Geoff Hall: 'Switch' correctly and win subscription

[Karel]

> All things considered, I must admit that the
> concept of the Blackjack Switch variation on
> standard Blackjack, sounds kind of fun, at
> least at first glance.

It is my opinion that this game could be quite favorite. Psychologically it is very nice that you can switch second cards. And, if 22 pushes instead of loses, it does not look like such a big deal...

> And what a challenge to come up with an
> optimum strategy!

Indeed. This was the hardest part of everything.
There is some 10,550 different combinations of 4 cards & dealer's up card. (The number is smaller for no composition dependent strategy.) Quite a few decisions are tricky.

> Looking forward to discussing this more on
> Don's Domain, if BJ Switch actually catches
> on in the Casino.

> I wonder if it will turn out that the BJ
> rules given back to the House
> disproportionately "hurt" a card
> counter, and can't be made up by the hand
> switches?

One thing is that BJ pays even money, so the power of ace and ten is smaller due to this fact. On the other hand, switching with an ace is often very valuable.

The one possibly drawback for counters is the need to learn extra switching decisions.

Regards,

Karel

[Geoff Hall]

I will post the answers (with explanations) after the draw next Tuesday, if that is OK with Don, Parker & Viktor. (Actually I have looked at the answers and they are quite interesting).
Final time for receiving entries will be 12pm noon GMT , or 7am New York time, on the Tuesday 22nd October.
If there are not 3 fully correct solutions submitted then the highest 3 scores will be declared the winners. If there is a tie involved then I will place that name/s in a 'hat' to draw out the final 3 winners.
Only had 1 entry so far so come on guys !!! - put your thinking caps on and enjoy the stimulating challenge - 3 of you will end up with the free subscription.

Good luck !!!

Geoff

[John Auston]

>> Sheesh.

>A little less than polite...

Perhaps, but then I took the title of your post,
"Hummm. Why not?" to be a tad pot-stirring, which I hope you agree that we do not need.

- John

[quark]

> A reasonable interpretation.

Do I understand you to mean that the discussion of Blackjack Switch is not welcome here? No concern of mine... just wondering what the RGE stance is on it.

> Yeah, but cut him some slack. We're all
> still shell shocked from our scandal.

Scandal... smandal. Doesn't seem a problem to me. I frequent this site to get at the truth! Don is one of your biggest assets (like you didn't already know that). If HE says it's not a problem... I take it as THAT! Not a problem.

[quark]

> Perhaps, but then I took the title of your
> post,
> "Hummm. Why not?" to be a tad
> pot-stirring, which I hope you agree that we
> do not need.

Agree... not intended as such. It is often said that "internet chat" must be taken with a grain of salt because you are not there WITH the person to get mannerisms, voice tone and such. Kinda funny you can get into "trouble" with a one line "no text" message.

I do NOT intend to cause any issue over this "non-issue".

[Geoff Hall]

> Doesn't have rules there. Do you have to
> download the game?

No - go to the 'play the game' page and click on the 'rules' button.
A seperate page will pop up showing the rules of the game. By the way, there is a mistake on the 2nd diagram in the pop-up, the 2 hands should show an '11' and a 'Blackjack' after being 'switched'.

Best of luck

Geoff

[Geoff Hall]

> I wonder if it will turn out that the BJ
> rules given back to the House
> disproportionately "hurt" a card
> counter, and can't be made up by the hand
> switches?

> - John Auston

Actually John the original version of 'Blackjack Switch', that took ties on 17,18 & 19, had 2 flaws in it that I subsequently found. Firstly, the 'average' players were not hurt as much by not hitting 15's and 16's, as in regular Blackjack, which makes sense as 16 v. dealer 8, say, if hit, can still lose to a push. This made it a game enjoyed by novice players as they seemed to last longer than in a regular game.
However, from your interest, I can reveal that if a count system was used in the original version, then it was more effective on the smaller plus counts than regular Blackjack but became less effective on very high counts. My guess why, perhaps, is that an abundance of face cards would restrict the 'switch' opportunities, which is a powerful edge to the player. So a 'counter' could increase his or her bets at a lower figure than regular Blackjack. (Depending which system you use, each running point count added about 0.6-0.8% to a player's edge compared with the 0.5% of reg.BJ. This then reduced to around 0.4% for very high counts).
Not sure what happens with the 'push 22' version regarding count strategies, as I have not studied the figures yet, but I can tell you that a player not hitting 15's and 16's in this new version will actually be hurt more than in regular Blackjack. (Again this makes sense as a player standing on 16 v. dealer 9 will not gain fully from a dealer who 'busts' with 22).
You are correct concerning the 'switch' decisions being an added tricky factor and I hope that my 5 quiz questions have done enough to highlight how difficult thay are as well as hopefully whetting your appetite to acquire more knowledge.

Best regards

Geoff

[Don Schlesinger]

> By the way, there is a
> mistake on the 2nd diagram in the pop-up,
> the 2 hands should show an '11' and a
> 'Blackjack' after being 'switched'.

So, why not fix it???

Don

[Geoff Hall]

> So, why not fix it???

> Don

I only noticed it while I was checking for the procedure to obtain the rules. It was working before and looked nice as the cards were animated and actually 'switched' in the diagram.
Unfortunately I have to rely on Playtech to alter it - an e-mail has been sent and I hope that they are quick to respond.

Regards

Geoff

[zengrifter]

victor, i don't know if my answers were correct, but i posted first so please forward my answers to geoff with the proper time-stamp included. thanks. zg

[Viktor Nacht]

> victor, i don't know if my answers were
> correct, but i posted first so please
> forward my answers to geoff with the proper
> time-stamp included. thanks. zg

Dear ZG,

Please send your answers via email, and I'll confirm that you did indeed answer first, about 1 minute after the question was posted.

In other words, I can't recover it.

Best Regards,

V

[Geoff Hall]

> victor, i don't know if my answers were
> correct, but i posted first so please
> forward my answers to geoff with the proper
> time-stamp included. thanks. zg

Just resend to [email protected] - there is no time penalty as long as the answers are received by next Tuesday 7am EST.

Geoff

[zengrifter]

... I forgot my first answers and my second set was different! zg

> Just resend to [email protected] -
> there is no time penalty as long as the
> answers are received by next Tuesday 7am
> EST.

> Geoff