player vs player blackjack - vsJack.com

[vsJack]

Thanks for this post lurppis, some good questions we need to make clearer.

I might just be tired, but I don't think the game is particularly clear from the video.

Sorry about that. What points do you think we should make to make the game mechanics clearer?

If the objective (as in traditional BJ) is to beat the dealer's total, then I presume each wager is a wager made against the dealer - in other words, if you're playing this game and the dealer button is on you, the amount of money you have to risk is determined by the other players. Correct? Or does everyone have to flat bet?

That's right. The risk the dealer has will be based on the amount of players he is facing and how many double/splits there are. We are using a flat bet method now. So whatever bet level you are on, thats the bet. We have looked at some spread bet options but it complicated things. We thought it would be better to start with this format first.

Also, if the dealer gets to choose when to hit or stand, then they have to choose which players to try and beat. Does this create a potential collusion problem?

We have a top security guy (from one of the biggest online poker firms) monitoring fraud and collusion for us. The dealer is playing against all players so if a player is making sub-optimal decisions that favor another player often it will be easy to notice, even for other players. We are watching for this and would refund players who were effected by this type of play.

The dealer button rotates every hand, so whatever advantage the dealer has is shared equally between all players. I think it makes sense for the game to differ from blackjack here. It makes the strategy much more complicated on both sides.

PS: This game sounds really interesting. I will be looking to play it for real money in Australia if I get the opportunity. I think single-deck is the way to go, because it gives the players a lot more information and makes the game more interesting.

My one fear is that since it is a game of perfect information (unlike poker, where players' hands are hidden) and each game only consists of a handful of potential moves (unlike, say, chess, where games are longer and there are lots of moves you could make each turn) it may turn out to be too easily solvable.

Thanks again for your comments. We have looked at hiding cards as well but this is again more complex. What you don't know in this game is how the other players will play. If you are in early position, to borrow a poker term, you don't have information on how the players seated after you will play. This would affect your decision. What we have noticed while we are playing is that you are always doing some math and trying to figure out what the other players will do. So it's somewhere between poker and blackjack.

Let us know what you think of the game when you get a chance to play!

[vsJack]

Yes, than we will have to reinvent the strategies to beat the game. Somehow it occurs to me that using card counting will no longer be effective anymore since will not only need to beat the dealer but also the other players and rotate to be dealers. I don't feel comfortable playing this game because I don't know the Optimal playing strategies for it. I am concerned of this game because it occurs as a negative expectation game to me.

What are the odds of this game?

Hey seriousplayer,

vsJack reshuffles after every deal. So theoretically if you act later and there are 5 or 6 players at the table the count could change your actions.

But you don't have to beat the other players. The game play is just like regular blackjack in this sense. The dealer plays against all players and pays them out based on whether he or them are closer to 21.

If both the player and the dealer bust it's a push. If both have blackjack it's a push as well.

Does that make sense to you?

[RWM]

Two questions. I put up $1 and one other player puts up $1. I am dealer. $2 in action.
1. How much is the rake?
2. What happens if the player gets blackjack? Who pays the extra 50 cents if i only put up $1?

[lurppis]

Sorry about that. What points do you think we should make to make the game mechanics clearer?

At the time of writing I hadn't realised that the game was live already, in both play-money and real money versions. Playing the demo quickly ironed out my rules queries. Nonetheless, it would be nice if there was a full, formal explanation of all of the rules available just a few clicks away from the home page. For example, the "learn more about the game" page doesn't contain an exact description of the rule that is used to determine whether a player has enough chips on the table to play as dealer. Does the dealer has to be able to cover multiple splits, resplits and doubles? For that matter, how many times can a player resplit?

Now that I know most or all of the rules, here are some deviations from traditional casino blackjack rules that I found unusual (although not necessarily for the worse):

> A player doesn't lose straight away on a bust - that is traditionally a big part of the dealer's edge.
> A pair of Tens, Jacks, etc. can be split, but non-matching face cards cannot.
> Players can take an unlimited number of cards on split aces.
> Double on totals between 7-11? Why allow some obviously unfavourable doubles (eg 7) but not allow doubling on, say, 12? For that matter, since the dealer's edge is not as important as it is for a traditional casino, why not allow doubling on any 2 cards, including soft totals?
> What's the maximum number of seats on a table? Have you thought about adding a five card charlie rule or something, to allow for more simultaneous players to play using a single deck?

