Episode 5 of Colin Jones will air on its regular schedule next time, but this recent comment on the GWAE Facebook page deserves (maybe) an immediate reply:
Marketing the 6:5 variant as just straight blackjack is as preposterous as a casino marketing the house table game “Casino poker” “3card Poker” with a house edge dealt in the pit as just Poker. Beyond the question of proper “notice” of 6:5 odds in the case from this post, the concept of getting paid 3:2 on a natural 21 is so central to the game, hence the name Blackjack, that casinos should not be allowed to market the 6:5 variant as Blackjack. They should have to name it something else like the previous used Spanish 21 for another variant of the game. This would also resolve the concerns in the posted case.
As the President would say: “What a bunch of malarkey!” (And would you like some cheese with your w(h)ine and malarkey?)
Though the comment was in the context of the Massachusetts lawsuit regarding 6:5 blackjack, my response has nothing to do with that lawsuit. I am not discussing the legal definition of blackjack in Massachusetts, nor the regulations to which those casinos are bound, nor whatever fraud the Massachusetts casinos are alleged to have committed against patrons. I am writing more generally about the statement “6:5 is not blackjack” which is not at all a new claim. Didn’t LVBear say the same thing on Wong’s Green Chip website 15 years ago?
My comments could be interpreted as a guideline if we were going to construct a legal definition of the game of blackjack, or perhaps as a definition in a venue where statutes do not offer any definition of the game, or as a framework for taxonomists researching the game.
I am 100% in agreement that all payoffs for every game should be visibly posted on the table, or at least available to the player without having to leave the seat (brochure/QR code). Imagine going to Walmart, but instead of every price being posted on the shelf, you had to get a price check at the cashier for every item, and possibly even see the printed price only after agreeing to purchase the item. Price illusion is a variation of bait-and-switch. That’s a scam.
As for the definition of the game, the controversy boils down to the simple question: Is the 3:2 payoff on a natural 21 central to the game? Quite simply—no. For anyone who has experience playing blackjack and many other games at casinos around the world, that’s pretty obvious.
When I wasn’t yet a teenager, my aunt taught me and my cousin a card game that we had never seen. She called it “21”! She would act as the dealer, and give my cousin and me two cards each. She would take two cards as well, but since we were just kids, she would show us one of her cards. She taught us how to add up our hand total—each numeric card counting its printed rank, and then all the face cards counting as 10. The Ace was special, counting as a 1 or 11, whichever we chose. That Ace seemed like a pretty good deal, and if you got one with a face card to start, that was actually an automatic winner, provided she didn’t have one, too. If you didn’t like your starting total, you could draw additional cards. But you had to be careful not to go over 21, because then you lost immediately. We tried to figure out when it was a good time to draw a card, but since she was winning most of the time anyway, she said she’d just use a simple strategy and hit when her total was less than 17.
A decade later, imagine my surprise when I discovered that our childhood game was dealt in casinos, and still called “21” (!), although it often went by the alternative name “Blackjack.” During those summers playing card games with my cousin, I never lost any money to my aunt. Maybe you’re thinking because I learned how to count or get her hole card. Nope.
I never lost any money, because we didn’t play the games for money. We just played cards. Just like we played Uno, Rummikub, Chutes & Ladders, Sorry!, and Double Yahtzee. We also liked to play in the in-ground swimming pool. It was paradise! [No, not “Par-A-Dice”!]
Suppose every time I tagged my cousin in the pool, he had to give me $42.08, but the trick was that I had to keep my eyes closed, and he would just give me a hint by yelling “Polo” every time I yelled “Marco.” What game would that be? You have no idea, do you? Let me guess, you played a similar game called “Marco Polo,” but without the $42.08 payoff, so you now have no idea what game I’m talking about. Is my argument breaking through yet?
The point is that the payoffs in a game have little or nothing to do with its definition. Even in a possible exception like live poker, what matters is the betting structure, not the precise stakes or payoffs. The game is the game. If you want to gamble in a game by attaching financial stakes, that’s usually a separate activity. A good game is one that is fun to play even apart from any wagering or payoffs. I’m pretty sure Sidney Crosby and Ryan Donato both play hockey, even though Sidney probably gets paid 20x as much as Ryan. If I could play in the NHL, you wouldn’t have to pay me at all, because hockey’s a fun game. The game “Coin Toss”?—not so much.
