Blackjack banned from California card rooms

Blackjack banned from California card rooms - Fox40 News



Looks like the card room charges a vig for every hand from $1 to $8 depending on the size of the bet (10% to 2% vig).
The rules already require banker/dealer to be rotational. (?)
Table games will be outlawed starting April 1st, 2026 and there's a 2 month grace period to close up the tables. Lawsuits will be pending.






New California regulations to signifantly impact blackjack-style games in cardrooms - CBS News Sacramento


Changes to some CA card gaming rules could affect Bakersfield casinos - KGET News


I would shut down the games for charging a vig on every hand, that's just bogus. But it looks like they are trying to work around the monopoly Indian gaming has on Black Jack and the card rooms' alternative game that's been around all century was just declared invalid. Maybe Spanish 21 is what they need, idk.

From Reddit:
Card game was already illegal at card rooms since the 90s, but they circumvented it through the use of “volunteer” house dealers as a loophole to make a profit.
That’s not how the fees work. They aren’t paid by patrons. They are paid by the third party agency that allows them to basically bank the games as a player at the table

"I’m a prop player, and we pay the house for your bet, not you. Our company isn’t part of the casino at all, and the service we provide is to YOU, so the YOU can play these games the same way you could at a reservation.

CA law says a player has to put the money up, so if there isn’t anyone willing to put their own money up for you to play against, you can’t play. So we put a player at the table with money for you to play against. So you can walk in and sit down at the table and play the game.

We offer better odds on payouts than the reservations, our progressive bets are cheaper and hit more often. Nobody was skirting the law, we have compliance standards and DOJ inspections like everyone else."

To summarize the story, the new regulations say you can't call it blackjack or 21. I assume you could rename the game, brownjack or blackbart.

You can establish any point, but you can't bust if you go over the point. “Whether a player wins or loses shall be determined solely by whether the total points of a player’s hand is closer to the target point count when compared with the total points of the player-dealer’s hand,” the regulations state.


From WOV:
You can change how much you want them to bet and how many hands are played each time. I’m not sure if you know how it works in California card rooms but the casinos can not bank the action. The casino has a dealer and the corporation pays them to deal hands to the players and the corporation pays out the wins and takes the losses. You have the option to make them play if you want. You can play one hand and then tell them you want them to play a hand. There has to be some way to take advantage of this.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/33496-banking-blackjack-against-the-house/#post735815

Dark Oz tries to explain California Cardroom Black Jack to MDawg. Sounds like fees on top of fees, and a corporation whale playing against the players instead of the casino as banker. Players can play against the whale too if they have the bankroll to be the dealer.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/33496-banking-blackjack-against-the-house/#post735892

Thekid wrote: According to wizard of odds BJ house edge calculator it puts it at 2.01881% at an even count (6:5 payout, hit soft 17). What does that do to the numbers you calculated? The other thing is you are only paying that $1 when you decide to bank. So you are not paying $112 waiting to get an advantage. You can sit and play $5 hands until the count is strongly in the houses favor then decide to bank.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/33496-banking-blackjack-against-the-house/#post735981

******************************************************************************************************************************
California card room protest latest chapter in ongoing fight with tribes over dealer, blackjack rules - 27th October 2025
https://igamingbusiness.com/casino/land-based-casino-regulation/california-card-rooms-protest-attorney-general-regulations/

Representatives from the biggest California card rooms went directly to the state's attorney general last week to protest new regulatory changes that they say are backed by tribes.

There is already a thread covering this

Note that Spanish 21, or Pontoon for that matter, will not be allowed. The ban includes the following variations on blackjack:
(1) Any changes to a standard deck or decks, including but not limited to
(A) The addition of jokers or other cards;
(B) The removal of one or more of the cards;
(C) The marking of specified cards with words, symbols, or other alterations that ascribe a different point value to those cards on the initial deal than the standard values;
(2) Specified cards assigned a point value that is operative only on the initial deal;
(3) A rule that provides that a player who exceeds the target point count does not immediately lose, or “bust,” but may still have a chance to win or push if the player-dealer also exceeds the target point count, based upon certain criteria or conditions;
(4) A rule that establishes a target point count at a number other than 21 that is operative only on the initial deal, and that makes it impossible to obtain that target point count after the initial deal;
(5) Changes to the number of cards dealt on the initial deal (for example, the dealer receives just one card at first);
(6) Removal or modification of the "hit," "stand," "split," and "double" options.
Any version that is allowed requires:
(1) The "target number" cannot be any number greater than 20 and less than 22 (for example, "21 1/2");
(2) There is no bust - instead, if either the player or dealer is over the target, whoever is closer wins;
(3) A 2-card hand consisting of an Ace and a 10, Jack, Queen, or King cannot be an immediate win or loss;
(4) Ties must go to the player.

Just try it with a game to 31.

Quote: ChumpChange

Just try it with a game to 31.
link to original post

there are many variants of blackjack that dont function and translate to the current definition of blackjack.

take that last "game" of "blackjack" that i posted where you chose the amount of your hand and then the dealer just dealt its own cards.

like who tf cares about laws or definitions it this is what it will eventually come to.

