Blackjack switch now in the UK

UK-21

Well-Known Member
#1
I've read that the GC have approved Blackjack Switch as a table game in the UK, and that some casinos have been offering it now for three weeks. With a BS OTT HE of just 0.18% it must be the best offer in a casino with the exception of taking the odds in craps. If it's dealt from a shoe it would seem to be an interesting opportunity.

Anyone tried it yet?

There's a 5 page posting in the BJ variations section of the forum somewhere.
 

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#2
A really fine way to learn how to play this great BJ variation can be found in The Big Book of Blackjack by Arnold Snyder.

There is also good info to be found at wizardofodds.com
 

UK-21

Well-Known Member
#3
Thanks. I found The Wiz's pages on BJSwitch which I will consume in due course.

I'm told that the Empire in Leicester Square are one of the casinos that have chosen to offer it. Does anyone know whether it's shoe dealt or CSM ?
 

SystemsTrader

Well-Known Member
#4
newb99 said:
With a BS OTT HE of just 0.18% it must be the best offer in a casino with the exception of taking the odds in craps.

Anyone tried it yet?
Newb BJ Switch is not a game to be taken lightly. In fact I would suggest most counters avoid it all together. The house edge would depend on the rules and finding a .18% game is doubtful. I believe only Casino Royale still has those odds and its CSM only. All of the other casinos in Vegas have changed the rules to a switched blackjack = 21 only and no longer the automatic blackjack winner. If your casino has a dealer H17 game this is also extra punishing. The H17 rule is twice as bad on HE than a regular blackjack game because of the dealer push on 22 rule.

Most casinos have a HE in around .58% and thats only if you can master both the basic strategy which has about 40 differences from regular blackjack and the switch strategy itself. If the UK has it with ENHC only thats even worse. The game also requires a large bankroll because of the two hands being played and the large spread needed to beat this game. The game is also very difficult to wong because most casinos only have 1 or 2 tables. As for Snyder's strategy while decent it is filled with errors which will drive up the HE again. His system is very basic and will leave you filled with questions and I wonder if he does this on purpose? Using his system alone isn't enough to beat the game.
 

UK-21

Well-Known Member
#5
I'll check out the ruleset that has been approved by the UK's Gambling Commission to see what can be offered.

Haven't looked at it in great detail yet, but I'l run with the advice from the WoO - whose take on things is usually 100%.
 

ExhibitCAA

Well-Known Member
#7
path to enlightenment

No, Casino Royale no longer has a shoe game for BJ Switch, only CSMs.

SystemsTrader is correct that AS's strategy in BB of BJ is weak, and the claim that AS's WLPC system delivers a -0.25% game is not true, and is dangerous in the hands of APs, who might try blasting away at BJ Switch. I calculate that AS's strategy delivers around -1.2% for the rules he considers, which are hard to find anyway. And, no, AS does not do that on purpose; he does it because he is not a programmer and the BB of BJ is not written for professional players. Gotta give AS some props for being the first author to try to come up with something actually usable, as opposed to WoO's "strategy" of "add up the expectations of each pair of hands and select the better pair."

Geoff Hall isn't about to give you any useful information about his game. Over the years he has been a complete phony on these boards, pretending to be player-friendly or at least player-tolerant, without giving up ANY information that the player community doesn't already have.

WoO is your best starting point, but you should never take material out of context. WoO offers a fabulous website for the masses, but pros will generally require more accurate and detailed information.
 

UK-21

Well-Known Member
#8
ExhibitCAA said:
. . . WoO is your best starting point, but you should never take material out of context. WoO offers a fabulous website for the masses, but pros will generally require more accurate and detailed information.
Thanks. I am one of the masses, and don't put in enough hours, or play for high enough sums of money, for the minutae of differences in OTT HE of the different games on offer to make any real difference. The reason this has caught my attention is that it's something different that doesn't have a HE of 2.5%+ which is heavily skewed by large but low probability payouts - three card poker comes to mind. Entertaining, but fatal for your wallet!
 

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#9
ExhibitCAA said:
Geoff Hall isn't about to give you any useful information about his game. Over the years he has been a complete phony on these boards, pretending to be player-friendly or at least player-tolerant, without giving up ANY information that the player community doesn't already have.
Funny how people can draw such opposite opinions lol.

For the last 7 years, I have never found him to be anything but open, approachable, genuine, and friendly and one who has gone to great pains, who took the time when he did not have to, yet, for some reason, answered in detail every single question I, as an utter and complete stranger to him, have ever asked him about BJS.

Looking forward to sharing as much with you after you have invented a new game from scratch and collaborated with a prominent math guy over many different rule-sets and then, somehow, successfully market that game on both the internet with a HA of less than 0.001 and in casinos around the world, with HA's beginning from 0.18% or so, maybe less, while trying to balance both the casino and player's interests.

