Back to The Blackjack Page
The Blackjack Page Archive

Really Bad Blackjack

My brother recently returned from a business conference in Las Vegas and told me he was just appalled by all the horrible Blackjack games out there. Actually, I was somewhat surprised by his comments (he's a counter, too) because he usually plays in Atlantic City, which is not exactly a garden spot of great BJ games. Plus, I receive regular updates of playing conditions in Vegas and nothing unusual had been noted lately. "No", he said, "I'm not talking about the 'regular' games out there. I'm talking about all those lousy single-deck games. The damn things are spreading like a computer virus."

Ah, now I understand. If you don't understand, it probably seems weird that someone would call a single-deck Blackjack game "lousy." Well, that's what's happening, folks. The casinos, in their never-ending quest for increased profits have taken a game which has treated them very well in the past and altered it in such a way that can only be described as "tragic". At least that's my word for it. Others have said, "illegal" (it's not), "reprehensible" (it may be that), "sacrilegious" (perhaps) and "greed-driven" (definitely).

What's happening is that some casinos are now touting "Single Deck Blackjack" on their marquees or in their advertisements and the uninformed public being - well, uninformed - are flocking to the game, mainly because somewhere along the line they've heard that a single-deck game is the best type of Blackjack to play. And normally, they'd be correct. Unfortunately, this "new" single-deck game has, from a player's point of view, a fatal flaw, which is the payout for a 'blackjack' - what we call a "natural" around here - the starting hand of an Ace and a face or ten-value card. As you hopefully know, such a hand usually pays 3 to 2 or, say, $15 for a $10 bet. But that's not the case with most of the single-deck games now available on the Strip in Vegas. This new version pays 6 to 5 for a natural, which is $12 for a $10 bet. As you can imagine, that reduction costs the player something.

What's the cost, exactly? Well, if you figure an untied (the dealer doesn't also have one) natural will occur, on average about once every 21.5 in a single-deck game and if you're playing at a rate of 43 hands per hour (admittedly a convenient number, but it'll make my point), this lower payoff will cost you $6 per hour, if you're betting $10 per hand. So, what's $6 an hour in the grand scheme of things, you ask? A lot, when you consider that you'd normally expect to lose about 0.1% of all the $$$ you bet in a 'normal' single-deck game (I'm assuming you're not a counter). At a rate of 43 hands per hour, your total bets would be $430 and 0.10% of that is 43 cents. But, due to the alteration of the Blackjack bonus, you can expect to lose an additional $6 per hour! So, for one hour of play, with $430 in total bets, your expected loss is $6.43, which works out to be a 1.5% casino edge, with some prejudicial rounding on my part.

To be completely accurate, if the casino offers a 1-deck game and the dealer must hit soft 17 (as is the case with 90+% of them), but you may double on any first two cards, plus after splitting pairs, the casino's edge with a 6 to 5 payout is 1.45%. One opponent of this (a counter, of course) felt that calling this game "Blackjack" or "21" was somehow illegal, because the rules of Blackjack or 21 call for a 3 to 2 pay for a natural. Good point. But not a good point with the Nevada Gaming Commission (NGC). This august body felt that calling the 6:5 version "Blackjack" is fine, so long as the altered payout is disclosed to the players. Well, first of all, the NGC is not and never has been a friend of the players, as is evident by the fact that a thorough reading of their website does not turn up the phrase "to protect the public". Secondly, these people aren't stupid; they know their salaries - and the fact they pay no state income tax - are derived from the casinos' taxes and who's going to bite the hand that feeds them? Nope, claiming it's illegal isn't going to make this game go away, but the casinos could point out the 6:5 payout a little more emphatically.

I call this change "tragic" because of my own prejudices, of course, but if there were ever a version of the game that's going to finally kill Blackjack, this may well be it. It's no secret that slot machines continue to capture an ever-increasing share of casino revenue - it's probably 75% or more now - and cheapening a game like Blackjack isn't going to slow that trend one bit. Interesting word, "cheapen". But to me, that's what they're doing. They've taken a game with a lot of appeal, which comes mostly from the fact that people know it can be beaten through skillful play and altered it so that everyone loses much more quickly. And I'm including counters in there, because unless the game is dealt deeply from a penetration point of view, even a counter will struggle to gain an advantage over such a large casino edge. And, while I'll be the first to admit that we counters aren't in the game for anything other than the $$$; the fact is, it's our success that attracts so many non-counting players to Blackjack in the first place.

Right now, as I understand it, the casinos are pleased with the increased $$$ they're making off this adulterated version of the game and that may make some of the dealers feel a little more secure. But mark my words: When the public finally realizes this game is a rip-off, they'll start staying away in droves. The profits will drop and to counter that, the casinos, instead of reinstating the 3:2 payoff, will close tables and replace them with slots, which don't require dealers. And the public will catch on; it's just a matter of time. You, dear reader, know the situation now because you're here and, heaven knows, only a tiny fration of the gamblers of the world will ever visit this site, but even if they don't, their own instincts will eventually tell them something's wrong with this game. In the past, they may have played BJ for 3 or 4 hours and lost "x" $$$. Now, they're going to lose 3 or 4 times "x", or more, in the same period of time and that'll get their attention, I assure you.

A supporter of the 6:5 game might argue that the "average" Blackjack player loses at a rate of 1-2% anyway, so what's the difference now? What they'd be forgetting is that the average gambler loses at a 1-2% rate because s/he doesn't follow the proper playing strategy and it's not going to change. As a consequence, the average gambler will continue to make the same strategy errors, but will now lose at a rate of 3% or more. Casino table games with such a large "house" edge have a limited appeal, at best. After all, how many Caribbean Stud tables does the average casino have...one, two? Yes, the big edge is nice for the casinos now, but it's not going to last. Sure, they can get away with a fat edge for a new game, but even then it's only for a while. For the casinos to expect to maintain a big edge in a game that never had a big edge before is "wishful thinking" at its highest. It's not going to happen, period.

Recently, there was some proof of that. Back in January, 2004, the Golden Nugget Casino in "downtown" Las Vegas had six of the 6:5 single-deck games; they're all gone, as this is being written (March, 2004). If they were making a lot of $$$ from those games, do you think they'd pull them? Me neither. But at least they were wise enough to go back to the 3:2 game, rather than pull the tables and replace them with slots. Other operations may not be so smart...

But you and I can't worry about the fate of the Blackjack dealers of the world. They, like us, have to take care of themselves and the way for us to do that is to avoid these games and tell everyone else we know to do the same thing. For the moment, my brother's right; this game is spreading like a computer virus, in spite of what happened at the Golden Nugget. At the moment, I'm aware of 25 casinos in Vegas that offer this game (Harrah's has the most tables, which shouldn't surprise anyone), not to mention those that offer "Super Fun 21", which is similar (about a 1% house edge), or the few brave souls that offer a game with naturals paying even -money (a 2.3+% house edge). I've received reports that casinos all over the country are trying the game, so don't get too excited if your local, friendly casino starts hyping single-deck Blackjack; check it out before you play.

By the way, the best way to find out who has these games and (more importantly) who doesn't, you should subscribe to "Current Blackjack News", which is published by Stanford Wong. Single issues are available, so if you're going to be in Vegas or Reno or somplace else, it's worth the few bucks to get a copy before you go. Almost all areas of the U.S. are covered. More information is available at www.bj21.com/

I'll see you here next time.

ARCHIVE of BLACKJACK ARTICLES