Free Bet Blackjack

If you want to see the future of blackjack, go to the Golden Nugget in Las Vegas.

When you get there, just follow the noise. It's the only blackjack table that sounds like a craps table.

Roger,
that's because this new Blackjack byatch is just wailing...
REALLY strong game...
damn nearly forgot Pai Gow
Edit:And this is without a side bet on it. After my first house-covered split, AND from then on, I wasn't even aware or thinking about a side bet.
I was thinking:
1. I'm Ready for the next split, will do on any, because it's free...
2. I'm Ready for the next double, because it's free...
3. Geez, I haven't even seen a dealer's 22-push/bust since I bought the f*ck in....[Geoff's just standing there, "There's my son, my child..."]
4. House covers dealer tokes on splits/doubles??!! WTF, just awesome....
5. A side bet, - unless outrageously fine - would just be spray painting grafitti on the Mona Lisa...

I was stunned, non-plussed...

Edit 2: Stanley Ko moved back to Taipei, and became a monk. Just backed his shit into his Toyota, and drove to LAX...

so the dealer 22 causes all live hands on the table to push?

Quote: WongBo

so the dealer 22 causes all live hands on the table to push?

Yes, - but you won't even notice it...not for a second...

I hate how this all happens a week after I'm in Vegas. Maybe I'll get to play it next month when I'm there.

Paigowdan, is this the end of traditional Blackjack? Will your card-counting nemesi be forced into an existence of slouching down at the first base of 3CP tables?

Quote: RogerKint

I hate how this all happens a week after I'm in Vegas. Maybe I'll get to play it next month when I'm there.

Paigowdan, is this the end of traditional Blackjack? Will your card-counting nemesi be forced into an existence of slouching down at the first base of 3CP tables?

It may be approximately as countable, but I greatly fear that it might bring a LOT of current Pai Gow Poker and crap players back to the Blackjack tables.

The new mechanism is so natural to the game, so easy to deal and incorporate without electronics or "gizmos," and so bizarrely fair to players and supportve to the casino house in play, it is just an indescribable monster - as an evolutionary feature to the game.

It will also shut down so MANY Blackjack game designers - I mean dash their hopes to endeavor in this area, no matter how veteran they may be, that it is actually ridiculous and tragic. I am literally thankful that I am focusing on Baccarat and Blackjack, because YEARS of game design work ready-to-be-released are in the toilet if you were looking at Blackjack for a 'next hit.'

I am that stunned by all this.

I knew it was interesting and feasible, but I just had NO idea that it would play so well, so fabulously, and with so little "collateral damage" to the standard game side from this benefit, it just plays THAT well, with no upset or after-taste.

I do think this is the end of traditional Blackjack, except that this will be incorporated into "traditional Blackjack", so that it will "look the same," and "be the same," just better.

Like a Vatican decree, this will become a part of the "blackjack Liturgy," and extremely quickly, and naturally. It is that striking.

I could see losing PGP players because Free Bet BJ seems to have less variance than regular BJ, making for longer sessions.

Don't worry, Dan. You'll still have a future in game protection ;)

I am not up to date and can't seem to find the discussion:

How does Free Bet BJ differ from BJ Switch?

You can see the rules of play in this thread :-

Free Bet Blackjack

Quote: RogerKint

I could see losing PGP players because Free Bet BJ seems to have less variance than regular BJ, making for longer sessions.

That was exactly what I thought when I played, and after I played.

To NOT be bashed by bad breaks on splits and double downs gave the game a huge sense of stability, - and yes, quite like Pai Gow Poker, and it was very relieving to play, made the game feel better to play as a Blackjack game, which was surprising. For lack of a better description, this game change gave the great game of Blackjack a bit of the "Pai Gow Poker" playing narcotic, and without drawback. Hard to describe, but that kind of describes it. Plays REALLY well.

Quote: RogerKint

Don't worry, Dan. You'll still have a future in game protection ;)

No, I am a GAME DESIGNER and dealer, not surveillance or gaming enforcement, although I do see its merit. (And as a game designer, one who had pretty threw away any and all of his own BJ concepts and designs after this evening's play...I mean, I cannot see placing a side bet onto this thing without detracting from this game...), and I now focus on Baccarat, Pai Gow Poker, and craps.

Quote: Paigowdan

... A side bet, - unless outrageously fine - would just be spray painting grafitti on the Mona Lisa...

I love that comment - can I use it in the future or have you patented that Dan? :-) ... Great analogy !!!

The house edge is double that of some of the 6 deck games and equal to most 8 deck games, so serious players may not flock to it. If they do, someone has probably figured out a way to exploit it.

For casual players, this is a great way to spice up an often mundane game as long as they can accept the push on the dealer's 22. It's no surprise that it gets good reviews here but the real test will be what the "civilians" think. I think they're going to like it.

this page indicates an edge of 1.01%:
http://www.ukcasinotablegames.info/blackjackfreebet.html
is this not the same game?

I wont be playing this game. Im sure I need not explain why. I do however see its appeal to the masses.

Quote: WongBo

this page indicates an edge of 1.01%:
http://www.ukcasinotablegames.info/blackjackfreebet.html
is this not the same game?

Yes, it is the same (Great Game) but using European Blackjack Rules:
Six decks.
Dealer stands on soft 17.
Player may double after a split.
No-peek (player loses total bet, including after doubling or splitting, if dealer has blackjack).

Are dealer aces 22 for the push, or 12 for the hit?

Congrats Geoff.....it appears to gotten off to a great start! You have got to love Roger's comments on "the future of BJ" at the GN with Free Bet!! Brilliant all the way around!

Quote: RogerKint

Paigowdan, is this the end of traditional Blackjack? Will your card-counting nemesi be forced into an existence of slouching down at the first base of 3CP tables?

I haven't run the numbers or anything (I've never analyzed a new game for counting vulnerabilities), but I'd guess this game is just as susceptible to counting as regular blackjack. The house edge (Switch quoted it at around .6%) is not too far off from most 6D H17 games you find in Vegas these days. S17 with lower edges is around but it's hard to play those games exclusively if you're a regular player.

With a reasonable edge, 3-2 payouts, and all the same benefits to the player with lots of high cards left in the deck (probability of dealer busting, more BJs, better doubles [and they're free, at that!]), it's probably beatable.

Oh and I seem to have better luck spotting at third base when I play 1CP :D.

I came out last night to see and play it, and of course I had bad luck. I only won on three hands out of the entire shoe. Its what I get for gambling (which I never do anymore). The most I was ever up was $10 and my goal was to win only $50. Oh well.

I played for about an hour. The table was full and everybody seemed to like the game. It seemed like everybody was doing well until Nick the cooler sat down.

My page on the game is about 80% done. I hope to have it ready to view by the end of the day.

Quote: AcesAndEights

I haven't run the numbers or anything (I've never analyzed a new game for counting vulnerabilities), but I'd guess this game is just as susceptible to counting as regular blackjack.

The push on 22 has got to hurt a counter.

Quote: thecesspit

Are dealer aces 22 for the push, or 12 for the hit?

That is a very good question.

Quote: thecesspit

Are dealer aces 22 for the push, or 12 for the hit?

12 for the hit.

Quote: Wizard

12 for the hit.

I think it's currently the same in Blackjack Switch too.

I hate blackjack math, so if this is a stupid question (which it might be) please don't hold it against me: would it be advantageous to the house to make a dealer pair of aces an automatic push, rather than play it out as a 12?

The reason I ask is, if it's better for the house to make it an automatic push, I could see it becoming another rule variation to increase their edge (in both games), much like the rule about switching to make a blackjack no longer being considered an automatic winner.

Quote: RogerKint

The push on 22 has got to hurt a counter.

Sure, but that's accounted for in the overall house edge of about .6%, meaning you gain a lot of that value back from the free bets. The only question is whether the 2 features balance each other out at high counts as much as they do at neutral ones.

Oh and to answer your now-removed question, I was just being cheeky. 1CP is what some APs call 3CP when they can spot one of the dealer's cards. In the interest of full disclosure, I've made no money myself on 1CP as I haven't found many opportunities and haven't scouted much.

Quote: AcesAndEights

Sure, but that's accounted for in the overall house edge of about .6%, meaning you gain a lot of that value back from the free bets. The only question is whether the 2 features balance each other out at high counts as much as they do at neutral ones.

I get it now. That makes sense. For some reason I can just see this game taking over downtown (similar to switch exploding around Casino Royale) which wouldn't be that bad. There's barely a blackjack game under .60 under the canopy anyway.

Quote: AcesAndEights

Oh and to answer your now-removed question, I was just being cheeky. 1CP is what some APs call 3CP when they can spot one of the dealer's cards. In the interest of full disclosure, I've made no money myself on 1CP as I haven't found many opportunities and haven't scouted much.

I'm slow so it took me a few minutes :D I just get a laugh everytime I see some guy slouched at third base.

This is really gonna be a winner, Geoff. I keep thinking about it and I really like it, frankly I think it will easily get 2 or 3 times as many installs as Switch. There is nothing worse in BJ than getting 4 or 5 bets out on the table and LOSE! It sucks because you were expecting to win a pile of money, and instead you are stuck for a pile of money. By having the house cover those extra bets, you have at least eliminated the pain of losing more than you were comfortable betting in the first place (what $10 bettor is comfortable losing $50? that is likely HALF his buy in!)

The push on 22, as Dan has noted, is not very painful by comparison, and it comes up rarely enough that I have played 30 and 45 minute sessions of Switch without seeing it. Honestly, the dealer 22 feels the same as the dealer drawing to a tie and pushing, it does not feel like you are getting cheated out of your winnings. Compare this to Caribean stud, where you finally get a flush or a full house and the dealer doesnt qualify. THAT makes you feel like you have been cheated!!!

Sorry to sound so sicophantic here but I can't wait to play it and I am very excited for you. You got a real winner here and everyone will be familiar with this game in a few years.

Quote: RogerKint

Paigowdan, is this the end of traditional Blackjack? Will your card-counting nemesi be forced into an existence of slouching down at the first base of 3CP tables?

Been really thinking about this question.....
One of the most powerful things about such a game mechanism is how it makes the player's bankroll feel....and it feels and acts a lot larger. For all the splits and doubles that go bad, that often means departure from the table with a bad taste in the mouth, or another annoying trip to the ATM. Free Bets eliminate that down side, and make the game feel kinder to you, and your bankroll. Again, in thinking about the popularity and the positive aspects of Pai Gow Poker as a competing game to Blackjack, Free bet gives BJ that Pai Gow Poker kind of gentler experience on the bankroll. Doesn't totally turn BJ into a gentler game like PGP, but it really helps.

If we look at the change that Galaxy did to Deuces Wild, (to allow "check" actions on subsequent rounds of a hand instead forced raises), the new version made the game more player-friendly, and less of a bankroll killer: players don't like see their $100 buy-in have the half-life of a weak subatomic particle. Earlier versions of three-card Blackjack, a great game concept, also had an accelerated sense of bankroll depletion in terms of feel of the game, where new versions of the game improved it.
But "Bankroll feel" is one of the hardest elements for a game designer to quantify: you find out if you nail it or fail it by seeing if your game installs get later removals, to great sadness.

I feel that the Free Bet design strongly fixes one negative aspect of Blackjack, that it, where double downs and splits that go bad are merciless on you and your bankroll, so yes, this is a really good fix on the game of Blackjack, IMHO. This is very much like the removal of the commission created very strong variants of Baccarat and Pai Gow Poker. As a game designer, this is one area I have experience in, and so I hooked into this "Game improvement' or "Game repair" aspect on an existing staple of the casino pit. A small and elegant change or fix on a game's aspect - removing a negative aspect that's in the game - can turn an otherwise "very good game" into a monster smash hit. And Free bet's impact on Blackjack's "Bankroll feel" just makes the game feel great to play: a liberation from "Bankroll apprehension" when splits and double downs are staring you in the face with a dare. You can now approach splits and double downs with gambler's confidence and aggression, without the "bankroll drag" weighing you down on the decision, - so you can go for these plays with gambler's glee and abandon: "Split 'em!" - "Damn straight I'm doubling down!" etc.. VERY powerful.

As a game designer, I look at such a product as how it would affect the table games market in terms of my and my business partners Blackjack designs and their chances, and I am afraid, really. If Free Bet Blackjack gets "acceleration" in terms of installs and market penetration/share, and I will say that it will indeed, then I am dashed - crushed, - and annoyed at Geoff, while simultaneously admiring him, in a "G-d Damn you, that's fucking brilliant, you've just killed me, but I must salute you..." fashion. Any Blackjack Game design who doesn't see the risk of this product's release on his own Blackjack games portfolio and aspirations, or for the competing game distributors to the Geoff Hall/Shufflemaster combo, must fearless account for the impact on us. Casino table game floor space is very finite while it is also fairly large (We call this "the competition for Real Estate"), and we are now crowded out somewhat, if this game's potential does what I think it may do to this Real Estate we're fighting for. A game changer, no pun intended.