Wait these changes are coming April 1st(according to that one video above)? Maybe this is all an elaborate - good old - april fools joke?

Quote: heatmap

Quote: ChumpChange

Just try it with a game to 31.
link to original post

there are many variants of blackjack that dont function and translate to the current definition of blackjack.

take that last "game" of "blackjack" that i posted where you chose the amount of your hand and then the dealer just dealt its own cards.

like who tf cares about laws or definitions it this is what it will eventually come to.
link to original post

Let's invent a new game, that's a mix of blackjack and baccarat! We can call it Baccajack. Or Blackrat.

You get two cards, then you decide if you want to play blackjack or baccarat against the dealer. The rules and payouts will need to be rigged to create a reasonable house edge. Or the dealer can get his cards first, upcard and downcard and then the player decides. Or the player can decide after getting only 1 card. One of those 3 possibilities will be popular among players.

Yeah, maybe that last one. Everybody gets 1 card on a center spot on the table, and then the dealer downcard. Then the player points to either the left or the right of his card indicating he wants to play blackjack, or baccarat as the player, and he gets his next card, and finally the dealer upcard. I haven't done any math on this, but my monkey instincts tell me naturals paying even money if blackjack and banker winning ties if baccarat would get kind of close to a typical casino house edge.

There is a video explaining this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CzE9NnsEb4

The fact that any player can be a "player dealer" is untrue, since I know that on this board and elsewhere Commerce Casino, among others, has trespassed people who were cutting out the Third Party Player Proposition Service "bank". The TPPPS pays the casino not just the collection fees but also separate fees to be the bank, and there are incestuous relationships between TPPPS and casinos, as detailed here: https://capitolweekly.net/the-tangled-web-of-california-cardrooms-and-third-party-proposition-players/

It does look like the card clubs hired the Wiz to give a historical analysis of Vingt Un, since the state Penal Code bans "twenty-one" and said ban dates to the 19th century before modern casino blackjack existed, which can be found on page 471 here: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/bgc-comment-ltr-ca-gambling-establishments-representatives.pdf (The card clubs also gave the Wiz an unearned PhD, which I am sure he appreciates.)

"Unlike twenty-one, blackjack has never been listed in section 330. In fact, it
was not until decades after twenty-one’s prohibition that the term “blackjack” even
came to refer to a card game with a 21-point count.5 (See Dr. David G. Schwartz
Report, “Twenty-One: The Evolution of a Game” (Schwartz Report), Ex. A at p. 7 &
Attach. B, at p. 62 [1907 edition of Hoyle’s Rules, identifying “Black-Jack” as a
version of the game hearts, with totally different rules from either twenty-one or
modern blackjack].) The earliest law addressing the game, a 1931 Nevada statute,
listed blackjack as a separate game from twenty-one. (See Nev. Stats. 1931, 165,
ch. 99, § 1.) Although blackjack likely evolved from twenty-one (and is sometimes
casually, albeit confusingly, referred to as twenty-one), the game of “twenty-one”
that California prohibited in 1885 had substantially different rules from modern
blackjack-style games.
As discussed below, these rule differences have a significant effect on each
game’s basic strategies and manner of play, enough so that an experienced player of
modern blackjack would be utterly confused by the rules for twenty-one. (See
Schwartz Report, Ex. A at pp. 9, 12.) Moreover, most of twenty-one’s distinct rules
were far more favorable to the dealer as compared to modern blackjack, such that
when twenty-one was played as a house-banked game, the house advantage was up
to forty times larger than in modern variants of blackjack. (Dr. Michael Shackleford
Report, “Mathematical Analysis of Vingt-Un” (Shackleford Report), Ex. B at pp. 5,
7.) Individually—and certainly in combination—these distinctions make the
prohibited version of twenty-one “fundamentally different” from any modern
blackjack-style game. (Schwartz Report, Ex. A at p. 12.)

Quote: ChumpChange

Just try it with a game to 31.
link to original post

Do you mean, a game using the standard rules, but the object is to get as close to 31 as possible without going over?
This means that the player busts with a 32 - this is illegal under the new rules.

Quote: heatmap

there are many variants of blackjack that dont function and translate to the current definition of blackjack.

take that last "game" of "blackjack" that i posted where you chose the amount of your hand and then the dealer just dealt its own cards.

like who tf cares about laws or definitions it this is what it will eventually come to.

Wait these changes are coming April 1st(according to that one video above)? Maybe this is all an elaborate - good old - april fools joke?
link to original post

Who cares? Obviously, the gaming interests that managed to get this passed in the first place do.

As for it being an early April Fools joke, somebody would have needed to go to great pains, and risk, to fake a URL that belongs to the California state government.

Why not one game that encompasses multiple games?

How about a game where each player is dealt six cards. A side bet on the first two cards, with a player option to add more of his cards, is played out like BJ. A second bet covers the first three cards for a hand of three-card poker, and the player uses five of his six cards for a stud poker hand. You are playing poker with a BJ side bet, not playing BJ.

California needs to bastardize the rules beyond recognition, and they have done so.