A couple of non-rules-related notes, too:

> Not sure how I feel about the table that spins all the time. It's alright once you get used to it but you might attract more online poker players if you include an option that represents the dealer with a button, and move the button rather than the table. Multiple options are always nice, anyway.
> A volume option would be convenient. Sorry if that's already in there and I missed it, I didn't look all that hard.
> The active player base at the moment is frustratingly small. Not much you can do about that, I guess, except keep spreading the word. Kudos for coming on forums like this one and answering questions etc.

Lastly, can you share any plans for future variations? I notice you mentioned you have looked at other mechanics such as hiding cards.

[vsJack]

Two questions. I put up $1 and one other player puts up $1. I am dealer. $2 in action.
1. How much is the rake?
2. What happens if the player gets blackjack? Who pays the extra 50 cents if i only put up $1?

Thanks for the questions RWM:

1. The rake is paid by the winning player. If you are playing heads up the rake is 0.5% so the winning player would take down €1.99 (their €1 plus €0.99 from the losing player's €0.99). If there were 3 or 4 players the rake would be 1% of the pot and the winning player in each transaction would take down €1.98. If there were 5 or 6 players at the table the winning player would pay 1.5% and take down €1.97

2. The dealer pays the premium for blackjack, just like in the regular casino game. The dealer doesn't really put up the bet. They act as the house for the players' bets. If a player doubles or splits the dealer covers those bets.

Thoughts?

[RWM]

What if the payer-dealer's bank is not enough to cover multiple splits plus double downs? If a player bets $1, and I want to be the player dealer, how big does my stake need to be? $3? $4, $10?

[RWM]

Another question. I am player dealer against 4 players. I lose 3 hands and win 1. Are you saying that I pay a rake on the 1 hand I won even though I am a net loser? Why would I ever want to play with more than one other player and pay double or triple the rake? The house is making more money with more players so the rake should go down, not up.

[vsJack]

What if the payer-dealer's bank is not enough to cover multiple splits plus double downs? If a player bets $1, and I want to be the player dealer, how big does my stake need to be? $3? $4, $10?

The way we are handling this issue now is by requiring players to have a certain amount of bets inorder to be able to play as dealer. The rule right now looks like this. If the dealer is facing:

5 players he needs 9 bets
4 players he needs 8 bets
3 players he needs 7 bets
2 players he needs 6 bets
1 player he needs 4 bets

We worked out that very rarely will the dealer not be able to cover the amount of bets at the table. In the cases where this happens the dealer will pay out from left to right until they go broke and the remaining bets will be returned to the player.

In the case where the dealer would bust after paying the first 3 players so he could not pay the fourth, but would beat the fifth we allow the dealer to collect that bet and pay off the fourth player. Does that make sense?

We have been discussing allowing more splitting and doubling but this will mean players need to have more at the table to cover the bets as dealer. This will also increase the swings in the game, which could make the game better or worse. I think it will be interesting to see what it feels like in that format.

[vsJack]

That's right Tthree.

Sorry for not writting back lurppis. I am going to answer you in detail later today but agree totally on that we need a page that explains in detail the full rules.

[vsJack]

it would be nice if there was a full, formal explanation of all of the rules available just a few clicks away from the home page.

Agree completely and thanks for pointing this out. We could make all the rules much clearer on the site. We will get on that.

> A player doesn't lose straight away on a bust - that is traditionally a big part of the dealer's edge.

We think its the only fair way to handle that hand, right?

> A pair of Tens, Jacks, etc. can be split, but non-matching face cards cannot.

I think this is up for discussion. We will probably add splitting all value 10 hands in the next release. What about splitting all hands? Too much action?

> Players can take an unlimited number of cards on split aces.

This is also open for discussion. The dealer has a good size edge so allowing the players to get some back here could work.