What is inherent in the definition of the game? A few things come to mind, and “payoffs” is not one of them:
- The competitive structure of the players. For instance, most casino table games are “N vs. 1” where some number N>=1 of patrons compete against 1 entity (the dealer’s hand), while a poker tournament is a “Best of N” involving some number of participants N>=2.
- The criteria that determine a “winner.” In blackjack, the highest total without going over 21 wins (and a two-card natural 21 beats a non-natural 21). In hockey, the team with the highest number of goals wins.
- The process of reaching the criteria in #2. In blackjack, everyone starts with two cards, then there’s hitting and standing, and then we determine the winner. In hockey, there’s skating around, running into each other, and whacking at the black biscuit with sticks.
- The strategic options and choices of the players. In some cases, the opponent plays a fixed strategy (such as the dealer in blackjack), though a random element is introduced (the shuffled deck, or the RNG in a video poker machine), while in complex games, the opponent is also free to make choices during #3.
- The equipment used. This is #5 on the list, but still more critical than payoffs. When we consider the game universally called “roulette,” most people would agree that its defining elements are: numbered wheel, bouncing ball. American Roulette is still roulette, and so is Triple-Zero Roulette (yes!), but card roulette might be debatable. Mathematicians would consider card craps to be identical to dice craps, but most gamblers would say that “throwing the bones” is central to the game of craps. I’ll give them that. I don’t think I’d enjoy hockey as much if it were a video-game implementation, with the physical skating around removed. And most people would distinguish real sex from pornography, due to the different equipment used, not due to the different payoffs.
If “payoffs” even makes the list, it would be #6 or lower, and let’s face it, the public agrees. Whatever the game, there can always be a variety of payoff structures, none of which change the game. Texas Holdem is still “Texas Holdem,” whether it’s a 9-handed 10-20 no-limit game, or a heads-up 3-6 limit game. Jacks or Better video poker is still “Jacks or Better,” even if we reduce the paytable from 9/6 to 7/5. Three Card Poker didn’t become a different game when they lowered the Ante Bonus from 1/4/5 to 1/3/4. Lucky Ladies has a different paytable for 2-deck tables, but it’s still “Lucky Ladies.”
A two-card 21 with an Ace and Face is still special, because it beats a non-natural that required hits to reach 21, in the same way that a two-card natural 9 in baccarat is special, regardless of whatever bonus payoff is or isn’t awarded. If you think the 6:5 payoff transforms blackjack into some different game, then I invite you to be the first to file for a patent on this intriguing new game. IANAL, but as a statistician, I can tell you the probability that you will succeed in getting a patent. That would be 0.000000000000. (According to casino/AP consultants, if you put 12 decimal points on a number, you become an expert.)
So why are all these people claiming that 6:5 blackjack isn’t blackjack? It’s a little thing that I call “sour grapes.” (I just came up with that term.) The industry has a product called “blackjack.” They raised the price of that product, just like they did when they went from S17 to predominantly H17. Do I like it? Of course not. But when Terrible’s lowered the blackjack price during their Opening Night 3:1 Blackjack Promotion, there were no players whining or filing lawsuits demanding separate licensing for a “new game.” I recall players whining that they couldn’t get seats (I couldn’t!).
Maybe the “6:5 is not blackjack” campaign is just a strategic attempt to sway public opinion. If that’s all it is, I’m not on board with that marketing plan. I think that staking nonsensical positions on an issue does the cause a disservice by undermining the credibility of the AP community. (Bill Zender is respected for being a straight shooter who calls it like he sees it, even when his position is unpopular among his casino colleagues.)
I believe that the best approach to handling the 6:5 “problem” is what it always has been: demand transparency and disclosure from vendors, educate the consumer, and promote competition. The real problem is a state like Ohio allowing only four casinos, with a geographic monopoly in each of its major cities. Or the Seminoles in Florida getting a monopoly for the next 30 years. Or the tribes lobbying to make Internet gambling a felony in Washington. Or the Oklahoma tribes having no competition from Texas. Or the Vegas Strip being mostly owned by two major companies (MGM and Harrah’s), and having no monorail to let tourists escape to the more generous downtown casinos.