One of the changes I see is that the BJ market may become more like the Baccarat/PGP market: a handful of related game variants instead of a free for all of countless variants. Instead of countless "Mom & Pop" groceries, there will be K-mart, All-Mart, Costco, and Sam's club. Pick one of the four leaders, and not one from four dozen. The independent game designer and some distributors may find these niches much harder to find, if persuing the BJ market.

" The independent game designer and some distributors may find these niches much harder to find, if persuing the BJ market. "

The graying of the game and it's players are the real challenges BJ faces.

Yeah, sadly.
As current gaming products become so refined, so perfected, only the stellar new products will enter, - the bar has been raised so high now.
The players aren't really greying, it's just that the games market is just becoming very mature, so anyone exposed to it, especially the young 'ums, will be spoiled by higher standards. New games will have to be screaming, just wailing, to get new entrance, and these products are less likely to come from a weekend warrior in a garage outside the industry, than from veterans and professionals who know the landscape and still have inspiration.

Well Dan, you know how to tell if you are really old. My grandkids tell me it's if you ever played solitaire with real cards.
DAMN COMPUTERS LOL

Quote: buzzpaff

Well Dan, you know how to tell if you are really old. My grandkids tell me it's if you ever played solitaire with real cards.
DAMN COMPUTERS LOL

We have got to get the young folk playing with real cards (and dice!)

PaiGowDan reading your post made me realize that many of the most successful game innovations so far have removed negative elements from a popular game, as opposed to adding positive options:

EZ Pai Gow and EZ Baccarat: Removes the negative element of getting short paid.

Crapless Craps: The most popular craps variation, removes the come out losers.

Super Fun 21 and 6/5 Single Deck Games (edit: originally wrote 3:2, oops!): Removes the percieved negative of multiple decks (everyone knows fewer decks favors the player)

Free Bet BJ will join this list: removes the sting of losing multiple bets on a single hand

Compare this to the endless list of other BJ variants that ultimately get nowhere. The games that let you triple down, or pay a big bonus for doing XYZ. I'm sure there are BJ games that let you discard cards or do all kinds of extra stuff. And look at how quickly side bets burn out.

In complex systems, if a change can be achieved through either introducing a new element or by removing an existing element, it is better to do the latter.
Nassim Taleb refers to this as 'via negativa' and instictively we understand that it is superiour in other areas of life. Diabetes can be treated through taking insulin (via positiva) or by changing the diet to lose weight (via negativa). Looking back at the last 10 years of table game design, the via negativa approach has lead to more successful game designs than the via positiva.

One can imagine that this approach would work on many games. Take Carribean Stud. The problem is that my full house don't win squat if the dealer doesn't qualify. The via positiva approach might add a side bet (like pai gow insurance) that pays some kind of jackpot for having a big hand when the dealer doesn't qualify, so that you always get paid for that big hand. The via negativa approach might be to pay all straights or higher the bonus payout while compensating the house with some other rule. If an elegant enough mechanism could be created for carribean stud example, it might be a $1,000,000 idea! (or at least a $100,000 idea!).

I have designed my new BJ game after penny slots. What the hell, why not ! LOL

Quote: Wizard

It seemed like everybody was doing well until Nick the cooler sat down.

Similar thing happens when I deal or supervise a game, dont play with me!

Quote: NicksGamingStuff

Similar thing happens when I deal or supervise a game, dont play with me!

The hell you say!

Next WoVCon you'll get to shoot while we all bet the Dark Side :)

Quote: bigfoot66

PaiGowDan reading your post made me realize that many of the most successful game innovations so far have removed negative elements from a popular game, as opposed to adding positive options:

EZ Pai Gow and EZ Baccarat: Removes the negative element of getting short paid.

Crapless Craps: The most popular craps variation, removes the come out losers.

Super Fun 21 and 3/2 Single Deck Games: Removes the percieved negative of multiple decks (everyone knows fewer decks favors the player)

Free Bet BJ will join this list: removes the sting of losing multiple bets on a single hand

Compare this to the endless list of other BJ variants that ultimately get nowhere.

Agree with most of this when it comes to variants of BJ or PGP.

