Charity Event Blackjack: What Rules to Use?

I volunteered to be the "Pit Boss" for the Blackjack tables at a charity event. The board overseeing the entire event has practically given me carte blanche as to the rules I can use for the tables.

In previous years, the rules have been pretty basic:

• Four, five or six decks
• Blackjack pays 3-2
• Dealer stays on all 17s
• Double down on any two cards
• Split up to four hands (may be unlimited splits)
• Aces only get one card on splits, no hits or doubles
• Double after split ok
• Dealer wins ties, except BJ vs. BJ is a push
• Minimum $1.00, Maximum $5.00

I intend to keep all of the above rules, except push the Maximum up to $10.00. I will also allow Double for less. Insurance is not offered. I realize the big one, Dealer wins ties, bites into the EV with an additional 8.86% HA... this is a common "church rule", and it will remain intact. I suppose that's the cost of a $1.00 Blackjack game.

Someone on the committee also dabbled with the idea of having a Double Exposure table. I have searched the WoO site, and haven't found a +/- percentage for what showing both dealer cards does to the game. I did see that BJ pays even money on these games to help compensate. Does anyone have a % EV that showing the hole card gives to the game?

If I had a Double Exposure table, I would LIKE to keep all rules the same as above, including 3-2 Blackjack. Would this cut into the HA too deeply, and make for a positive expectation game for a player?

Most people attending the event know that the rule of "Dealer wins ties" will be in effect, as it's a church event norm. I want to make sure the other rules are liberal enough, and fun enough, to let people enjoy themselves. Would you add, subtract, or change any other rules?

More fun rules, like 5 or 6 card charlies and the spanish 21 bonuses (6-7-8 and 7-7-7). People like the random chance of a small payout boost. They won't lower the edge much, but people will have more fun cheering for the card they need to hit a bonus

>bites into the EV with an additional 8.86% HA

ouch!

yes, balance that with all the liberal rules you can think of!

The problems I am encountering are:

• What does exposing the Dealer hole card do to the EV?
• Would keeping a 3-2 BJ payout WITH double exposure cause a swing towards a positive player advantage, EVEN WITH house winning ties?
• If I introduce bonuses such as Charlies and 7-7-7, would these mostly amateur players understand them, and even worse, would these volunteer amateur dealers know to pay them out correctly?

I take pride in being well-versed in the rules of these games, and the ability to deal them correctly. Not everyone involved in this event is going to have a high level of understanding of these nuances. That's why I am hesitant to go too crazy.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of paying out bonuses. It may be as simple as having signs on the walls advertising them, "7-7-7 pays 3 to 1!" Players could be a line of defense in getting these bonuses. All of this is pending that the committee agrees to it, but they seem very flexible.

I presume there is a limitation for the maximum only being $5? If so, I'd suggest adjusting the rules so as to put more on the table.
Unlimited splits, resplit aces, double on split aces. These rules only carry a small player gain, and even smaller when dealer wins ties.

I would consider adding double on any number of cards, or at least double on any 3 cards. Player gain is 0.23%, but it will be reduced by dealer winning ties, while putting more on the table and gain from incorrect doubles. Exotic rules like split 2-3 could also be good.

Double exposure changes the edge strongly, comparable to dealer winning ties, i.e. brings it back to a low-edge game. It would only maintain high edge under other hard rules. Dealer bust-22 pushes, even money blackjack, and others. With 3:2 and liberal rules it can even be a player-edge game.
Here's a bit more on it from the site.

P90, if I have my way, I want to increase the bet range to $1 - $10. I think the reason they've used a $5 maximum is simply... that's the way it has always been done.

Based on what you said, getting more money onto the table while dealer takes ties would be profitable. Double on any number of cards, split pair values (any 10s), unlimited, resplits, doubles on aces... I like those ideas a lot.

I read over the Double Exposure rules, and finally cobbled together in my brain the approximate +/- EV for exposing both cards. It would be best if we didn't use that rule, I think.

Adding bonuses like 6-7-8 or 7-7-7 might be nice. In a one-night event like this, they wouldn't hit often, if at all, and would only nick into the HA a little. I'll mull it over and come back with a list, and see if I (or any other board inhabitants) can calculate the overall HA for my game.

I get the feeling that you missed this... The Wiz has two pages that might help you:

Blackjack Rule Variations
Double Exposure

I would remove all of the queens.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I get the feeling that you missed this... The Wiz has two pages that might help you:

Blackjack Rule Variations
Double Exposure

No, I've seen them. But listed in all of those Blackjack Rule Variations, I didn't find a specific entry that states, "Player can view dealer's hole card, aka Double Exposure: +x.xx%".

However, looking over the HA of Double Exposure, I figured it would not be worth trying it at the event. We need that high HA that winning ties brings, as we only have 6 hours to play. So, that's a moot point now.