> Double on totals between 7-11? Why allow some obviously unfavourable doubles (eg 7) but not allow doubling on, say, 12? For that matter, since the dealer's edge is not as important as it is for a traditional casino, why not allow doubling on any 2 cards, including soft totals?

Like splitting I think doubling is going to end up working completely differently at vsjack then in casino blackjack. Its hard to know how it will be used and how it will affect the game. We may roll out some tables with doubling and splitting on everything so people can try it out.

> What's the maximum number of seats on a table? Have you thought about adding a five card charlie rule or something, to allow for more simultaneous players to play using a single deck?

Right now we allow 6 players at a table. We could add more but it gets a bit crowded and slows down play a lot. What upsides do you see with more than 6 players?

A couple of non-rules-related notes, too:

> Not sure how I feel about the table that spins all the time. It's alright once you get used to it but you might attract more online poker players if you include an option that represents the dealer with a button, and move the button rather than the table. Multiple options are always nice, anyway.
> A volume option would be convenient. Sorry if that's already in there and I missed it, I didn't look all that hard.
> The active player base at the moment is frustratingly small. Not much you can do about that, I guess, except keep spreading the word. Kudos for coming on forums like this one and answering questions etc.

We have looked at some other options for representing the table. We have a lot we want to do right now so that's not getting much attention. Same with the volume button. We have the mute button for now.

We are working hard at getting more players to the site. We will be pushing more marketing material out soon. The comments we have gotten here are great. We are very grateful for getting to post here. (Thanks again Norm and everyone that has commented).

Lastly, can you share any plans for future variations? I notice you mentioned you have looked at other mechanics such as hiding cards.

I can't say much about new mechanics. When we have something worth looking at I will let you all know right away. I think the first two things we will look at are how to have spread betting mechanic during a deal and what happens when you hide a card. The spread betting needs to come first.

My concern is that it will be too complex. It sounds fun to us but not to the vast majority of card players maybe. Kind of like Omaha hi lo.

Thanks again for the questions.

[lurppis]

> A player doesn't lose straight away on a bust - that is traditionally a big part of the dealer's edge.

We think its the only fair way to handle that hand, right?

I don't know - I don't think fairness in that context is all that important, since everyone gets to play in every spot. What I have noticed, however, is that playing as dealer is the scariest part of the game, because you open yourself up to losing multiple units at once, especially when players double. That might be easier to handle if you get at least a few guaranteed wins from the players who bust.

> Players can take an unlimited number of cards on split aces.

This is also open for discussion. The dealer has a good size edge so allowing the players to get some back here could work.

Actually I meant in your current build (last I checked) the player can take unlimited cards on split aces, whereas in traditional blackjack they are usually restricted to just one card on each ace. I think your current setup is an OK way to give more advantage to players sitting in the non-dealer positions, and it has the advantage of being intuitive, but you should at least be aware that it's a departure from traditional blackjack, and consider both options.

On a similar note, I really recommend "double any two cards". It's way more intuitive than the current setting, AND it's a reasonably common rule in casino blackjack, depending on where you go (unfortunately it's not so common here in Australia).

As for "split any hand", I don't think it would break the game but it would be a really big change, and I don't think it would be all that nice aesthetically. I'd recommend leaving that one on the back-burner, and play-testing it only after you've explored the other changes discussed above.

[RWM]

I think being the dealer is the way to go, but I still can't get a straight answer on rake. If I am the dealer/banker against 5 player and I win $1 each from players 1 2 & 3, and lose $1 each to players 4 and 5 which players pay a rake and how much? If I understand it right players 1 and 2 and 3 would win 98.5c each, and I would win 98.5 from 4 & 5 so even though I am a net loser I am still paying a rake. Is that right?

Also, this idea that as the casino gets more players they charge higher rake is crazy.

[vsJack]

I understand your point of view RWM.

We think of it the other way around. 1.5% rake is much lower than the 5% at poker tables. We think it is fair to give a lower rate to the games with less players because the play goes quicker. In a heads up game you play a lot more hands per hour, so we lower the rake to reflect that.

Of course it would be best if it was rake free, but then the game wouldn't exist.