Maybe Geoff will correct me but I have the feeling his first trial in AC failed after a couple months. He then persevered to Vegas, with maybe a rule change or two, and it stuck there. I think lol. Then maybe, somehow, got it accepted in Russia with a game with rules so player-friendly, I almost flew to St. Petersburg lol.

I give him all the credit in the world for inventing and marketing the most player-friendly game (Playtech internet game) I have ever experienced.
 

Geoff Hall

Well-Known Member
#10
Phoney ???

Wow, I find that statement by ExhibitCAA rather insulting and, in my opinion, completely untrue. I'm glad I have some backers regarding the times I have posted information, whether valuable or not. I even corrected the WOO's Basic Strategy charts as he had used infinite deck and had the decisions based on 6 decks.

As for 1.25%, using AS's strategy, then I have evidence to the contrary. Even an 'average switcher' will only add around 0.5-0.6% to the base house edge.

However, I'm sure people must realise that I'm not going to work hard producing count tags for various count systems. If counters flock to a new installation and beat the game then it's obvious that the game will get taken out. Achieving a fine balance of player-favorability and casino demands is not easy - Harrah's, Las Vegas being a prime example of removal due to being attacked by a card counting team.

The UK version is a good game for players mainly because it's a 'Stand Soft 17' game in the main. The ENHC does not hurt the player as much as in a regular game due to the strategy changes involved in Blackjack Switch. Furthermore, the casinos are allowing players to take 'Even Money' when an Ace is showing (Player has 'Blackjack') which gives more back to the player.

I'm closely monitoring the hold %'s of the game and, obviously, so are the casinos. The game is 0.xx%, according to my calculation, although the 'Even Money' rule brings that down further. Not as much as Casino Royale but not a long way off either. Anyone who wants the exact figure can PM me on this site and I'll be more than happy to reply to those who feel that my contibution is a little more than phoney.
 

ExhibitCAA

Well-Known Member
#11
Kasi: "[Geoff Hall] answered in detail every single question I, as an utter and complete stranger to him, have ever asked him about BJS."

And did you ask him any question regarding developing counting systems, or were your questions of the vanilla "what is the basic strategy" and "what is the house edge with such and such a rule." These latter questions are of course basic and unthreatening, so it is no surprise if the creator was forthcoming about those issues.

Kasi: "Looking forward to sharing as much with you after you have invented a new game from scratch and collaborated with a prominent math guy over many different rule-sets and then,"

So you're saying that I wouldn't be forthcoming if I invented a game, or that I am unlikely to ever reach the lofty status of having "collaborated with a prominent math guy." And who would this "prominent math guy" be, anyway? There is no question that BJSwitch is an interesting variation of blackjack, and that creating and marketing a game is a monumental task. Well done, indeed. Mr. Hall is deservedly proud of his product. That is not the issue.

Kasi: "while trying to balance both the casino and player's interests."

Aahhhh!!! This is the point exactly. Mr. Hall is NOT trying to balance casino and player's interests. That is my point. He is casino-side all the way. Unless by "players" you mean the degenerate masses who Mr. Hall hopes will lose money at BJSwitch. Now, perhaps there are many such players on these boards, but I always thought that this board, and rge21 and bj21, was sort of an AP community, where players are interested in playing with a positive expectation. Mr. Hall is not trying to advance the interests of THOSE players. Mr. Hall does not want any counters to beat BJ Switch, and that is reasonable and sensible given his position, but then it's phony when he tries to engage COUNTERS HERE in a pretend-helpful thread. If you don't think so, read his post below.

Kasi: "I give him all the credit in the world for inventing and marketing the most player-friendly game (Playtech internet game) I have ever experienced."

Mr. Hall has marketed a great product. However, if you think it's the most player-friendly game you have ever experienced, then I think that either: 1) You are a gambler who thinks that losing slower is a great deal, whereas I rank death by poison about the same as death by explosion; or 2) You are a not-so-experienced AP who has not played games with massively stronger edges. In either case, then, it would not be surprising that your experiences with Mr. Hall showed him to be open, genuine, and forthcoming. Indeed, Mr. Hall sensed no threat from you, and gave you some information that was useful to you. Now, I know some more dangerous players that he did not give information to. And, I strongly doubt that he would give ME any useful information at all, but of course, I don't really need him to tell me anything about the game.

Geoff Hall: "Wow, I find that statement by ExhibitCAA rather insulting"

I've got a newsflash for you, Mr. Hall: you're casino side. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't pretend to be a friend to the card counters here. For instance, I have the utmost respect for Bill Zender, and I like him, too. He doesn't pretend to be my friend in the field, though, and he has indeed cost me money in the field.

Geoff Hall: "I even corrected the WOO's Basic Strategy charts as he had used infinite deck and had the decisions based on 6 decks."

