Does the dealer finish drawing cards if the player bust?
The dealer then flips his/her face down card and the dealers cards are a Queen and the 2. So the dealer now has a 12.
Obviously at this point the dealer has won. So here is my question. Does the dealer keep drawing cards, until he/she exceeds the number 16? Or will the dealer stop because the only player at the table has already lost?
Furthermore, let's suppose the dealer hits the 12, and receives another Queen, which would give the dealer a Queen, 2, and Queen which is 22. So effectively the dealer would also bust.
Quote: SnapBackSuppose you are the only player at the BlackJack table. So it is just you and the dealer. The dealers upward facing card is a 2, and you hold a hand of a 13 (10, and 3 cards). You then decide to hit your 13, however you receive a King, and this causes you to bust because you now have 10,3, K which is 23.
The dealer then flips his/her face down card and the dealers cards are a Queen and the 2. So the dealer now has a 12.
Obviously at this point the dealer has won. So here is my question. Does the dealer keep drawing cards, until he/she exceeds the number 16? Or will the dealer stop because the only player at the table has already lost?
Furthermore, let's suppose the dealer hits the 12, and receives another Queen, which would give the dealer a Queen, 2, and Queen which is 22. So effectively the dealer would also bust.
The delaler will not play out his hand if there are no players in the game. And if a player busts, and the dealer then plays out his hand (because there is still at least one active player still in the game) and he subsequently busts, the player still loses because the player busted first.
There are many good books on blackjack at your local library that explain all the rules of the game.
The fact that the dealer was on a course to bust is irrelevant. Think of it this way -imagine you are in a two player game with the dealer. You go first and hit a stiff 16 and you bust. The dealer takes away the chips you had bet and your cards. The next player at the table has a a 20 and Stands. The dealer then reveals his cards, hits and busts his hand. Nothing has changed in regards to you as a player who has already busted -you have still lost the chips that you bet.
I own several Black Jack books, and none of them explain that scenario I described. I ordered the books from Amazon.com. I recently read an excellent book on Black Jack and the author talks about a "Greasy John" who use to play Black Jack in the 70's and 80's. Greasy John would eat Fried Chicken at a black jack table and purposely scare off other players at a table so that he could be the only player. I am wondering if you coined that name from the legendary greasy John who was an excellent black jack player, and who had a rudimentary form of card counting that he would use. Or possibly we are fortunate enough to have the real Greasy John hanging out on this forum, which I find would be quite amazing.
I see you have posted 1008 times, so I presume it is ok to ask Black Jack questions on this forum?
Your answer really does not answer my question though. You replied that the dealer would not play out his hand if there were no players in the game. My scenario involves one player and the dealer. Not "No players". So your answer didn't seem to help much. I believe
EXCEPTION: If there is a sidebet in play (has an active bet on it) that depends on the dealer's final hand, the dealer SHOULD hit his hand IAW table rules (as if the player had not busted); this will be dependent on jurisdiction and house rules, as the paytable for the sidebet will (most likely) not have tried to account for the incidence of all players bust before sidebet resolution.
However, no matter what happens with the sidebet, the player's main bet has been lost because he busted before the dealer resolved his hand.
Reiterating what was said above in, hopefully, simpler language that addresses your question.
Quote: SnapBackHi GreasyJohn,
I own several Black Jack books, and none of them explain that scenario I described. I ordered the books from Amazon.com. I recently read an excellent book on Black Jack and the author talks about a "Greasy John" who use to play Black Jack in the 70's and 80's. Greasy John would eat Fried Chicken at a black jack table and purposely scare off other players at a table so that he could be the only player. I am wondering if you coined that name from the legendary greasy John who was an excellent black jack player, and who had a rudimentary form of card counting that he would use. Or possibly we are fortunate enough to have the real Greasy John hanging out on this forum, which I find would be quite amazing.
I see you have posted 1008 times, so I presume it is ok to ask Black Jack questions on this forum?
Your answer really does not answer my question though. You replied that the dealer would not play out his hand if there were no players in the game. My scenario involves one player and the dealer. Not "No players". So your answer didn't seem to help much. I believe
Hi SnapBack,
First, I did answer your question. You mentioned that it was just you playing against the dealer but you had busted. So when the dealer got to his hand there were no active players still in the round.