Twenty years ago, the Pair Plus paytable went from 40/30/6/4/1 to 40/30/6/3/1 (tripling the house edge!), and the gamblers didn’t even blink. The game was still Three Card Poker, but even way back then, the gamblers were writing on the wall. We should promote competition to allow the gamblers to vote with their feet, and then when they plop down and put their feet up, we should concede that they get what they deserve, and sometimes the rest of us pay a price, too. Gamblers don’t even learn basic strategy, for chrissakes!
For every person who goes online saying “6:5 is not blackjack,” I would suggest the following thought experiment: If you owned a casino, wouldn’t you call your Table Games Manager into your office on Day 1, and ask, “Remind me why we’re paying these gamblers 3:2 on naturals.”
“For every person who goes online saying “6:5 is not blackjack,” I would suggest the following thought experiment: If you owned a casino, wouldn’t you call your Table Games Manager into your office on Day 1, and ask, “Remind me why we’re paying these gamblers 3:2 on naturals.””
LOL, why don’t you just pay them 1:2 ? 3:5 ? Why don’t you turn the “Blackjack game” into being a misfortune to receive a Blackjack? No need to change the name. I would tell the manager that this payout is made like this to keep a “reasonable” advantage over the players. But we can simply take their money at gun point if you prefer…
“during their Opening Night 3:1 Blackjack Promotion, there were no players whining or filing lawsuits demanding separate licensing for a “new game.” ”
Yep, because they specifically call it “Promotion”. Maybe 6:5 “rip off” would be a name we wouldn’t ask to be changed.
Also.
“As for the definition of the game, the controversy boils down to the simple question: Is the 3:2 payoff on a natural 21 central to the game? Quite simply—no. For anyone who has experience playing blackjack and many other games at casinos around the world, that’s pretty obvious.”
Clearly we don’t have a common definition of “central” or you haven’t played as much as you say “around the world…” Except for USA, 6:5 BJ is close to non existent on earth. While all countries “except great USA” agree on 3:2 payout, this is enough to make it central to the game. The 3:2 BJ is the single BJ hand that requires no additional action or money investment to get better than the regular 1:1 on winning hands.
Why don’t you call Spanish 21 “Blackjack” ? I don’t get it… removing a few tens from a 6 deck shoe isn’t “central to the game”.
Completely agree that a change in any payout is simply a pricing adjustment, not the introduction of something different. It’s the same as raising the price of milk or gas — it’s still milk and gas. If you don’t care, you pay it (I constantly see equal, often greater, numbers of players at a triple-zero roulette table with a double-zero next door) or you shop for a better price. If you don’t like 6-5, don’t play it. If enough players do the same, then the market will force a change. But they play.
I’m in agreement with James regarding the payout structure. No one ever said “It’s not blackjack” during a 2 to 1 promotion for naturals. This only came up when they reduced the payout.
Regarding points 3 and 4, there are myriad rule variations and sometimes different strategic options (late vs early vs no surrender, for example) and yes we all still call it blackjack.
Regarding Spanish 21. It’s still blackjack, but with different rules, payouts and strategic options. The only reason it was given its own name was so it could be copyrighted and the game developers could charge a royalty to casinos choosing to deal it.
Keep in mind that when 6:5 was introduced, there was a large sign suggesting that this was an increase in payout from 3:2. Hey, bigger numbers. That’s false advertising. Albeit not as misleading as machines that say BJ pays 2 for 1, which means 1:1. Back in 2004, I posted this to my blackjack-scams site:
“Let us be very clear; 6:5 Blackjack is not Blackjack at all. The name Blackjack was given to Vingt-et-un in 1912 when the 3:2 bonus was invented. The very definition of Blackjack requires a 3:2 payoff for Blackjack. Now 90 years later the casinos thought no one would notice if they gutted the game. And they may be right. Few people seem to think that it matters. ”
This is followed by a chart showing the massive difference.
1. If a single casino posted “bigger payoffs,” I agree that’s bogus, but wasn’t that a one-off? Most people never saw such signs (I didn’t), and industry-wide today and for many years, I do not see casinos claiming that 6:5 is a bigger payoff than 3:2. (But I’ve seen casinos that offered electronic direct deposit of paychecks into the casino cage, so we know there’s no limit to casino sleaziness.) I hope someone got a pic of the 6:5 signs you mention.