Like I said, no real information. It's all about the audience. I'm sure you'll gladly help out all the negative players, and give them some BS-related information that will give them the confidence to go out and play a less-negative game. Whoopdeedoo. Will you give the card counters information that THEY would find useful? You haven't yet, and I'm not holding my breath.

Geoff Hall: "As for 1.25%, using AS's strategy, then I have evidence to the contrary. Even an 'average switcher' will only add around 0.5-0.6% to the base house edge."

OK, you want to bet? If we open the betting up to members of this forum as well, I wonder if more money would be wagered on my number, or yours. Your vague statement about the 0.5-0.6% additional loss (didn't you say 0.1-0.3% in a previous thread???? hmmmm) proves my point exactly! Why don't you delineate the strategy that you're ascribing to this phantom "average switcher." Tell us EXACTLY what switching rules would deliver a 0.5-0.6% marginal house edge. You won't. I'm saying that Arnold's system AS ARNOLD DESCRIBES IT provides an overall game of around -1.2%. You say, "No! No! My game isn't that bad. It's only about a half percent against an average switcher." You made the same defense when people lumped your game in with 6:5. And yet, will you EVER provide an explicit system that this "average switcher" might use? No, you won't. Go ahead, post it here. Several of us will run the numbers to test it for free. And if such a system would still yield a -0.7% game or so, then what harm is there in providing it here??

Geoff Hall: "However, I'm sure people must realise that I'm not going to work hard producing count tags for various count systems."

I doubt you will even provide effects of removal for someone else who is willing to do the hard work of producing a count system. And yes, I DO realise that you're not going to aid counters, so stop pretending to be buddy-buddy with the posters here, most of whom are counters! (Now that I think about it, maybe you DO know your audience, and maybe most of the posters here are just loser gamblers. It is starting to look that way.)

Geoff Hall: "Achieving a fine balance of player-favorability and casino demands is not easy"

What does that mean "player-favorability"? Again, please don't pretend that you're talking about counters. You have no desire to make any balance between counters and casinos.

Geoff Hall: "Harrah's, Las Vegas being a prime example of removal due to being attacked by a card counting team."

Really? Is that what Harrah's told you? I don't have specific knowledge of what went down at Harrah's, but let me tell you this: the community of APs is a very small one. Most of the crews with the capability of running numbers on the game wouldn't bother with it with the low limits available on the game. And casinos often blame phantom "card counting teams" for their own screwups, mismanagement, and other economic-related conditions. I do wish you success in popularizing your game, and I think it was truly a shame that Harrah's discontinued the game, but let me give you a piece of honest advice: Don't believe everything the casinos tell you. They are capable of lying, or, they got the story wrong. I really doubt that a card-counting team is the real reason Harrah's got rid of your game. If counting was the problem, why not deal the game on one of the CSMs in their party pit?? Harrah's has several CSMs in that pit for blackjack; why not use one or two of them for BJSwitch? I think you probably don't know the full story. I am going to ask around a little bit.

Geoff Hall: "The game is 0.xx%, according to my calculation, although the 'Even Money' rule brings that down further. Not as much as Casino Royale but not a long way off either. Anyone who wants the exact figure can PM me on this site and I'll be more than happy to reply to those who feel that my contibution is a little more than phoney."

That's the phoniness right there. Why do people have to PM you? You are pretending to be helpful by saying you'd be happy to provide the info, but if you truly want to provide info, why not just post it here?? If the expectation is negative, then what harm is there in posting? If the expectation is positive, then ... aaahhh, you're casino side--no balance here!

I'll give people some numbers flat out: H17 has a -0.38% effect compared to S17; the "Switched 21 is not a BJ" rule is a -0.40% penalty (the poster above who didn't think this rule hurts much was wrong); 8-deck game is a -0.04% penalty vs. 6-deck.

You may find my posts insulting, but trust me: we may have done you the biggest favor you never knew. I saw BJ Switch years ago, in western Iowa, I believe. It was the first casino that I ever saw the game in (was it the first experiment?). We could have killed the game right then and there. We made a conscious decision to leave the game alone at that time, because we thought that the game had a chance to survive and grow, and that it could make its millions from gamblers while APs take a "small tax" once the game is firmly established throughout the country. I congratulate you on how far the game has come; I know the journey is difficult. Now just admit it, though: at this point, you wish card counters didn't exist.
 

UK-21

Well-Known Member
#12
ExhibitCAA - Whilst I'm still logged on (your response popped up between reading two other posts) perhaps I can chip in? - I started this thread afterall.

I don't know you or Mr Hall, although reading through the posts I can see that he's the copyright holder to a popular casino table game, and I suspect you are a dyed-in-the-wool AP - No?

