Defense of Blackjack Act
I'm open-minded when it comes to marriage (and thus support same-sex marriages and oppose the DOMA). When it comes to Blackjack though I'm a traditionalist and would support a "Defense of Blackjack Act" to help preserve "traditional" Blackjack. The hypothetical DOBJA would define Blackjack as a 21-game that pays no less than 3:2 on blackjacks (and thus help keep 6:5 from ruining traditional games much like the right-wing folks who claim that gay marriage will ruin traditional unions).
In my opinion, only games that pay 3 to 2 deserve to be called "blackjack," the rest fall under "21" games, including Super Fun 21 and Spanish 21.
Where we might differ a little, is I don't vilify casinos who offer short pays on blackjack, as long as they call it by another name, like "single-deck 21." I think such games may actually be needed to save blackjack, because low-limit games that pay 3-2 are not very profitable. Having some 6-5 games for the suckers effectively subsidizes the real blackjack tables for more skilled players.
Quote: WizardWhere we might differ a little, is I don't vilify casinos who offer short pays on blackjack, as long as they call it by another name, like "single-deck 21." I think such games may actually be needed to save blackjack, because low-limit games that pay 3-2 are not very profitable. Having some 6-5 games for the suckers effectively subsidizes the real blackjack tables for more skilled players.
I do agree with you; it's alright in my opinion for casinos to offer 6:5 as long as it is not referred to as "blackjack" but rather something else like you mentioned.
Edit: Removed the controverisial sentence.
Quote: KellynbnfMuch like the compromise "civil unions" in my analogy.
Just as a piece of advice, I'd avoid comparisons to the gay marriage issue. That is a whole different ball of wax.
Quote: WizardJust as a piece of advice, I'd avoid comparisons to the gay marriage issue. That is a whole different ball of wax.
The only reason I compared it to that is because of the DOMA/DOBJA comparison in my OP. I do not mean to offend anyone. (To make everyone happy, I'll edit that statement out.)
What's needed is to patent a new BJ game that pays 3:2. Call it something like "Super Pay Blackjack" and add a funky sucker bonus bet to make it patentable.
By the way, I never ended up going downtown while you were here, and I accidentally cashed the ticket I wrote your room number on. So I apologize for not calling you back.
Quote: WizardI'm not suggesting a law, but voluntary usage of the terms blackjack and 21.
That would be good, but how would it be accomplished?
The industry could set rules that only 3:2 BJ can be called BJ, but as things are now they're more likely to say only 6:5 can be called BJ.
Quote: WizardBy the way, I never ended up going downtown while you were here, and I accidentally cashed the ticket I wrote your room number on. So I apologize for not calling you back.
Don't worry about. You weren't under any kind of obligation. Just remind me to carry a notepad next time ;)
BTW Speaking of Downtown, I saw a great many 3:2 BJ tables there. I didn't play at any, and most were closed during the day.
Quote: NareedThat would be good, but how would it be accomplished?
The industry could set rules that only 3:2 BJ can be called BJ, but as things are now they're more likely to say only 6:5 can be called BJ.
You make good points that my semantic wishes have little hope. However, I still refuse to call any game that doesn't pay 3-2, and use 52-card decks, true blackjack. Anybody else wishing to adopt that usage of the word "blackjack" is more than welcome to jump on my bandwagon. My bandwagon may be lonely, but don't plan to get off of it.
Delaware Park is slated to offer 6deck Blackjack with the MGM rules above at least at first when it opens. I'm hoping that it survives the inevitable run by the card counters for the general populace.
-B
Quote: toastcmuIf I ran a casino I'd offer one single deck (ala El Cortez, or the MGM rules - S17,DAS, LS, RSA) with $5-10 limits. It would always be crowded, but I think it would be good advertising.
Such a game would have a negative house edge even with just basic strategy (something that casinos generally don't want to offer)!
Quote: KellynbnfSuch a game would have a negative house edge even with just basic strategy (something that casinos generally don't want to offer)!
Whoops - meant a standard El Co Single deck game - H17 (.18% edge) or MGM multi-deck rules (which vary from .19-.26 usually).
I agree, offering the house to the players would be a bad decision in the long run. :)
-B
Quote: toastcmuWhoops - meant a standard El Co Single deck game - H17 (.18% edge) or MGM multi-deck rules (which vary from .19-.26 usually).