2. I’ve read more than one article on the history of blackjack, and I don’t know that there’s a consensus on the exact who/what/where of it, but regardless, a 3:2 payoff introduced concurrently with a name change doesn’t make the precise 3:2 integral to the game. The word “b-l-a-c-k-j-a-c-k” says nothing about 3:2 or 1.5, so there is no absolute linkage. 6:5 still offers a bonus on BJ, and it’s still an automatic winner against a non-natural 21. If you had showed your chart on the difference between 6:5 and 3:2, the original guys would have said, “Sure, we can go with 6:5, and still call it blackjack. It’s a bonus payout.” 3:2 is generally a simpler payoff, but I doubt the “inventors” would have been unwilling to tweak that number.
3. I would bet my bankroll that your software does not code 6:5 as a separate game; rather, you put a parameter/setting called bjPays or something, and there’s a user option to set that to the default 1.5, or 1, or 2, or 3, or, yes, … 1.2.
4. Just because a feature is part of the original version of something doesn’t make it integral to that thing. Cars used to have hood ornaments. They were removed due to safety concerns. Pretty sure the things we’re driving around these days are still “cars.” And when Tesla removes the gas tank and puts in a battery, it’ll still a car. And when we put in gangsta rims and bouncing hydraulics, it’s still a car. There would be literally millions of examples of this. I would bet that your first version of CVCX had bugs in it. So does that mean that those bugs are integral to CVCX? Maybe we should say “That’s a feature, not a bug,” and never change the code. Things evolve. It would be pretty tough to find anything today that matches its first implementation, and there’s generally nothing sacred about a first implementation (many “features” of a first implementation are due to necessity or lack of foresight). But it’s a continuum, and the question is: How far along that continuum do we have to go before we consider the thing a different thing? How could you argue that changing one payoff turns it into a different thing, when you do NOT make that argument for any other game with multiple paytables, nor does anyone make the argument when the payoff is boosted to something higher than 3:2. Obviously, the “6:5 is a different game” is just whiny, biased, self-serving tripe. Period. (Pro Tip that I just learned recently: If you just put “Period.” at the end of your argument, you win!)
5. They changed the damn paytable. I get that you don’t like it. I get that there has been some slimy advertising (no difference from the widespread perpetuation of the anchorman myth), and some of the casinos that jumped on 6:5 the fastest are greedy and sweaty. But virtually every casino game has a variety of paytables. When paytables change, they generally get worse, as we’ve seen time and time again (Pair Plus, Blackjack Tie, BJSwitch, roulette, etc.). Do you consider 7/5 Jacks or Better a different game from 9/6 Jacks? What if 7/5 was the first version, and then 9/6 showed up–would you be arguing that 9/6 isn’t Jacks or Better at all?
6. At any point in time, do you think there was a positive probability of obtaining a patent on a “new game” whose only difference from other versions of blackjack is the 6:5 payoff on a natural? Please answer yes or no.
7. Are you going to protest a 2:1 promotion or 3:1 promotion, and demand that the game acquire prior licensing as a new game?
8. Languages and words are ultimately defined by evolving consensus. If 99.99% of the 3.5 million tourists to Vegas every month use the term “blackjack” to include that game where you get paid 6:5 on AJ v 8, and the game where the dealer hits 42A, and the game where the dealer stands on 42A, etc., then you’re outvoted. If you want to create a new language, try Esperanto# (pronounced “Esperanto Sharp”).
9. It simply shocks me that you are unable to separate your deep, emotional hatred for the stinginess and greed of casinos from the straightforward, scientific, taxonomy problem here.
10. If you want to call 6:5 blackjack a “scam,” I’m totally onboard with that. It’s so slimy, and casino marketing is generally deceptive. And apparently the Triple Zero Roulette has shown up with “More Ways to Win” which is akin to what you pointed out with the 6:5 marketing. So I’m okay with calling it a “scam.” But it’s still “blackjack.” Period.