I'm not quite sure why you're so venomous about someone who has invented a game but who hasn't provided advice to a small minority of professional "gamblers" (I appreciate APs don't gamble but play according to odds, although that's how most people in the world see APs I'm sure) on how to take his customers, who presumably pay him a royalty, to the cleaners. I'm surprised you're surprised? I would think that just interacting with contributors on a board like this might raise eyebrows amongst his customer base, and for him to provide what may seem to you basic info (which can be obtained elsewhere or crunched oneself) is about as much as can reasonably be expected. The inverse would be a Pit Boss complaining on this board that the APs who contribute regularly won't provide advice on how to identify a counter at the tables over and above saying watch out for players spreading their bets (which is pretty public knowledge anyway)??? To give this guy a drubbing for not providing detailed information on the wheres and hows to APs of how to beat his game seems to me to be a tad unreasonable. As I said, I don't know him, but decribing him as a "complete phony", because he doesn't satisfy your particular want, is uncalled for.

Taking this thought a bit further, I'm sure you'll agree that APs (like yourself?) are a small minority of casino patrons, whose views on the prospect of getting an advantage on certain games the vast majority of the gaming public at large really couldn't give $#it about. Perhaps one of the reasons why after many years of the "say no to 6/5" campaign, SD 6/5 BJ is still alive and well in LV?

Kasi: "while trying to balance both the casino and players' interests."
Aahhhh!!! This is the point exactly. Mr. Hall is NOT trying to balance casino and player's interests. That is my point. He is casino-side all the way. Unless by "players" you mean the degenerate masses who Mr. Hall hopes will lose money at BJSwitch.


Mr Hall could always have developed a ruleset that resulted in a 4%+ OTT HE, in which case you'd be more than justified to throw a bun at this statement. Bearing in mind the games that have been adopted in the last few years (we get them a bit later in the UK) I think he's done well to get a game onto a gaming floor that has a HE of less than 1.5%. It certainly serves the playing public better than the "carnie" games that exist, and that wonderful American version of roulette where an extra slot's found it's way on to the wheel.

Oh, and by the way, I'm probably one of the degenerate masses you refer to in your response, certainly not an AP - I play for the challenge not to earn an income, treat BJ and other table games as a form of entertainment and don't consider casinos to be ATMs. Sorry if you find that offensive.
 

Geoff Hall

Well-Known Member
#13
Clarification

I don't really want to get involved in a discussion involving having to defend my reputation, however, I feel that Exhibit's post contains enough erroneous statements and wild guesses to warrant a clarification. I just hope that this quells any further stabs at my character.

Firstly, I am happy to admit that I'm not going to sit down with a group of high stakes AP's and have an indepth discussion on count indices and bet spreads. I thought that would be obvious ? Nevertheless, much in the same way people, on this forum, reply to questions on regular Blackjack, that are obvious to some, I provide explanations and information on Blackjack Switch.

Ok, in response to the comments in the post :-

"And who would this "prominent math guy be ?"

The prominent math' guy is Karel Janecek, creator of SBA.

"Now, I know some more dangerous players that he did not give information to."

I'd like to see proof of that. There has been information that I don't know the answers to but I've never refused to give information out.

"There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't pretend to be a friend to the card counters here"

When have I ever pretended to be a friend ? As Kasi states, I don't even know him, or what he does, nor any of the posters here. You make me sound like I'm garnishing their trust in an evil plan to con them into losing money on the game. Quite simply, I spend time, unlike other games inventors, in answering questions they ask.

"OK, you want to bet? If we open the betting up to members of this forum as well, I wonder if more money would be wagered on my number, or yours. Your vague statement about the 0.5-0.6% additional loss (didn't you say 0.1-0.3% in a previous thread???? hmmmm) proves my point exactly!"

You are again incorrect. 0.1 - 0.3% is ADDED to the base edge for an 'Expert' switcher. The 0.5 - 0.6% is for 'Average' switching. So, the game at Casino Royale, at 0.16% for 'Computer' switching, will be played between approx' 0.26% - 0.76% depending on the skill level. Why would I post 'Average' switch strategy when it contains incorrect 'Switch' decisions ? The correct 'Switch' strategy can be found on WOO.

"And yes, I DO realise that you're not going to aid counters, so stop pretending to be buddy-buddy with the posters here, most of whom are counters! (Now that I think about it, maybe you DO know your audience, and maybe most of the posters here are just loser gamblers. It is starting to look that way.)"

Again, where do you get the buddy-buddy from ? I simply answer questions, albeit basic to someone of your self-proclaimed expertise, in the same way other posters here do.

"Really? Is that what Harrah's told you? ... ... ...If counting was the problem, why not deal the game on one of the CSMs in their party pit??"

