Making lousy blackjack rules beneficial with a BIG PLAYER???

Several bars in Finland offer this so called "restaurant blackjack," which has the worst rules on earth.

The rules are:
- 6 decks used
- player loses ties from 17 to 20
- dealer doesn't take a hole card
- doubling down only on 9 to 11
- dealer stands on soft 17
- no doubling after split
- max. number of splitted hands is 2
- no resplit aces
- no surrender
- blackjack pays 3:2

So as you can see, it doesn't get much worse than this (thank God for S17 and Bj pays 3:2). So the expected return is 91,06% so the expected value is -8,94%, right? In addition, the table limits are relatively small.

The main question is, would it be possible to profit from these rules using Hi-Low and a big player? You know, just like the M.I.T. team did, but on a smaller scale. Basicly, the counter always bets the table minimum and when the count gets high, he signals the big player to bet table maximum.

The tie is the one that really just hurts. That's just cruel.

The advantage of counting comes from deck penetration and betting spread.
First of all to overcome 9% house edge you would need very deep penetration (maybe down to a quarter deck).
But then even if you can get some +EV action, you would want those extreme counts with a high enough frequency and bet spread to overcome the losses of the minimum player.

Then again not getting killed on a low variance 91% return game would be highly unlikely under non-counting conditions - which may raise a red flag.

Maybe you can backcount and wong into the game once every thousand shoes for that +EV bet before the shuffle - It's likely not worth the time.

The short answer is: No.

The long answer is: nooooooooooooooooooooo.

Run away. The odds of the game ever being +EV are very low, under normal penetration circumstances. You would never call BP over.

Quote: dwheatley

Run away. The odds of the game ever being +EV are very low, under normal penetration circumstances. You would never call BP over.

Yeah that's what I thought. I was just curious whether the blackjack tables in my city would have been worth a try.

But that's the shit they are pulling here in Finland: hundreds of these lousy restaurant blackjacks and only one place in Helsinki with good rules. But then again, they are using CSM there so EV is again negative.

Anyway, thanks for the answers MangoJ and dwheatley.

Quote: TheRealBrake

But then again, they are using CSM there so EV is again negative.

Actually, the CSM lowers the house edge slightly for non-counters. It speeds up the game immensely, and counters can never gain an edge on the game, so the casinos make more money by using CSMs (unless they break down, which they do frequently). But for a non-counting player, it is a SLIGHTLY (like hundredths of a percentage point) better game, hand for hand.

That's true I know. But I was thiking if I could make profit in the long run.

Actually, the expected value in that particular casino is 99,84% so that's extremely good for a non-counter.

But since I'm looking at the long run, it's not good enough for me. Thanks for your comment though.