Even still, a decent player would tear this game apart. You wouldn't even need to be an expert counter, screw up the count and you get another shot in two hands or so. Yeah, it'd be nice, but I thinnk you're living in a fantasy world. If a Casino is going to have one of these they're going to make you pay for it.
Okay... apologies for being a programming tard, but that last paragraph isn't actually a quote. Just the first part. Someone mind explaining to me how I managed to edit what I was quoting?
Quote: CloudStrife1212Okay... apologies for being a programming tard, but that last paragraph isn't actually a quote. Just the first part. Someone mind explaining to me how I managed to edit what I was quoting?
The quoted material should end with a "[/q]". Possibly, you entered your comment prior to it. More likely, you deleted it entirely. Been there, done that.
On another note, just got back from Vegas, where I played $5 single-deck BJ at El Cortez. Seemed like a great game until I realized you can't draw after split. Is that new?
Quote: KellynbnfThe only reason I compared it to that is because of the DOMA/DOBJA comparison in my OP. I do not mean to offend anyone. (To make everyone happy, I'll edit that statement out.)
As a conservative person politically I will state that the problem was not so much as just mentioning it but the 'crack about "right wing" people. A better approach for a forum like this would be "In the 1990s we had the 'Defense of Marrige Act' as various entities tried to change the definition of marrige, in the same manner I (you) propose 'The Defense of Blackjack Act.'"
The way I put it is zero political editorial, which is as it needs to be here outside the Free Speech Zone.
If the fleas get concentrated in one area, the miniwhales benefit, but the casino should be honest about it.Quote: Wizard
In my opinion, only games that pay 3 to 2 deserve to be called "blackjack,"
I don't vilify casinos who offer short pays on blackjack, as long as they call it by another name, like "single-deck 21." I think such games may actually be needed to save blackjack, because low-limit games that pay 3-2 are not very profitable. Having some 6-5 games for the suckers effectively subsidizes the real blackjack tables for more skilled players.
Quote: JumboshrimpsJust got back from Vegas, where I played $5 single-deck BJ at El Cortez. Seemed like a great game until I realized you can't draw after split. Is that new?
You can't draw after you split ACES, and you can't double after you split on the single deck blackjack game. If you are saying after any split you can't draw more than one card, I really don't believe they would have a rule like that.
El Cortez has half of it's tables a double deck game (which is only average). Just keep that in mind if you can't find a seat at the single deck tables. It may be better to wait and play craps until a seat opens up.
If you look at the NGC site there are actually over 500 table games approved. There are dozens of variations of baccarat and blackjack. I have no idea how many of these games are currently not played anywhere, but I am willing to bet a lot of them. If you start requiring all these different games have different labels it could get difficult.
Wether you call it "short pay blakcjack" or something else, my particular gripe is that many places have stopped posting anything anymore. Not even 6:5.
Quote: JumboshrimpsHow long until we start seeing 12:10 tables? Seems like a no-brainer for these greedy bastards.
Well, 12:10 is the same as 6:5 (just that the latter is the ratio in simplest form). I actually like making the denominator 10 (the LCD of 2 and 5) in both the 3:2 and 6:5 cases because that would enable players to quickly compare the payoffs (15:10 vs. 12:10).
Quote: KellynbnfWell, 12:10 is the same as 6:5 (just that the latter is the ratio in simplest form). I actually like making the denominator 10 (the LCD of 2 and 5) in both the 3:2 and 6:5 cases because that would enable players to quickly compare the payoffs (15:10 vs. 12:10).
Yes, but 12 is more than 6. So this would appeal to the same people who think that a $1.99 product is a vast improvement over a $2 product.
Quote: pacomartinYou can't draw after you split ACES, and you can't double after you split on the single deck blackjack game. If you are saying after any split you can't draw more than one card, I really don't believe they would have a rule like that.
Suspend your disbelief. The rule was, in fact, that the player cannot DRAW a card to ANY split pair. I split nines and the dealer dealt one card, face down, to each nine, then moved on to the next player. I protested and he said that was the rule. This was a regular blackjack game, single deck.
Quote: JumboshrimpsSuspend your disbelief. The rule was, in fact, that the player cannot DRAW a card to ANY split pair. I split nines and the dealer dealt one card, face down, to each nine, then moved on to the next player. I protested and he said that was the rule. This was a regular blackjack game, single deck.
Under those rules Basic Strategy would likely call for splitting much less often (especially on the smaller pairs since often if not always you'd be left with hands that win only if the dealer busts).