No, Harrah's didn't tell me. The information came from a highly regarded player in the Blackjack community. I asked Harrah's to use a CSM - it's you who does not know the full story but would rather throw wild guesses at the situation instead of asking what happened.

"That's the phoniness right there. Why do people have to PM you? You are pretending to be helpful by saying you'd be happy to provide the info, but if you truly want to provide info, why not just post it here??"

Maybe it's down to certain (very) recent posts on this site ?

"I'll give people some numbers flat out: H17 has a -0.38% effect compared to S17; the "Switched 21 is not a BJ" rule is a -0.40% penalty (the poster above who didn't think this rule hurts much was wrong); 8-deck game is a -0.04% penalty vs. 6-deck."

I've given out this information out in the past and a lot more besides. Just think how popular you would be if you posted the count indices for the game ? Or is there a reason why YOU wouldn't do that ? If not, then go ahead and post some information that I have not answered in the past - that way you can show everyone that you are the 'buddy' that should be listened to.

Apologies to Newb for throwing this in the middle of his thread but I don't like misconceiving innuendos being thrown about.
 
#14
Furthermore, the casinos are allowing players to take 'Even Money' when an Ace is showing (Player has 'Blackjack') which gives more back to the player.

I was playing in the Empire this morning and they didn't allow me to take even money when I had a bj and dealer had an ace. Possibly you can take insurance at 2-1 as it was written on the table but I don't think thats the same as getting even money?

Also if you switch to create 21 it doesn't count as a blackjack and loses to a dealer blackjack and pushes against a dealer 21 or 22, just something to watch out for.
 

ExhibitCAA

Well-Known Member
#15
maybe "partial phony" would have been better

I'd like to apologize to Geoff Hall for the phrase "complete phony." That's an exaggeration and I'm sorry. Geoff Hall has made a tremendous contribution to the casino world by introducing BJ Switch, which is indeed an interesting game. Geoff has also participated on many boards in threads not even related specifically to marketing his games.

That said, Mr. Hall, I think you have been less than straight about your loyalties, in the sense of trying to appear to be friendly to all sides, while simultaneously stonewalling the AP community on BJ Switch. I'm OK with stonewalling the APs as long as you admit that your interests are completely aligned with the casinos, whose interest is in sucking money from gamblers and not allowing anyone to beat BJ Switch. Let's look at the statements:

Geoff Hall: "Why would I post 'Average' switch strategy when it contains incorrect 'Switch' decisions ? The correct 'Switch' strategy can be found on WOO."

Do you understand the difference between a "computer-optimal" strategy and a "human-feasible" strategy? Your statement is like saying, "Why would I develop a communal strategy for Caribbean Stud, when the correct 2.4% edge strategy can be found in Griffin&Gwynn?" Many people have bemoaned the lack of a reasonable set of rules that could get them to within a few tenths of a percent of computer optimality for BJSwitch. You have several times hinted that a such a set of rules exists, even said that you would then post it, for instance, here:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=10592&page=4

But when someone asks for it again (many have asked over the years), no help is offered:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=12848
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=13646
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=10592

Now maybe you don't even have the type of rules set that the players want, in which case you should just say so, instead of saying that there's no need for it because the WoO already has a strategy. And if you don't have such a set of rules, then you can't throw around numbers stating that you've compared strategies and find that the loss is only a few tenths with human play. How did you get that number--by having the computer comb through thousands of decisions and assume that players would miss some percentage of the "tough" ones? Where is the set of rules? Do you have a reasonable set of rules (say, 30 or fewer rules), and will you post it here? If not, then you can't simultaneously tout how reasonable BJ Switch is, and say that it's in a totally different league from 6:5 and other player-raping games. Using Arnold's rules (the only explicit ones I've seen published), and typical rules (i.e., not as good as Casino Royale), the player would be in the -1.4% ballpark. Ouch! Still great for the tourists, but not for most of the people here, I would hope.

Indeed, when people talk about wanting a "basic strategy" for BJ Switch, they are usually talking about such a set of rules, NOT the charts saying that they should hit 12 v 4, etc. I have NEVER seen any published set of rules, other than Arnold's, and Arnold's system as written isn't good enough.

Now on to some other points:

newb99: "I'm not quite sure why you're so venomous about someone who has invented a game"

Inventing a game was a great thing, I have no problem with that. On these boards, it's pretending to be something that one is not that rubs lots of us the wrong way. That is the very definition of "phony." That's what I find irritating.

newb99: "but who hasn't provided advice to a small minority of professional "gamblers" (I appreciate APs don't gamble but play according to odds, although that's how most people in the world see APs I'm sure) on how to take his customers, who presumably pay him a royalty, to the cleaners. I'm surprised you're surprised?"

