New Royal 20’s Side Bet

  • TwoHands

    New Royal 20’s Side Bet

    Hey guys. I haven’t seen any info on if the new version of Royal 20’s is beatable by counting. The payouts are different than the original version. In the original, you could win some of the smaller bonuses with a non-face 10, but in the new version, you must have two face card 10’s (Jack, Queen, King) to win any of the bonuses.

    The good thing about this version however is that it is good on EITHER the player’s or dealer’s hand with only a single bet.

    Payouts are as follows:

    5:1 for either a player or dealer face-card 20.
    10:1 for either a player or dealer matched 20. (2 jacks, 2 queens, 2 kings – suit doesn’t matter)
    50:1 for a player AND dealer face-card 20 at the same time.
    100:1 for a player AND dealer matched 20 at the same time.

    It would seem to me that the big money maker for this bet would be the 50:1 bonus at hot counts. They seem to happen a lot, but the subtraction of the regular 10 from the bonus may hurt more than I think. Any help is appreciated.

  • zengrifter

     

    Quote: TwoHands said:
    Hey guys. I haven’t seen any info on if the new version of Royal 20’s is beatable by counting. The payouts are different than the original version. In the original, you could win some of the smaller bonuses with a non-face 10, but in the new version, you must have two face card 10’s (Jack, Queen, King) to win any of the bonuses.

    The good thing about this version however is that it is gone on EITHER the player’s or dealer’s hand with only a single bet.

    Payouts are as follows:

    5:1 for either a player or dealer face-card 20.
    10:1 for either a player or dealer matched 20. (2 jacks, 2 queens, 2 kings – suit doesn’t matter)
    50:1 for a player AND dealer face-card 20 at the same time.
    100:1 for a player AND dealer matched 20 at the same time.

    It would seem to me that the big money maker for this bet would be the 50:1 bonus at hot counts. They seem to happen a lot, but the subtraction of the regular 10 from the bonus may hurt more than I think. Any help is appreciated.

    It looks pretty bleak. The most important hands are the non-matching 10s and the suited 20s – these have been gutted. The original R20s was killed by counters, don’t expect a newer version to be anywhere close. zg

  • TwoHands

     

    Quote: zengrifter said:
    It looks pretty bleak. The most important hands are the non-matching 10s and the suited 20s – these have been gutted. The original R20s was killed by counters, don’t expect a newer version to be anywhere close. zg

    I was hoping that since either the player or dealer could make the “royal 20” would make up for the removal of the non-face 10s and suited bonuses…

    When I think about it, it seems at hot counts that a player and dealer both get 20s a lot more than 1 time in 50 hands. But like I said, maybe the missing regular 10 is more important than I realize.

    In something like Lucky Ladies, you can win smaller ones a lot, but only the player can get the 20, and the payout most of the time will be the 10:1 or 25:1. And at hot counts, how many times does the dealer pull that 20 instead and kill you? In the new Royal 20s, you’d have some insurance, and if you both got the royal 20, the 50:1 payout is a pretty nice bonus.

    The Wizard of Odds calculated the payouts and house advantage of the original Royal 20’s side bet and he is supposed to check to make sure the game isn’t easily beatable by counters for his clients. It sounds like he didn’t do such a good job the first time around. Is it possible that he made another mistake?

  • zengrifter

     

    Quote: TwoHands said:
    I was hoping that since either the player or dealer could make the “royal 20” would make up for the removal of the non-face 10s and suited bonuses…

    Oh, its EITHER for the SAME bet? zg

  • TwoHands

     

    Quote: zengrifter said:
    Oh, its EITHER for the SAME bet? zg

    Yes, either. You only place a single side bet that works for both hands.

  • Automatic Monkey

     

    Quote: TwoHands said:
    Yes, either. You only place a single side bet that works for both hands.

    Nice feature, that should smooth out the variance a bit.

  • TwoHands

     

    So do you guys think it’s beatable? If so, how easily? Would the type of count make a huge difference? I use UBZ II. This sidebet is only offered on six deck shoes by the way.

  • zengrifter

     

    Quote: TwoHands said:
    So do you guys think it’s beatable? If so, how easily? Would the type of count make a huge difference? I use UBZ II. This sidebet is only offered on six deck shoes by the way.

    Anyone? A sim perhaps? zg

  • tthree

     

    Quote: TwoHands said:
    So do you guys think it’s beatable? If so, how easily? Would the type of count make a huge difference? I use UBZ II. This sidebet is only offered on six deck shoes by the way.

    Split your count whatever it is. ie HILO {(J,Q,K -1), (4,5,6 +1)}; and {(A,10 -1), (2,3 +1)}. Combine the counts for HILO. You could really up your correlation for some indices this way. You could weight each count and combine or ignore 1 count. You would need to generate new indices. Big potential gain in both side bet efficiency and PE.

  • NightStalker

    yes

    Quote: TwoHands said:
    So do you guys think it’s beatable? If so, how easily? Would the type of count make a huge difference? I use UBZ II. This sidebet is only offered on six deck shoes by the way.

    count will make some difference.That depends upon ratio of main bet to side-bet.. What’s the table max on side bet?

    It is definitely beatable and better than lucky ladies in all prospects.. It become favorable before LL and the same payour will work great for double decks also. It has lower variance than LL. It can add upto 40$ an hour on 100 max side bet..

  • TwoHands

     

    Quote: NightStalker said:
    count will make some difference.That depends upon ratio of main bet to side-bet.. What’s the table max on side bet?

    Max bet is $25. I’m pretty sure it does not have to correlate to your main bet. I think it can be anything you want between $1-$25 regardless of main bet.

  • TwoHands

     

    Another question I have is why would the owner of this bet bring it back after so many years, make an effort to change it, and STILL leave it vulnerable to counters. It seems like he would have made sure to fix any holes this time!

  • tthree

     

    Quote: TwoHands said:
    Another question I have is why would the owner of this bet bring it back after so many years, make an effort to change it, and STILL leave it vulnerable to counters. It seems like he would have made sure to fix any holes this time!

    Lucky ladies is vulnerable too but it is such a popular side bet in the stores I frequent that it must be making money hand over fist. Where is Royal being offered right now?

  • zengrifter

     

    Quote: NightStalker said:
    It is definitely beatable and better than lucky ladies in all prospects.. It become favorable before LL and the same payour will work great for double decks also. It has lower variance than LL. It can add upto 40$ an hour on 100 max side bet..

    Not so sure – need a HiLo sim AND a 10-count sim. Anyone up to it? zg

  • NightStalker

    Only because you have asked for it..

    Quote: zengrifter said:
    Not so sure – need a HiLo sim AND a 10-count sim. Anyone up to it? zg

    Hi-lo: Floored True Count +5 for 6-deck
    It become +EV at +5 and higher true counts..
    Since variance is low, I would simply bet 25 on +5 and higher..

    What is 10-count? I would stick with hi-lo only….
    If you want EV and Variance number per count to calculate kelly equivalent, drop me an email at eagle.nightstalker@gmail.com..

    Good luck !!!!!!!

The BlackjackInfo Knowledge Base contains over 200,000 messages posted by the BlackjackInfo community.

Posting and replies to the knowledge base are no longer available, but comments and replies are welcomed on the blog.