> For consistency, I would suggest ANHC (Australian No
> Hole Card). Then we'd have:

I agree it's hard to be consistent - see below

> ENHC (European No Hole Card) - no hole card taken,
> lose all bets to dealer BJ
> ANHC (Australian No Hole Card) - no hole card taken,
> lose busted bets plus one additional bet to dealer BJ

> NHC (No Hole Card) - no hole card taken, lose original
> bet only to dealer BJ
> HC (Hole Card) - hole card taken, lose original bet
> only to dealer BJ

Mathematically as you know - the last two are the same. But if you were truly being consistent, then HC would probably be:

AHC (American Hole Card)

since the first two used countries as references. The problem is then what do you do about other countries like Canada where they can have either BBO or OBO? The other problem is that the country references don't really reflect what's happening with the bet.

> The trick is convincing people to use consistent
> terminology. :-)

No kidding!! It's hard enough to get people to agree on defining BS - that's why I like TD for total dependent and 2C for 2-card. But even that can be very confusing when you change strategies based on pre/post-split - but I digress.

Then if you try to make the OBBO, BBO, ENHC consistent -ENHC could become ABL (All Bets Lost). ENHC has been around long enough though that it's universally understood so I don't see a reason to change it.

The problem with OBBO is that it's trying to say what's happening but isn't really clear since the original bet could mean only the bet in the first position post-split which from both a ca and strategy standpoint is different, and there may be some casinoes that play that way, although from posting the question it seems it's very rarely done that way in practice.

Anyways, like I said, for now at least I'm sticking to ENHC/OBO/BBO/OBBO since I like them best (sorry Norm and Cacarulo). I suspect however it'll end up being ENHC/OBO/BB+1/OBBO - now tell me that doesn't just look wrong