I'm not surprised. Nor do I have any different expectation. I merely prefer that he be upfront about his loyalties, and not pretend to be helpful to the counting community. You are absolutely right that pro gamblers are a small minority, and Mr. Hall should absolutely not be catering to us in any way. And the casinos should not even worry so much about us. The AP tail does not wag the casino industry dog.

newb99: "To give this guy a drubbing for not providing detailed information on the wheres and hows to APs of how to beat his game seems to me to be a tad unreasonable. As I said, I don't know him, but decribing him as a "complete phony", because he doesn't satisfy your particular want, is uncalled for."

My "particular want" is not that he supply vulnerability information about the game; I know that that is not in his best interest, and I'll handle that part anyway. My "want" is that he be a bit more honest with his loyalties. His pretending to be friends with all sides is what makes him phony. He can't have it both ways here.

newb99: "Mr Hall could always have developed a ruleset that resulted in a 4%+ OTT HE, in which case you'd be more than justified to throw a bun at this statement."

Mr. Hall's choice of rules sets is certainly not motivated by his benevolence towards the player's community, except insofar as making the game popular enough to survive and expand. He has a perfect alignment of incentives with the casino; it just so happens that for the casinos to maximize profit, they can't always rape the players, but if they could, they would. (And sometimes do!)

newb99: "Oh, and by the way, I'm probably one of the degenerate masses you refer to in your response, certainly not an AP - I play for the challenge not to earn an income, treat BJ and other table games as a form of entertainment and don't consider casinos to be ATMs. Sorry if you find that offensive."

I don't find that offensive in the least. I think it's great that you play for fun, and try to find ways to improve, AND THAT YOU UNDERSTAND that it's not meant to be an income for you. There's nothing wrong with that at all. And because you don't come on here, for instance, pretending to be a knowledgeable professional, you won't invite attacks from me or anyone, because you are not a phony at all. You do what you do and don't pretend to be otherwise.

Geoff Hall: "The prominent math' guy is Karel Janecek, creator of SBA."

Ahh, I thought so. Karel was an even BIGGER phony when BJSwitch first came out. He ABSOLUTELY pretended to be buddy-buddy with the counters while giving them no information whatsoever. In fact, he at first tried to mask his involvement in the game. His very first post on the web sites was "Hey guys there's this great new game blah blah blah." People did some digging and then had to call him on the carpet to admit that he had a developer's interest in the game. Janecek's transgressions are not yours, but that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about right there. No one would fault Janecek for doing paid numbers work to help you develop a game, or for declining to help you either. Either role would be acceptable. Where most of us take exception is when he comes along with a post about this great game, and even says that it should be of interest to us counters, while hiding his involvement and intention to thwart any analysis of counting the game.

In response to ExCAA's "Now, I know some more dangerous players that he did not give information to"] Geoff Hall: "I'd like to see proof of that. There has been information that I don't know the answers to but I've never refused to give information out."

My words there don't say that you withheld information that you have in your possession; I said you "did not give information to" some more dangerous players. Now maybe you didn't have the information they wanted (though I don't think you'd have given up the information they wanted even if you had it). But the point is, unlike Kasi who says you answered every question he had, we cannot make that same statement for some of the counters who had questions. I won't mention their names, as they are not part of my crew, but I'll ask a question here: Can you tell me the EORs for the Casino Royale game (the CSM non-countable one)? I'll make it multiple choice. You have two possible answers: (1) Do not have those numbers, or (2) Have those numbers but will not give them out.

Geoff Hall: "When have I ever pretended to be a friend ? As Kasi states, I don't even know him, or what he does, nor any of the posters here."

PUUUHHLLEEASE don't play semantic games. Obviously when I say "friend," I am not implying that you guys go out for coffee, or that you necessarily know anyone here personally. Do you understand the meaning of the word friend in the sentence, "Obama is a friend of the poker community." It doesn't mean anyone here knows him.

Geoff Hall: "You make me sound like I'm garnishing their trust in an evil plan to con them into losing money on the game."

Aren't you?? I have heard that at night you sit on a throne cloaked in flames, with gargoyles and undead pit bosses at your feet, and the souls of thousands of onetime gamblers trapped in a bottle screaming. By now it should be obvious to everyone here that you are evil incarnate. Are you saying I heard wrong? I doubt that, because my sources are impeccable.

Geoff Hall: Quite simply, I spend time, unlike other games inventors, in answering questions they ask."

I think there are many games inventors who also answer questions regarding their games. For instance, I talked with Derek Webb in person when Three Card Poker came out, and he correctly told me Q64 was the BS (though many casino dealers said otherwise). And why wouldn't you spend time answering nonthreatening questions? It's in your best interests to do so, and I think it's great that you do. And you have contributed extensively on many other threads on these and other boards over the years.

ExCAA previously said: "OK, you want to bet? If we open the betting up to members of this forum as well, I wonder if more money would be wagered on my number, or yours. Your vague statement about the 0.5-0.6% additional loss (didn't you say 0.1-0.3% in a previous thread???? hmmmm) proves my point exactly!"