Period. Period. [still experimenting with multiple instances of “Period.”] And I might try adding this to the end of my arguments:
return true;
“I would bet my bankroll that your software does not code 6:5 as a separate game; rather, you put a parameter/setting called bjPays or something,”
Damn, I have to remove that option quickly.:)
I created the blackjack-scams site 17 years ago for a reason. A futile attempt to convince people to stay away from 6:5 so it wouldn’t take over. I added in a bunch of other scams to make it a more of a site. The rule’s introduction was, in my mind, a clear scam. Casinos became far more popular when people discovered that you could beat them. It didn’t matter that people didn’t bother to go through the effort to play correctly or that they played Craps instead. It just felt different to folks. H17, DAS, are nothing in comparison as their effects are trivial in comparison and don’t nullify Thorp’s book. So yes, I stretched the semantic envelope. (And will continue to do so.)
I do have an image somewhere of a sign bragging about the amazing 6:5 payout. Little chance I’ll find a nearly two decade old image.
“semantic envelope”–you nailed it there. It’s just a nuance in the semantics. I like the word “scam” a lot for 6:5, and with many business practices used by casinos. 6:5 should definitely go on any Scam Page to alert people far and wide. But I do consider the game to be “blackjack.” I think it would be interesting to rank the scams. Not sure where 6:5 would fall. Penny slots might be up there on the list. I think player’s cards are largely a scam, but at least the scam has AP-favorable holes. Car drawings at the Venetian can be a scam. Casinos (especially tribals) use fake CTRs all the time (they’ll bring a W9 for you to fill out whenever they feel you’re buying in or winning “a lot”). Making online gambling in WA a felony is a scam. Player-banked games in CA are a scam. Tribal antes per hand in OK are a scam. Vegas buffets are a scam (very pricey, not cheap at all). “Sin City” is a scam.
Casinos also use the word “scam” quite frequently. Basically, casinos call all AP activities to be a “scam,” including card counting. We had documents in our lawsuit against Griffin that said card counting was a scam.
Supposedly, the name comes from the 3:2 payoff plus a bonus if you had an ace of spades and a black jack. So, the name of the game does relate to a 3:2 payoff. But yes, evolution exists and names are funny things. Ferment Pinot noir, Pinot meunier, and Chardonnay grapes in the Champagne district in France and you have Champagne. Ferment the identical grapes in NY, and it can’t be sold as Champagne.
I think we’re in general agreement. BUT, American Cheese ain’t cheese. And CVCX had no bugs – it had “undocumented features”.
In response to Number 5: 7/5 Jacks requires a different strategy than 9/6 Jacks, much like FPDW requires a different strategy than NSUD. Changing the paytable does change the game in those instances. You might say, “well that’s video poker; 6/5 Blackjack has the same strategy as 3:2.” But there are casinos that offer even money and 6/5 Blackjack, and it would be beneficial to take even money in these spots whereas taking even money with 3/2 Blackjack is a basic strategy error. Of course, then you can further argue that there are differences in strategy with ENHC, differences with S17 vs H17, etc., and no one really says those games aren’t blackjack. But I can see a case being made that so drastically changing the odds along with at least some change in the game’s strategy does produce a different game.
As you say, there are BS differences for H17 v S17, DAS v NoDas, LS. In fact, the number of decks has a greater impact on the BS than the change from 3:2 to 6:5 (and most casinos do NOT offer even money anyway, though they should). Many counters play both 2-deck and 6-deck, and learn separate sets of indices for them, and yet I’ve never heard anyone claim that 6-deck isn’t blackjack, or that 2-deck isn’t blackjack. Going from Strip rules 1-deck to 6-deck was pretty “damaging” to the game, but most big-stakes counters play 6-deck. Find me a post where any of those players are complaining that 6-deck “isn’t blackjack.” In terms of the game experience, I’d say that a handheld pitch game is more different from a shoe game than 6:5 is to 3:2, but no one says that shoe games aren’t blackjack (blackjack started as a pitch game probably). Probably the best analogy is Triple Zero Roulette. It’s a devastating boost the casino advantage, and the game (and anyone who plays it) is getting mocked online, but no one’s claiming it isn’t roulette. You know why? Because the self-serving card counters don’t play roulette in the first place, so they don’t really care that the game might evolve from 0/00 to 0/00/000. Frankly, the difference in EV from transitioning from 3:2 to 6:5 isn’t even as great as, say, the change from 4:1 to 3:1 on PairPlus Straights, but whaddya know? The 3:2 –> 6:5 transition just so happened to cross the threshold turning a game that can generate a solid earning to a card counter to a worthless target. Changing the craps field bet from 2x on 2, 3x on 12 –> 2x on 2, 2x on 12, got no complaints, because that transition was from an unbeatable game to a still unbeatable game.