Not sure Crapless Craps qualifies in the category of most successful games, I feel like the Fire Side Bet has been a better addition to Craps (All Tall/All Small/All or Nothing will ultimately assume the top spot here in my opinion).

But where does UTH or Crazy Four Poker fit in to this discussion. They are entirely new Poker game formats that didn't seem to "fix anything" as it related to games that came before them. Arguably these are the most successful new games in the last ten years so....

Quote: bigfoot66

PaiGowDan reading your post made me realize that many of the most successful game innovations so far have removed negative elements from a popular game, as opposed to adding positive options:

EZ Pai Gow and EZ Baccarat: Removes the negative element of getting short paid.

Crapless Craps: The most popular craps variation, removes the come out losers.

Super Fun 21 and 3/2 Single Deck Games: Removes the percieved negative of multiple decks (everyone knows fewer decks favors the player)

Free Bet BJ will join this list: removes the sting of losing multiple bets on a single hand

Compare this to the endless list of other BJ variants that ultimately get nowhere. The games that let you triple down, or pay a big bonus for doing XYZ. I'm sure there are BJ games that let you discard cards or do all kinds of extra stuff. And look at how quickly side bets burn out.

In complex systems, if a change can be achieved through either introducing a new element or by removing an existing element, it is better to do the latter.
Nassim Taleb refers to this as 'via negativa' and instictively we understand that it is superiour in other areas of life. Diabetes can be treated through taking insulin (via positiva) or by changing the diet to lose weight (via negativa). Looking back at the last 10 years of table game design, the via negativa approach has lead to more successful game designs than the via positiva.

One can imagine that this approach would work on many games. Take Carribean Stud. The problem is that my full house don't win squat if the dealer doesn't qualify. The via positiva approach might add a side bet (like pai gow insurance) that pays some kind of jackpot for having a big hand when the dealer doesn't qualify, so that you always get paid for that big hand. The via negativa approach might be to pay all straights or higher the bonus payout while compensating the house with some other rule. If an elegant enough mechanism could be created for carribean stud example, it might be a $1,000,000 idea! (or at least a $100,000 idea!).

Via negativa is usually utilized, because it improves/repairs existing gambling process (BJ, Poker, Pai Gow Poker), as gamblers don't like to try something new. Often we keep playing along with the less-than-perfect existing games until someone like Geoff, Dan [ahem..], Robin Powell, etc. come along and say, "I'll fix that leaky pipe." One of the sharper brand new games of a decade ago was Two Cards High, a very elegant game idea (kind of like Baccarat Pai Gow poker)that didn't catch on here because it was too new and alien, and gamblers are so set in their ways. ("Why learn a new game? That's work...") Games like Zero, Rupert's Island Draw, etc. that tried the "fresh new idea" approach as its main base game failed.

Side bets add the via positiva - slip in a new gimmick on top of a game they already know and play, and you can sneak in their adaptation to it.

Quote: Paradigm

But where does UTH or Crazy Four Poker fit in to this discussion. They are entirely new Poker game formats that didn't seem to "fix anything" as it related to games that came before them. Arguably these are the most successful new games in the last ten years so....

UTH fixes the negatives in Texas Holdem Bonus (which pays even money for Royal Flush, etc.); THB fixes the negatives in life Holdem. Crazy Four Card Poker and UTH belong to the same patent. Four Card Poker fills in the number sequence in poker games.

Quote: UCivan

UTH fixes the negatives in Texas Holdem Bonus (which pays even money for Royal Flush, etc.); THB fixes the negatives in life Holdem.

Don't forget Casino Holdem® (The First Texas Hold'em Against the Casino) invented in 2000.
Both UTH and THB is a variation of Casino Hold'em® (Texas Hold'em Against the Casino).

Play Casino Holdem® at Bodog for free.

Land Based Distributor: TCS-JohnHuxley.

On-Line Distributors: Playtech, NetEnt, GTECH G2(Boss Media), Real Time Gaming, CTXM, World Match, Betsson AB, Random Logic, 888, Bodog, PKR, Viaden Gaming, Gale Wind, iPoker Network...

Available in over 800+ On-line Casinos including: 888.com, Bodog, Bet365, William Hill, Casino.com, Sporting Bet, Betfair, Betfred, Paddy Power, Euro Grand, Win Palace, Unibet, Betsson, Intertops, Sports Interaction, Titan, Club UK, PKR, Pinnacle Sports...