Geoff Hall: "You are again incorrect. 0.1 - 0.3% is ADDED to the base edge for an 'Expert' switcher. The 0.5 - 0.6% is for 'Average' switching. So, the game at Casino Royale, at 0.16% for 'Computer' switching, will be played between approx' 0.26% - 0.76% depending on the skill level. Why would I post 'Average' switch strategy when it contains incorrect 'Switch' decisions ? The correct 'Switch' strategy can be found on WOO."

OK, my statement was a misinterpretation of your terms, as I wasn't considering there to be much a difference between "expert" in one post and "average switcher" in another. The point is that you claim that the human gives up a few tenths vs. computer switching, and yet you NEVER provide a list of rules allowing a human (expert or average, take your pick) to accomplish this. Then, you said you'd give a list of 15 or so numbers/rules that would define a reasonable switch strategy. Then you said the numbers weren't on your laptop, and you had to go away on a trip, and so on:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=10592&page=4

Then you said you'd provide it by email! Hmmm. Why not just post it? I think a reasonable switch strategy, such as the type that could be printed on a brochure in the casinos, would be a great starting point and help boost the popularity of the game.

Geoff Hall: "Again, where do you get the buddy-buddy from ? I simply answer questions,"

Except when you don't.

Geoff Hall: "albeit basic to someone of your self-proclaimed expertise, in the same way other posters here do."

In the future, I may use the handle "SPE" if that's OK with you.

Geoff Hall: "No, Harrah's didn't tell me. The information came from a highly regarded player in the Blackjack community. I asked Harrah's to use a CSM - it's you who does not know the full story but would rather throw wild guesses at the situation instead of asking what happened."

Your idea of "highly regarded player in the BJ community" and mine are probably two totally different things, but that's beside the point. I fully admitted that I don't have any inside info, and that I would ask around. If you already have the full story, then I won't bother to ask around. Your divulging that your source was an AP does not change my point that it is unlikely that you have the full story. Why would Harrah's remove a game that gets hit by counters, instead of just using a CSM? In fact, I think your info source being the AP is definitely limiting. (Counters, for instance, wrongly thought Luxor removed LS on their DD due to counters years ago.) But no matter, has HARRAH'S given you an explanation as to why they couldn't use a CSM, or protect the game in some other way? It should have been easy for them to keep an eye on one or two tables. They haven't taken traditional blackjack away, and that's been hit by counters. I'm not speculating what Harrah's really thought. I'm asking you.

Geoff Hall: "Maybe it's down to certain (very) recent posts on this site ?"

So you won't give this info to the legitimate players, because you took offense to what I wrote? I don't get it. Or perhaps you don't to help ME out with information. Trust me--withholding information/numbers from me makes no difference, as I am going to run my own numbers in any case.

Geoff Hall: "I've given out this information out in the past and a lot more besides."

Yeah, but by some miracle coincidence, not the information that would help counters, despite attempts to APPEAR to be helpful to them. Like HiLo indices that turned out to not be HiLo indices, and for a game of unspecified rules.

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=10592

And then, of course, there's the deafening silence when it comes to an explicit, human-feasible switching strategy, and that's something that even the non-APs are begging for!

Geoff Hall: "Just think how popular you would be if you posted the count indices for the game ? Or is there a reason why YOU wouldn't do that ? If not, then go ahead and post some information that I have not answered in the past - that way you can show everyone that you are the 'buddy' that should be listened to."

I intend to do exactly that. (Not the part about showing everyone what a 'buddy' I am.)
 

Geoff Hall

Well-Known Member
#16
Final Response

I'm going to keep this quick to clear up a few loose ends. This will be my last post on this discussion.

To clarify, 'Computer' play uses all 10,350 correct 'switch' decisions. I then took a list of the harder 'switch' decisions and allowed different proportions of those decisions to be a 50/50 guess for 'Expert', 'Advanced', 'Average' and 'Mediocre'. This allowed me to see the effect that varying 'switch' abilities would have on the house edge. It's not worthwhile listing all 10,350 'switch' decisions as the main criteria would be to be able to compact them into an easy-to-use list of rules, like AS suggested.

I did say that I would try and dig up a shorthand form that I devised and I did look for it. However, I have not got it on my laptop. Furthermore, all I did was to try and devise an index number for each hand total and use the higher of the 2 values to decide whether to 'switch' or not. I believe that AS has a more accurate method for determining the 'switch' rather than mine anyway.

I haven't got an answer for EOR for the game at Casino Royale and, no, I'm not hiding anything, I just don't analyse the game much in that context.

