet and betting your minimum, you have to leave the max bet out and make a minimum bet to boot."

The "in prison" bet variation is not good, but the substantial reasons why is not for the reasons you state.

On avg, we don't expect the count to change as the remaining cards are depleted. Sure the count may tank on one hand as you suggest, but it is just as likely to go even higher and the "in prison" bet could provide a huge advantage of covering a very large bet jump, something that is often desired but hard to accomplish in a SD game. Thus the cover provided for large bet jumps in rising counts would tend to offset getting stuck with a larger than desired bets in falling counts. Besides this offset, also keep in mind that we only push less than 9% of the time, and most of those times the count will stay about the same or get even higher, so the frequency of substantially overbetting due to "in prisoned" bets is relatively small.

The substantial penalties on the "in prison" variation comes from even money payouts on naturals and not allowing insurance on "in prisoned" bets. I would also be much more concerned about a high count being shuffled away mid-hand than the count dropping from played cards.

"Maybe the other favorable rules can offset this, but I would tend to doubt it."

My guess is the favorable rules easily offset the "in prison" variation. As mentioned before, the frequency of the "in prisoned" bet hurting us is fairly small. Just the 2-1 bj payoff is a huge offset by itself (2.3% gain in EV). On top of that, throw in "2.5-1" (properly stated as 5-2) insurance payoffs, the other bonus payouts, and a lower 10 split index number & cover, and my guess is this could be a great game.

"Didn't he also say insurance bets won are also "en prise"?

I don't believe he did. He did say you couldn't insure an "en prise" bet.

"Would you really want to play this game?"

As with any new, unknown to me game or variation, I wouldn't want to play it blindly based only on intuition. But assuming a little number crunching confirms my intuition as outlined above, yeah, I'd love to play this game. I'd play it with a team mate, one of us betting the min only to gain play decision control of the spot(s). The other would be betting the real money behind to gain the 2-1 bj payoff which is only paid to the backline bettor. Pen is 50% + the cards on the table at shuffle (which will vary). On avg, this pen is better than RO5, but not RO6. Couple this pen with the favorable rules and the chance to play more aggressively than usual, and I'd guess it could have very good potential. Apparently the table is always crowded which would concern me however (assuming this since there is so much apparent back betting).

BTW, the original poster stated:

"They started calling the husband "MONKEY, MONKEY""

They weren't calling the husband a monkey. "MONKEY!" is a call for a big card to bust the dealer. It is the equivalent of chanting "BUST!, BUST!". The whole group chanting "monkey" is a dead giveaway that the casino (or at least the group of players' homeland) was overseas.

On top of that, throw in "2.5-1" (properly stated as 5-2) insurance payoffs, the other bonus payouts, and a lower 10 split index number & cover, and my guess is this could be a great game.

In addition, O/U can be worth up to 4% for the specialist in single-deck. Almost certainly it would not be worth attacking the main part of the game.

"On avg, we don't expect the count to change as the remaining cards are depleted. Sure the count may tank on one hand as you suggest, but it is just as likely to go even higher and the "in prison" bet could provide a huge advantage of covering a very large bet jump, something that is often desired but hard to accomplish in a SD game."

The count has huge fluctuations in single deck when compared to shoe games. Sammy boy is correct,when the dealer and player ties with 20 the count has taking a nose dive that's beyond repair, as a result you are left eking out a miserable existence when max bets are held captive.

...you said:

"we only push less than 9% of the time, and most of those times the count will stay about the same or get even higher"

On average the true count will remain *exactly* the same as per the TC Theorem, though we know expectation will on average decline by ~.15% after a push (see Gwynn). This is rather paradoxical in nature, and something for another thread, at BJMath perhaps. Point being...going higher is the last thing the TC will be doing, albeit the last by an insignificant amount.

Also, one substantial factor you didn't mention, the O/U, will provide a notable increase even though limited to the size of the main wager.

A final point, as I stated prior, I believe there can be a gain attained from using some mild end play techniques against this rare half deck game.

Otherwise a very good analysis.