Played Live 200+ Tables in Countries:
South Africa, Egypt, Holland, Sweden, Romania, Latvia, Estonia, Ireland, Morocco, Czech, Panama, Costa Rica, Colombia, Russia, Ukraine, South America, Africa, EU, UK...(Not in the US).

Quote: UCivan

UTH fixes the negatives in Texas Holdem Bonus (which pays even money for Royal Flush, etc.); THB fixes the negatives in life Holdem. Crazy Four Card Poker and UTH belong to the same patent. Four Card Poker fills in the number sequence in poker games.

I hear what you are saying on UTH......my point was that bringing Hold'em to the table games pit (as opposed to the Poker Room) doesn't really fit the model of looking at existing games in the table games arena and fixing them. So there may still be some viable new game concepts out there that are not present in any form in today's table game pit (but like you indicated, maybe they are present somewhere else in the casino).

On Crazy Four Poker, you could say there was some improvement over Four Card Poker (although I have never played the latter to know what it would be), but I don't agree that the 4 Card games are a result of deciding that fillng in the number sequence was a big problem that needed fixing.

Quote: bigfoot66

Super Fun 21 and 3/2 Single Deck Games: Removes the percieved negative of multiple decks (everyone knows fewer decks favors the player)

lolwut 3/2 single deck is where Blackjack started, that's not a new gimmick. Just had to comment on that.

Prior to 1962 that was the only BJ game in Las Vegas. John Scarne tried to get the gaming commission to rule that BJ had to
be dealt from a shoe. But that was to prevent Dealer cheating, not counting.

At that time table games were 70% of the take and Slots 30%

Times have certainly changed since then.

Quote: AcesAndEights

lolwut 3/2 single deck is where Blackjack started, that's not a new gimmick. Just had to comment on that.

Yeah. Next thing you know the dealer will stand on soft 17, and Blackjack will pay 1.5 times the bet!

:)

Quote: AcesAndEights

Quote: bigfoot66

Super Fun 21 and 3/2 Single Deck Games: Removes the percieved negative of multiple decks (everyone knows fewer decks favors the player)

lolwut 3/2 single deck is where Blackjack started, that's not a new gimmick. Just had to comment on that.

You are right, I edited to reflect what I meant to say, which is 6:5 BJ. Unfortunately I think it is pretty clear that the market cannot support 3:2 single deck games in all but the mid/low end of the most competitive markets (Laughlin, El Cortez, parts of Reno)

Quote: bigfoot66

Quote: AcesAndEights

Quote: bigfoot66

Super Fun 21 and 3/2 Single Deck Games: Removes the percieved negative of multiple decks (everyone knows fewer decks favors the player)

lolwut 3/2 single deck is where Blackjack started, that's not a new gimmick. Just had to comment on that.

You are right, I edited to reflect what I meant to say, which is 6:5 BJ. Unfortunately I think it is pretty clear that the market cannot support 3:2 single deck games in all but the mid/low end of the most competitive markets (Laughlin, El Cortez, parts of Reno)

The market can support. It is the casino's who choose not to. As long as customer are willing to play 6/5 casinos will offer it.
And there are no licenses fees for a casinos to play. The fish continue to play even when the dealer hits soft 17. Seems I should be using a P T Barnum quote here !

Quote: 1BB

The house edge is double that of some of the 6 deck games and equal to most 8 deck games, so serious players may not flock to it. If they do, someone has probably figured out a way to exploit it.

For casual players, this is a great way to spice up an often mundane game as long as they can accept the push on the dealer's 22. It's no surprise that it gets good reviews here but the real test will be what the "civilians" think. I think they're going to like it.

I believe the recreational blackjack player will have no problem with the push on 22 aspect of the game......how many times have we all sat at the blackjack table and heard the statement, "A push is a win"?

How many hands can you resplit to? Can you resplit aces? Are they all on the house? If I split into two+ hands of 9-11 does the house cover all the splits and double downs assuming it was not a split I had to pay for?

As a matter of policy, are dealers required to offer the free splits and doubles to players with eligible hands or must the players make their intentions known as in regular blackjack?

Quote: bigfoot66

Crapless Craps: The most popular craps variation, removes the come out losers.

I think this is better described as the ONLY craps variation. And as far as popular goes, doesn't it have less than half a dozen installs?