Regarding the count indices, then you will see that further in the post I stated that the indices were based on Zen (which I use) rather than hi-lo. Please let me know who else has offered count indices or is this something else that is common knowledge ? The inference is that by offering Zen rather than Hi-lo I was trying to sidetrack players ???

Basically, I do not study in-depth analysis on any Blackjack game regarding EOR, Variance, SCORE etc, as I don't play much nowadays. However, I've never told people that I am an expert in these matters and I answer questions that I feel I can contribute to. However, I do know a lot about Blackjack Switch, in some areas, and have given answers to relevant questions.

To proclaim that I have avoided questions is false. Plain and simple.

Providing count tags and indices are far better handled by those whose expertise lie in those areas. I invent games and have a decent grounding in Blackjack and advantage play - my expertise doesn't stretch to some of the topics you claim that I refuse to answer on.

If you produce a list of count indices then I've got no problem if you post them. I'm sure there are people with a computed list of indices now.

Incidentally, I beleive that James Grosjean is about to do a seminar on counting at Blackjack Switch so you may be better off if you go to that seminar and see what he has to offer. I understand that he is a very knowledgeable advantage player and I'm sure that his offering could increase the awareness of the game to the AP community.

I will continue to answer questions on Blackjack Switch that I feel that I have some expertise in. That will also apply, as you stated, to other topics that I have also responded to both on this forum and others.

If you still wish to believe that I'm a 'phoney', 'semi-phoney', 'part-phoney' etc then that is your choice. I think that I will rest easy until I hear it from someone who is a more eminent figure in the Blackjack world.
 

Brock Windsor

Well-Known Member
#17
ExhibitCAA said:
.........Geoff Hall: "Just think how popular you would be if you posted the count indices for the game ? Or is there a reason why YOU wouldn't do that ? If not, then go ahead and post some information that I have not answered in the past - that way you can show everyone that you are the 'buddy' that should be listened to."

I intend to do exactly that. (Not the part about showing everyone what a 'buddy' I am.)
While I've found these posts interesting they are unfortunately uninformative thus far. So let's put the numbers on the board. Preferably lets go 'Beyond Counting' and see an HC strategy to go with a workable switching/count strategy (I'll even go to the seminar..) I can assure you both I am only looking out for my own personal gain and not that of the AP community nor the casino industry. I can tell you I am a net loser on this game and though my sample size is still small, I think misplaying hands vs a dealer 12 and switching errors has cost me more than I thought it could.
BW
p.s. if anyone is curious BJ Switch is not included in Beyond Counting Exhibit CAA, maybe a third edition???
 

Geoff Hall

Well-Known Member
#18
appletini_ian said:
Furthermore, the casinos are allowing players to take 'Even Money' when an Ace is showing (Player has 'Blackjack') which gives more back to the player.

I was playing in the Empire this morning and they didn't allow me to take even money when I had a bj and dealer had an ace. Possibly you can take insurance at 2-1 as it was written on the table but I don't think thats the same as getting even money?

Also if you switch to create 21 it doesn't count as a blackjack and loses to a dealer blackjack and pushes against a dealer 21 or 22, just something to watch out for.
Hi Ian,

That's interesting regarding the 'even money' rule change against the dealer Ace. I'll see if they've changed that and, you are correct, taking Insurance at 2/1 is not the same as 'Even Money', in 'Blackjack Switch', as Blackjacks only pay 1/1 anyway.

The switched Blackjack has to be classed as 21 instead of 'Blackjack' because the game is a 'Stand Soft 17' game. If switched Ace/10 = Blackjack then the game would have a positive edge for the player.
 

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#19
ExhibitCAA said:
I'd like to apologize to Geoff Hall for the phrase "complete phony." That's an exaggeration and I'm sorry. Geoff Hall has made a tremendous contribution to the casino world by introducing BJ Switch, which is indeed an interesting game. Geoff has also participated on many boards in threads not even related specifically to marketing his games.
As well you should.

No it's not an exaggeration. It's wrong. IMHO lol. And you should be sorry. Please don't apologize for "complete phony" like it's merely some kind of exaggeration and leave me the impression you still think he's some kind of "partial phony".

And you bet your as* he has.

No big deal. Appreciate very much you backing off on that statement to whatever degree you intended. I choose to think maybe you meant a very large degree lol. Takes a man to have an open enough mind to reconsider.

Obviously I'm a big fan of the guy but each to his own. I respect your more neutral opinions of revealing card-counting tags or not etc, even if I may or may not agree with them but that "phony" stuff just made me a little ballistic.
 

UK-21

Well-Known Member
#20
appletini_ian said:
I was playing in the Empire this morning and they didn't allow me to take even money when I had a bj and dealer had an ace. Possibly you can take insurance at 2-1 as it was written on the table but I don't think thats the same as getting even money?

6 Deck shoe or CSM? Have never played there.
 
Top