Well, triple-zero is a clear scam — and a ridiculously greedy one at that. But, it didn’t change a game widely known as beatable to unbeatable, with the knowledge available in numerous texts and papers of the time. Indeed, Roulette was known to be (generally speaking) unbeatable for centuries when it was (and where it still is) single-zero. (Obviously I’m ignoring some methods.) The Field bet has been known as nearly always a bad bet for ages. I dunno. It’s the magnitude of the change that bothers me, and the possible (and obvious at the time) breadth of the spread of this virus that drove me to make a futile attempt at inoculation. Casinos deserve a profit. Building a casino is a huge undertaking. But, there must be a line somewhere. It can’t be heads I win, tails you lose. At some point, you have bastardized the game beyond the stats in every book. I do have the ability to vary BJ payoff. OTOH, my software defines Over/Under 13, Double Exposure, Spanish 21, SuperFun 21, Royal Match, Bust Out, Lucky Ladies, Blackjack Switch, 21+3, Big Slick, Bonanza BJ, Dare any Pair, Field of Gold, High Tie Bonus, Lucky Lucky, Match the Dealer, Pair Square, Perfect Pairs, Super 7s, Sweet 16, and custom rules you care to invent: “Unusual games”. I actually consider them as closer to the original concept of BJ.
At some point, can you deal the player and dealer five cards and use Poker rules and call it BJ? I don’t know where the line is. I do wish that APs wouldn’t divide themselves into mere counters and “real APs”. Too damn many societal divisions already.
Goes back further than a remembered. I was searching the ‘net for the sign that suggested 6:5 was a higher payoff, and found a 2003 LV Sun article on 6:5 where I was quoted: “Soon we’ll see, ‘For extra excitement, both dealer cards are hidden!’ ”
Anywho, the article reminded me that the sign said Blackjack pays a whopping 6:5.
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2003/nov/13/taking-a-hit-new-blackjack-odds-further-tilt-advan/
Yeah, that was it! “Whopping”–that gave us all a laugh. And maybe it used the word “now” in conjunction, as in “Now paying a whopping 6:5” as if to suggest that the 6:5 represented an increase in the payout. I’ve heard dealers try to convince players that hitting the soft 17 is good for players, because it increases the chance the dealer will bust (true, but …). H17 was once considered a sleazy increase in the “price” of blackjack, but it has become the default, and I’ve seen players complain when the dealer’s 6A beat the table: “What?? You don’t hit that??” Aren’t the casinos just a mirror into our collective, ignorant, degen soul? We’ll gladly pay more to play the games. “We’re just here to drink!” Gamblers cite pai gow poker as a low-variance way to pass the time while getting free drinks in Vegas.
Yeah, “now” was on the sign.
It isn’t just that PGP is low variance. It’s slower than a pregnant sloth due to the ritual at the start of each hand. But, back when the Barbary Coast was known for barring players, if you played some PGP there, they ignored your BJ play. Oddly, it was the best PGP game in LV. You could bank every other hand if no one else wanted to. And many players didn’t realize that’s where you get the edge. Also, PGP required a great deal of pit attention as dealer mistakes were not uncommon. Gave you a chance to chat with the pit. Used to do this at the DI. They didn’t care if you knew what you were doing as you don’t play against the house.
As for my mod, both dealer cards are hidden, makes for an interesting hole-carding game.
Low hourly variance. Drinkers don’t care about per-hand variance. You’re right about dealer mistakes. Some dealers really struggle with Two Pair that also has a possible Straight or joker involved. When a game is slow, boring, and idiot-proof (there isn’t a huge difference in the hourly bleed for a bad pai gow player compared to a skilled pai gow player–most hands are straightforward), the gamblers make up for it by betting huge. Bacc and pai gow are big-action games. Makes for a potentially good banking play.