Also, would the fact that "Dealer wins ties" water down other rules' positive expectations? For example, "Player may double on any number of cards" is +0.23%, but putting extra money on the table when a dealer wins instead of pushes may make that +0.23% worthless, if not negative. Or does the -8.86% basically take that into effect?

Quote: Dween

I volunteered to be the "Pit Boss" for the Blackjack tables at a charity event. The board overseeing the entire event has practically given me carte blanche as to the rules I can use for the tables.

In previous years, the rules have been pretty basic:

• Four, five or six decks
• Blackjack pays 3-2
• Dealer stays on all 17s
• Double down on any two cards
• Split up to four hands (may be unlimited splits)
• Aces only get one card on splits, no hits or doubles
• Double after split ok
• Dealer wins ties, except BJ vs. BJ is a push
• Minimum $1.00, Maximum $5.00

What is your idea, a "tournament" or a real game for profit. (If the later you might tell us how you stay out of prison.) On the serious side, if it is a church tournament the idea should be to give a player, not house, edge. If it is a tournament, PM me and I can share some experience from doing chairity events.

Quote: Dween

Also, would the fact that "Dealer wins ties" water down other rules' positive expectations? For example, "Player may double on any number of cards" is +0.23%, but putting extra money on the table when a dealer wins instead of pushes may make that +0.23% worthless, if not negative. Or does the -8.86% basically take that into effect?

That rule changes the game a lot, so other modifiers would no longer apply.
What's worst for your case is that the new strategy is very obvious, even more so than regular blackjack (hit if less, stand if more). The only rule to learn is to stand on stiff versus stiff, and then the only decision the player really has is whether to double, and even that is pretty intuitive as well. This means players won't be making nearly as many bad moves, and so the actual HA will not be much higher than theoretical. In normal blackjack you can count on a considerable extra edge, as players' self-selection is much looser, and they didn't come to win anyway.

If you are considering variations, what about Switch? It's a fun game, the effect on house edge is somewhat lower than double exposure, it essentially doubles the bet limits, and it's a difficult game to master. What's more, normally in Switch the dealer doesn't win ties, so you could just add that rule to arrive at target HA rather than make new stiff rules. I'm not sure what the legal status is, but if it can be made to work or push-22 replaced by another major pro-house rule, it seems to be a good idea.

Quote: AZDuffman

What is your idea, a "tournament" or a real game for profit. (If the later you might tell us how you stay out of prison.)

He's talking about a church casino night for cash.

It's not hard for a qualified charity, particularly a church, to get permits for that sort of thing.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Quote: AZDuffman

What is your idea, a "tournament" or a real game for profit. (If the later you might tell us how you stay out of prison.)

He's talking about a church casino night for cash.

It's not hard for a qualified charity, particularly a church, to get permits for that sort of thing.

In the state of Kentucky, a church/school can hold a certain number of fundraisers throughout the year. A subset of those can be "Casino" or "Monte Carlo" events. They can only be 6 hours in length.

The one I am part of will have 6-8 Blackjack tables, 1 Beat the Dealer (dice game), and 1 Showdown Poker (glorified 10-player 5-card stud with a 20% rake).

A tournament might not be a bad thing to look at, but I don't think I could get the logistical part of it down within the next 3 weeks, especially since I am not running the event as a whole.

I am also hesitant to try out new things in Blackjack. Switch sounds fun, Double Exposure would please the players... but the dealers are volunteers. Some deal 1 card every 2 to 3 seconds, if that fast. It is painful to watch. I am afraid I won't even be able to grind in some of the irregularity rules I have set up into their heads, as I won't be meeting them until the night of. I'm worried about even introducing "Double any number of cards". However, I will say most of the volunteers have probably dealt before though. Cross your fingers.

At this moment, I am thinking this will be the rule set to be used:

• 4 to 6 decks (depends on equipment)
• Dealer stands on all 17s
• Blackjack pays 3-2
• Minimum $1
• Maximum $10
• Dealer takes ties, except Blackjack vs. Blackjack
• Double on ANY number of cards
• Double after split, even aces
• Unlimited splits (pairs only, not value)
• Play split aces (hit, stand, double, resplit)
• 3-2 ONLY on first two cards, not on split hands
• 777 pays 3-1 instantly (no chance of losing to tie)

With the "takes ties" rule in place, does this sound like a money maker?

Threadjacking myself a little:
One thing I am frankly a little upset about is their choice to NOT use chips. They are using cash. Each table will have a dealer and a payout person standing behind. Cash is cumbersome and confusing. Chips are easy to handle, and must be bought/cashed at a specific place... plus you are more likely to spend chips. I dread the 3-2 payouts that will need quarters. I better write a rule for rounding up or down (likely down).