Defense of Blackjack Act
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.