“I would bet my bankroll that your software does not code 6:5 as a separate game; rather, you put a parameter/setting called bjPays or something, and there’s a user option to set that to the default 1.5, or 1, or 2, or 3, or, yes, … 1.2.”
Actually, it’s a bit more complex than that. You could set it to pay the original definition, 3:2 payoff plus an additional 10:1 if you have a black jack and an ace of spades. Or, if you want, require also a diamond straight flush in the dealer’s hand for an additional bonus. But, we’ll call the bet a draw.:)
If you defined each game in its own class, are there two separate classes–one for 3:2 blackjack and one for 6:5 blackjack? Hmmm … Anyone, anyone? Bueller? QED.
Well, not sure I’d trust Ben Stein on the subject.:)
Is Zweikartenspiel Blackjack
“Low hourly variance. …. Bacc and pai gow are big-action games. Makes for a potentially good banking play.”
Exactly. Most players didn’t want to bank PGP as that greatly increased hourly variance. In some venues, that allowed you to bank more often. (Not so much at the Mirage when they first offered it.) But, I found it too slow. And, I dropped my PGP software ages ago due to little interest.
Agree 100% with JG.
And again, it’s only the card counter sect that wants to disagree.
Actually, my concern is with the average non-AP, the future of Vegas, and gaming in general. Those just turning 21 years of age themselves, addicted to video games, have less and less interest in casinos. Drastically reducing the odds, and thus the expiration date of their bankrolls, serves only to further lessen this interest. I fear a future that resembles pachinko parlors.
Pachinko machines are fun! I had one as a kid. (Of course, they’re a lot more fun when they’re free.) If you’re worried about the race to the bottom: Rounders–“It will all be over soon”; Armageddon–“It’s time to embrace the horror.” Casinos are all a scam. But 6:5 showed up over 15 years ago, and blackjack isn’t dead, and counting cards isn’t dead. And the restaurants, shows, and nightclubs are better than ever. It could be worse, many casinos in Macau don’t have BJ at all.
Third floor in a ramshackle fire trap of a mall in Kuala Lumpur, there was a “restaurant”. You rented a pole at the bar, caught a fish in a pool, took it to the bar to be cooked and served. Across from it was a pachinko parlor. The players were almost part of the machines. They were concentrating on the balls to an extent that if Bella Hadid walked the length of the parlor nude; no one would have noticed.
I’m not predicting Wagner’s Götterdämmerung. AP is far from dead, rumors to the contrary. Perhaps more apt, Brian Herbert’s Butlerian Jihad, where humans battled the machines. But, 10,000 years later humans were still thriving enough for the Dune series.
There definitely seems to be an emotional component to the positions being expressed. I think that 6:5 is perhaps the worst change ever in the evolution of the game and there is definitely a deceptive component in the way it is presented to the general public. I just don’t see how the 3:2 -> 6:5 is any more of an integral change to the game than say S17 -> H17, DOA -> D9, DAS -> NODAS, RSA -> NORSA. These are examples of actual changes to the rules of the game and yet no one is claiming that it is no longer blackjack. We instead invented the nomenclature used above to help us to be precise about which variant we are dealing with.
Casinos are having more and more competition every year…you can gamble everywhere now…internet casinos will be legal in all states soon….so go ahead and keep penny pinching the players…we dont need you…so you had better wake up to the new reality…or the next recession will be your last.
Norm wrote:
“Let us be very clear; 6:5 Blackjack is not Blackjack at all. The name Blackjack was given to Vingt-et-un in 1912 when the 3:2 bonus was invented. The very definition of Blackjack requires a 3:2 payoff for Blackjack. Now 90 years later the casinos thought no one would notice if they gutted the game. And they may be right. Few people seem to think that it matters. ”
That’s it and that’s all.
All other minor changes like H17, ENHC, Surrender, number of decks, etc. do affect the game but never in such a way that THE CENTRAL PAYOUT OF THE GAME is affected and to a point it’s “almost” unbeatable by BJ experts. Stating the contrary is simply playing the game of greedy casinos. In a way they must be happy, “Hey, if half the experts of the game still believe that the crap we offer is “Blackjack” in a pure form, what about the masses? We can simply shove it deeper in their A.. cause they seem the see no scandal here. Why don’t we try a bigger payout…something like 10:10 ? “
The central payout of the game is still an automatic winner against a non-natural 21, and a 20% bonus over even money. Why is 1.5 sacred?