ANS

"The count has huge fluctuations in single deck when compared to shoe games."

This is what creates the desire to greatly jump bets in SD, but which is normally hard to do unnoticed. The "in prison" bet can provide cover to jump the bet substantially in rapidly rising SD counts.

"Sammy boy is correct,when the dealer and player ties with 20 the count has taking a nose dive that's beyond repair, as a result you are left eking out a miserable existence when max bets are held captive."

As I posted, I readily admitted Sammy's senario can happen. But the opposite will happen just as often. My statement that "On avg, we don't expect the count to change as the remaining cards are depleted" is not dependent on if it is a shoe game or pitch game, nor how deep in the shoe we are at the time. This concept has been discussed here many times before. Click link below to one past post/thread on the subject if interested.

Sure there are hands which fit Sammy's senario and we "are left eking out a miserable existence when max bets are held captive", but there will not be many of those hands and there will be just as many hands that the count will climb even higher, and the captive bet provides cover to greatly jump bets in those extremely favorable situations, somewhat offsetting the bad hands (although maybe not entirely).

Regards,
SG

and that's a fact!

It looks like there is only 50% pen at its greatest depth. Lousy.

Read the dealing routine again.

I have been quite intruiged with this game and its wild assortment of rules, so I took the liberty of doing some calculations in order to try and take some of the mystery out of this odd game. Following are some figures for the wagers "en prise" (SD,NDAS):

-Cost in Percentage-

no hard doubling: -1.59%

no soft doubling: -0.14%

no pair splits: -0.37%

1:1 Blackjack: -2.32%

This sums to -4.42%, which we sum with the "normal" House Edge of -.15 (SD,H17,DOA,NDAS,NS) to get -4.57%, which is the approximate mean Expectation of the wager kept "en prise".

We can deduce how this affects our overall Expectation by multiplying the sum of Expectations for the wager "en prise", -4.42%, by its frequency of occurance (push), which is 8.29285051001%, equaling -.36654399254%. So the overall effect of the "en prise" stipulation on our Expectation is less than -.37%.

An additional note, I've done some work on the 5:2 insurance case, and initial calculations suggest an increase in Expectation of approximately .12% over 2:1 insurance.

As for the 6-7-8 suited 3:1, I can't get my hands on an exact figure, but I estimate it, with a high degree of confidence, to be worth approximately .01% to .03%.

I've just begun working on the case of the 3:2 suited split tens, and I think this is where it's going to get just a *little bit* tricky.

As for over/under limited to main wager size, anyone have any knowledge of this variation? MP? I think I know how to approximate it, but comments would be appreciated.

On a final note, I think you said the backbettor wasn't permitted to double, split, or bet on either of the sidebets, correct? But he gets the 2:1 naturals to offset...too bad we'd need AT LEAST 3:1 snappers to offset this scenario.

ANS

it looks like you would have to adjust counting techniques. If this table were full, and a half deck is always in discard, you are probably going to get two hand played before the dealer runs out of cards. In this situation, it would appear that some of the cards that you have counted from the first hand are now being reshuffled and re-inserted into the new deck for play. After any shuffle, the only cards that are removed from the deck are the ones on the table, and that would reflect what the count actually was.

Heads up, I would expect between 4 and 6 hands played before a shuffle of the discards. The count would be a result of the cards up on the table as the ones already played are re-introduced. It looks like, no matter what, since they burn a half-deck after every shuffle that the pen is going to be related to the number of cards up on the table. If 6 players are holding a total of 15 cards at shuffle, then there will be a fresh deck of 37 cards, half of these are discarded, putting about 18 cards in the discard which means that the pen would be about 65%. In a heads up game, with 4-6 cards in action, the fresh shuffle would contain about 48 cards give or take. The half-deck of discards would be about 24. That puts the pen at about 54%.

So, a counter in a heads-up game is going to get worse pen than a full table. I would personally consider a heads-up SD game better than full table. So at that particular game, the pen would be about 54% which is still not that great. So, I stand corrected. The pen is about 54% to 65% depending on number of players.