Blackjack, if the dealer wasn't set by any rules

I looked through the appendix and couldn't find either my following question. I don't expect anyone to do detailed analysis, but moreso am hoping that someone has done this in the past and could link me.

Let's say that there was a BJ game where the dealer didn't have the "Dealer must hit/stand on soft 17" and could do whatever he wanted to beat the player. If the rest of the game is played out, as in the HA is still there because if the player & house busts the player still loses, what would the new HA be? Let's assume the most liberal rules possible for this and the next question, BJ 3-2.

Add-on question: Let's say that if the house busts, all players who lose are a push. The dealer is required to stick to the hit/stand soft 17. Does this create a perfectly even game, plus whatever player advantage you get from 3-2, doubling, splitting, etc?

The question would be, could the dealer split or double and how would that affect the players' wagers? And if the table was full, would the dealer try to beat everyone, just a majority, just the big bettors? If everyone busted, and the dealer had 3 and a 2, he could double and force the player to give up 2x his already lost bet? I think there are too many variables to get a real good sense of the HA, but it would be quite large in a one-on-one game.

Quote: ahiromu

I looked through the appendix and couldn't find either my following question. I don't expect anyone to do detailed analysis, but moreso am hoping that someone has done this in the past and could link me.

Let's say that there was a BJ game where the dealer didn't have the "Dealer must hit/stand on soft 17" and could do whatever he wanted to beat the player. If the rest of the game is played out, as in the HA is still there because if the player & house busts the player still loses, what would the new HA be? Let's assume the most liberal rules possible for this and the next question, BJ 3-2.

Add-on question: Let's say that if the house busts, all players who lose are a push. The dealer is required to stick to the hit/stand soft 17. Does this create a perfectly even game, plus whatever player advantage you get from 3-2, doubling, splitting, etc?

For the first question, if the house truly could play as they wish to beat a player, the game would have a massive house advantage. It would be like reverse double-exposure, except ties still push, and the dealer could see how the entire hand played out, not just the first two cards. The dealer would be hitting 17s, 18s and 19s when you drew to 20 or 21. The dealer could also stand on stuff like 15 when they knew you had 14. This means strategy would dictate you hitting a lot of stiffs, busting more often. If someone wishes to calculate the house advantage, I would imagine it would easily be around 15+ percent.

For the second question, the answer is no. Your advantage would be higher than just the effect of doubling, splitting, and bonus payout on naturals. This is because you also get the opportunity to see a dealer upcard and base your hitting/standing of decisions on it. The dealer must draw to 17 or go bust trying, but the player doesn't.

Sounds like Extreme 21.