“and to a point it’s “almost” unbeatable by BJ experts.” Ohh, that’s why! I think that was supposed to the quiet part, not said out loud. This is the real issue. Counters don’t like that the lower payout happens to cross the threshold from “beatable with a little work” to “waste of time target/practically unbeatable.” But when did the needs of APs become relevant to the definition of a game?
Rules and number of decks change the player’s strategy significantly. Pitch vs. shoe actually changes the game experience (some players are amazed to actually hold the cards, and don’t even know the game procedures for pitch). Splitting and doubling change the swings a player takes and noticeably impact the biggest possible payout the player could get in one round (max possible payout goes from 2 units to 8 units). But what you’re now calling the “CENTRAL PAYOUT” happens just 1 in 21 hands, and is barely noticed within the game experience of the vast majority of players, so apparently they don’t seem to agree with your spin that the precise blackjack paytable is so critical. Real “team players” would probably consider the “DEALER BUST” to be the “CENTRAL PAYOUT” of the game, because the entire table wins, instead of just one person. And I personally know many players who consider the Match the Dealer and 21+3 to be the critical payouts! The more you guys make me think about it, the more I realize that the payoff on a natural is even more minor to the game than I realized.
If I state the truth, and that happens to make a casino happy, so be it. Now if I got a ton of DMs that said, “Yeah, we know 6:5 is still blackjack, but we’re just saying it’s not as part of a marketing effort to rally the masses against 6:5,” then I’d have some appreciation for the cause, even if I weren’t publicly on board with the strategy. But that isn’t what has ever happened in this debate. Instead we see more and more twisted logic, more evasions (no one has answered: “With no other modifications, could 6:5 been a sufficient change to get a patent?”), more and more caps, more and more “Period”s and unilateral proclamations that the debate has been won. When are we going to see “QED”? When will someone invoke Michael Corleone’s classic “Over!”? And when this debate ends, Nike is hiring. Nike still needs people to convince a new generation after MJ that without Nike sneakers, the game isn’t basketball. But I am truly curious if people actually believe “6:5 is not blackjack” when they say it, or if they’re simply saying it as a strategic ploy as part of their crusade (even though they don’t personally believe it). If it’s the latter, I don’t agree with that strategy–I’m not the type to go and stake positions that I don’t actually believe. If it’s the former, then I feel compelled to stem the spread of that nonsense.
So here’s a question: Are you guys then totally fine, with no further complaints about 6:5, if the casinos simply called it “21”? (“21” actually is the name used in many books, legal documents, statutes, etc.). Since you’re all originalists going back a century to the days when the 3:2 bonus was supposedly introduced with fanfare at the unveiling of the new sign that said “Blackjack,” then can we say that you have no opposition to the 6:5 payout, but merely the use of the apparently trademarked term “blackjack”? (Kind of like: you’ll gladly enjoy a glass of sparkling wine from Napa Valley, but you don’t want it to be called “champagne.”) If 6:5 is paid on naturals, you agree the game is still “21”–isn’t it? So everyone will be happy if we just use the term “21”? This campaign could get more traction. The movie was called “21” and many casino dealers actually use the term “21 dealer” to describe themselves, or say, “I have 21” to mean that they have been trained to deal blackjack–oops, I mean “21”!
Anyone accepting a 6:5 payout for a blackjack versus a 3:2 payout for a blackjack just proves that people are ignorant – just the type of people that the casinos LOVE to have donating to the bottom line. The semantics of discussing the name of this game and it’s meaning have NOTHING to do with the 3:2 payoff versus the 6:5 payoff for this game. SMART players do not play the named game “Blackjack” when a blackjack only pays 6:5.- and that is the bottom line.
“Observant” players might though.
The 6:5 game should be referred to as Crapjack.
I’m just impressed that JG appears to be a hockey fan.
The number of definition of Blackjack given is surely enough for the new players to well understand the game and for old players too.