Please tell me who the author is that refers to Greasy John being a player that was active in the 70s and 80s. In the book Beat The Dealer (revised edition from 1966, and I would guess the 1962 edition) on page 174 there's mention of Greasy John who was an early blackjack "system" player who had already passed away before the book's release. I don't recall seeing any other book refer to him. I took my handle from this character.
A fun Black Jack book I read recently was named Black Jack Autumn. I really liked that book. I will bet you have read that one as well, because I'll bet you are a pro. I would recommend that book if you have not read it.
Quote: SnapBackGreasyJohn, Sir -
A fun Black Jack book I read recently was named Black Jack Autumn. I really liked that book. I will bet you have read that one as well, because I'll bet you are a pro. I would recommend that book if you have not read it.
SnapBack,
A blackjack pro is a person that makes his/her living playing blackjack. A simi-pro is someone who supplements his/her income playing blackjack. Although I am a counter who has made a lifetime profit playing blackjack, I am, by definition, a recreational player.
I don't think I've read Blackjack Autumn--I don't recognize the author.
I would recommend you read The World's Greatest Blackjack Book. It's my favorite book on the subject. I would not encourage you to learn Hi-Opt 1 (the counting system the book originates) if you are playing 4 or more deck shoes. It is a difficult system to employ with an ace side count in a game with more than two decks.
Quote: SnapBackSuppose you are the only player at the BlackJack table. So it is just you and the dealer. The dealers upward facing card is a 2, and you hold a hand of a 13 (10, and 3 cards). You then decide to hit your 13, however you receive a King, and this causes you to bust because you now have 10,3, K which is 23.
The dealer then flips his/her face down card and the dealers cards are a Queen and the 2. So the dealer now has a 12.
Obviously at this point the dealer has won. So here is my question. Does the dealer keep drawing cards, until he/she exceeds the number 16? Or will the dealer stop because the only player at the table has already lost?
Furthermore, let's suppose the dealer hits the 12, and receives another Queen, which would give the dealer a Queen, 2, and Queen which is 22. So effectively the dealer would also bust.
Here's a NJ Control Commission's page that has this sentence pertaining to your question:
...a dealer shall draw no
additional cards to his hand, regardless of the point count, if decisions have
been made on all player's hands and the point count of the dealer's hand will
have no effect on the outcome of the round of play."
Quote: ChesterDog...a dealer shall draw no
additional cards to his hand, regardless of the point count, if decisions have
been made on all player's hands and the point count of the dealer's hand will
have no effect on the outcome of the round of play."
In case you haven't thought it through fully, in general, the dealer drawing to a dead hand is disadvantageous to the house. However, in certain situations, it could be advantageous to the house. Having a gaming regulation about it means that the house can't take the choice inconsistently.
Somewhat more interesting to me is the question of whether the dealer's hole card is (not) opened if all the player hands have been settled. I've heard that's a thing some places.
Quote: DieterIn case you haven't thought it through fully, in general, the dealer drawing to a dead hand is disadvantageous to the house. However, in certain situations, it could be advantageous to the house. Having a gaming regulation about it means that the house can't take the choice inconsistently.
Somewhat more interesting to me is the question of whether the dealer's hole card is (not) opened if all the player hands have been settled. I've heard that's a thing some places.
If I fold, I want to see the dealer's hand (on a game vs. the dealer). Most games will routinely expose the hand; a few places won't. I've had the PB over a couple of times questioning those that don't, and in one case, I quit the casino because they didn't do this. I paid my money (folding/busting/whatever) and I think I have a right to see the dealer's hand. That's actually one of the better things about PGP/Asia Poker; you always see the dealer's hand, even when you know you have a sure loser.
However, if you're playing a side bet called the Buster Blackjack, the dealer will always draw, even if you bust or get a blackjack.
Quote: bushmanI am sure you will all notice that when a dealer does expose the hole card, it is swept up quite readily. Not making any comments as to why (I think you all know why), just making the observation. I have never seen the dealer not expose the hole card in the situation presented. As stated earlier, I would never play at a casino that did not do so.
For a non-US Counter like myself the first time a played a Hole card game in the US my biggest 'counting' problem was that when all players busted the dealer will expose the hole card and sweep it up very quickly with the other cards. So if on that particular second I was not paying attention I would miss seeing the hole card. Being used to playing ENHC without any hole card I was not used to paying attention at the dealers cards at such a situation and it took a while untill I forced myself to pay attention at the hole card in such a situation which happens quite often especially when I played Head Up.
