Anyone care to comment on the new Blackjack "surrender" game at the Stardust? Everything I know about it is in the article in the Review-Journal (follow link).
Anyone care to comment on the new Blackjack "surrender" game at the Stardust? Everything I know about it is in the article in the Review-Journal (follow link).
> Anyone care to comment on the new Blackjack
> "surrender" game at the Stardust?
> Everything I know about it is in the article
> in the Review-Journal (follow link).
The statements in the article are, of course, absurd. In a 6-deck game, the BS player has a 56% edge on this hand. So, accepting 50% is just plain stupid.
Don
I was hoping you would be the one to respond with your usual definitve answer.
Thanks,
Buick
> The statements in the article are, of
> course, absurd. In a 6-deck game, the BS
> player has a 56% edge on this hand. So,
> accepting 50% is just plain stupid.
> Don
An interesting theortical problem at least. One would think that a 10-rich deck would raise the probability of a push, therefore there might be a high positive TC index that would make this play profitable. On the other hand, a deck rich in low cards would raise the likelihood of the dealer drawing to a 20 or 21, so there might be a negative TC index as well where this play becomes profitable. Don't have the tools to generate these numbers. Still I think they might be well outside normal playing parameters, especially in 6 deck. Any thoughts?
> The statements in the article are, of
> course, absurd. In a 6-deck game, the BS
> player has a 56% edge on this hand. So,
> accepting 50% is just plain stupid.
> Don
With a fat 6% edge, and on a 6 deck game, I wonder why they only allow it on two card 20's? I haven't actually seen the game, maybe it has something to do with the layout, procedures, and/or the patent.
But if they're going to allow the rule for 2 card twenties, I see little or no reason for that restriction.
Given the breathtaking stupidity of players I've seen recently, I'd think they'd get several takers if they offered it on player 21's.
> With a fat 6% edge, and on a 6 deck game, I
> wonder why they only allow it on two card
> 20's? I haven't actually seen the game,
> maybe it has something to do with the
> layout, procedures, and/or the patent.
> But if they're going to allow the rule for 2
> card twenties, I see little or no reason for
> that restriction.
> Given the breathtaking stupidity of players
> I've seen recently, I'd think they'd get
> several takers if they offered it on player
> 21's.
I can't speak for anyone, but it would be a little odd to permit bets in mid-hand. You really don't have any other situations that I know of where, after taking a hit, you can still make a bet of any kind (except for DAS, but that's different). Maybe they just didn't want to go there. Too confusing?
Don
> I can't speak for anyone, but it would be a
> little odd to permit bets in mid-hand. You
> really don't have any other situations that
> I know of where, after taking a hit, you can
> still make a bet of any kind (except for
> DAS, but that's different). Maybe they just
> didn't want to go there. Too confusing?
> Don
That's a good point, but there is a very prominent exception. I don't know if they have it on the East Coast, but SuperFun, which is fairly common in Vegas, allows (conventional, late) surrender on 2-5 cards (6 cards automatic winner), which, procedure-wise, would be quite similiar to this new rule. They also allow DAS on 3 or more cards.
Pressed to think of another example, there was a rare rule in the 90's called Bustout(?). I'm hazy on the details and even the name, but if a player had a stiff, they could bet 2-1 that they'd bust out on a 10 value card. Kinda similiar to insurance, bet if > 1/3 cards are tens (or, theoretically, if the dealer pushes off the next card and you see it's a ten, but of course that never happens). Bustout didn't last too long, a few casinos in Laughlin had it, I played it at the Riverside, and maybe a few in Vegas had it, but it didn't last very long. I doubt that it died because of AP, probably just nobody wanted to bet that they'd lose a hand.
The restriction is probably a combination of everything we've discussed. But boy, it sure seems like a silly restriction to me.
Bust Out was not a bright idea. Just make the bet at a HiLo count of +3. Too easy to beat.
Serious Blackjack Software
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks