Blackjack with ZERO of the dealer's cards exposed? House edge?

I was wondering. If the game of Blackjack were altered to where the player had no information about the dealer's downcards (and, as a result, no ability for the dealer to check for blackjacks beforehand), how would this affect strategy of blackjack on its most basic level? What should you hit, stand, split, and double down on? Also, I was hoping to answer the question that led me to creating this topic: what would be a reasonable example of a game whose house rules were altered liberally for the player to compensate for the huge player edge loss? I'm looking for a game between 0% edge and 1% house edge with perfect strategy and the dealer revealing zero cards before the player's action.

Can anyone offer any insight? Thanks a lot.

You would have a much simpler strategy, not that I could tell you what it would be. I can imagine you would still double with an 11, still split Aces paired and 8s paired [recently I have decided you do that since "12" and "16" are so awful you want another chance].

Maybe card counting would be so important it could be part of the game, actually constantly computed and posted openly for the player.

How about this version of pontoon.

Quote: Funbox

I was wondering. If the game of Blackjack were altered to where the player had no information about the dealer's downcards (and, as a result, no ability for the dealer to check for blackjacks beforehand), how would this affect strategy of blackjack on its most basic level? What should you hit, stand, split, and double down on? Also, I was hoping to answer the question that led me to creating this topic: what would be a reasonable example of a game whose house rules were altered liberally for the player to compensate for the huge player edge loss? I'm looking for a game between 0% edge and 1% house edge with perfect strategy and the dealer revealing zero cards before the player's action.

Can anyone offer any insight? Thanks a lot.

Like Wiz wrote, there is such a game and it is called Pontoon. I enjoy it much more than Blackjack by the way, because it has a low house edge and a slightly higher variance than BJ. However in Pontoon, in addition to dealer not exposing any cards, he will win all ties too, so it's not precisely the game you were asking for.

Quote: Funbox

I was wondering. If the game of Blackjack were altered ...

Heck, I have enough trouble with the unaltered and actually existing Blackjack that is available at the casino.

Going from 3:2 to 6:5 was enough of an alteration for me! All I need is a real game with some good looking broad who actually knows Basic Strategy to do the math for me. Instead, I get smokers, chip-clickers, and yackers. No pole makes up for that!

Quote: Funbox

I was wondering. If the game of Blackjack were altered to where the player had no information about the dealer's downcards (and, as a result, no ability for the dealer to check for blackjacks beforehand), how would this affect strategy of blackjack on its most basic level?...

Not checking for dealer blackjacks would not matter if only the original bet was lost to a dealer's blackjack. The strategy would be very simple for this game. For a multi-deck game with the dealer standing on soft 17, the player should stand on hard 15 and soft 18, double on 11 or 10, and split A's, 7's, 8's, and 9's. The infinite-deck edge for this game (3:2 for a winning bj, S17, resplitting of aces, and splitting to four hands) would be 2.38%.

Quote: Funbox

...what would be a reasonable example of a game whose house rules were altered liberally for the player to compensate for the huge player edge loss? I'm looking for a game between 0% edge and 1% house edge with perfect strategy and the dealer revealing zero cards before the player's action.

Here is a combination of rules that brings the infinite-deck edge down to 0.69%:
1) Player's blackjack beats dealer's blackjack.
2) Player's 21 beats the dealer's 21.
3) Player may double on any number of cards.
4) Player may hit after doubling.
5) Hands made from split aces may be hit or doubled.

Quote: ChesterDog

Not checking for dealer blackjacks would not matter if only the original bet was lost to a dealer's blackjack. The strategy would be very simple for this game. For a multi-deck game with the dealer standing on soft 17, the player should stand on hard 15 and soft 18, double on 11 or 10, and split A's, 7's, 8's, and 9's. The infinite-deck edge for this game (3:2 for a winning bj, S17, resplitting of aces, and splitting to four hands) would be 2.38%.

I am surprised to see that the effect of seeing dealer's upcard is only around 2%. I expected it to be at least 5% (the effect of seeing dealer's second card is more than 10%). It kind of seems silly that they even show the dealer's up card in the first place for the sake of a mere 2%, when this 2% could be put into some other favourable rules and at the same time do players a favor of making the strategy much simpler.

Quote: ChesterDog

Here is a combination of rules that brings the infinite-deck edge down to 0.69%:
1) Player's blackjack beats dealer's blackjack.
2) Player's 21 beats the dealer's 21.
3) Player may double on any number of cards.
4) Player may hit after doubling.
5) Hands made from split aces may be hit or doubled.

I am assuming that rules 3) - 5) don't affect the double down decision (only hard 10 and 11), so the remark in 5) that split aces may be doubled is redundant.

My version of rules to compensate for not seeing dealer's upcard are:

Either

- Blackjack pays 2:1

Or

- Five Card Charlie (affects hit/stand decisions somewhat)
Plus optionally depending on if the casino wants to offer a lower or higher house edge variation: - Player 21 wins automatically

Quote: Jufo81

I am surprised to see that the effect of seeing dealer's upcard is only around 2%. I expected it to be at least 5% (the effect of seeing dealer's second card is more than 10%). It kind of seems silly that they even show the dealer's up card in the first place for the sake of a mere 2%, when this 2% could be put into some other favourable rules and at the same time do players a favor of making the strategy much simpler.

I agree; I was surprised by the 2% edge, too.

Quote: Jufo81

I am assuming that rules 3) - 5) don't affect the double down decision (only hard 10 and 11), so the remark in 5) that split aces may be doubled is redundant.

In the basic game, the player would only double on 10 and 11, but with my compensating rules, the player would also double on soft 13 and soft 12. (The player would only double on soft 12 after making four hands by resplitting aces.)

Quote: Jufo81

My version of rules to compensate for not seeing dealer's upcard are:
Either
- Blackjack pays 2:1...

I like that idea. For that I get an infinite-deck edge of 0.13%. To increase the edge, the dealer's blackjack could win all double and split bets, and not just the original bet for an edge of 0.66%. In that case, the player would still double on 10 and 11, but only split aces and 8's.