Talk:Blackjack/Archive 3

Blackjack tournaments
Mathematicalist keeps adding the following unsourced claim to this section...

''The underlying purpose of the house in sponsoring blackjack tournaments is to infuse reckless non-mathematical playing styles into the heads of blackjack enthusiasts who fancy themselves knowledgeable in the ways of blackjack. Many experts advise serious blackjack players against participating in blackjack tournaments because of the subtle but highly negative impact that flows from participation.''

Can this claim be reliably sourced, or will it have to go? Sideways713 (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's nonsense.Objective3000 (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, any casual but knowledgeable blackjack player knows that the worst enemy at the table is other players. I don't care to source this as its pretty much common knowledge among blackjack players. An "idiot" player can completely wreck the odds of 'basic strategy' by not playing the game accordingly. For instance, a dumb player could hit on 17 and take a 10 out of the deck that would have busted the dealer. As far as anyone is concerned, counters or casual players, that is a very dumb move and may even start a fight at a table. As for professional tournaments, I cannot attest to the usual quality of players that sign up, but I assume there are plenty of hot-shot idiots involved.

My point is that blackjack is a very sensitive game when it comes to the actions of other players and this can be (and I assume has been)proven mathematically many times over. So as far as the above statement is concerned, it makes sense, but no one is going to be able source this as an underlying motive of the house. Calling it nonsense is idiotic though because if I ran a casino, I'd be doing just that.

TracerDX (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear! There are certainly many casual and many non-casual players who believe that other players can affect the outcome of basic strategy, but knowledgeable players know that they can make it too, and over the long run it is statistically equal. IOW, the actions of other players /do not/ affect the long-term outcome to any significant amount for basic strategy. This is mathematically provable and can be shown quite easily with computer simulations!

And as an aside, dumb players in my observations don't hit on 17, they stand on 16 (and 15 and 14 and 13), and it annoys me. I don't complain about it though. It makes my hand just as often as it destroys it. Of course, casual players don't remember when such moves make them money. The only remember when they lose. Hence the 'urban legend' that bad players make a table bad.

Edit. As a qualifier, I will say that it makes no difference in 4-8 deck games. I don't know about games with fewer decks. Alan LeHun (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I made an extreme example, but I play single deck sir, and yes, other players effect the odds. Just saying. TracerDX (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is common voodoo believed by gamblers. Other non-Wonging players do not affect the odds of a Basic Strategy player. In highly unusual cases, at single-deck, they could have an affect on a card counter as they can affect penetration. Objective3000 (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

best casino game ever..
from my perception blackjack is the best card game ever. here playes get more advantageous than the dealers.. Mizanur8 (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the is not a forum. Objective3000 (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Double Down on Natural
I do not see information here in the rules about the player choosing to double down when receiving a natural. It is my understanding that this is allowed by casino rules. And this makes some of the statements in the article slightly inaccurate because they assume there is no player decision possible when you receive a natural. Should I add this information? FishDawg1 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Many, if not most, casinos don't allow this. There's no info on how many as it's never a correct play outside of tournament blackjack and no one has looked into it. I've only done this once, over 30 years ago. Probably not worth mentioning. O3000 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Payout ratio for win
In the section Rules of play at casinos it says that Wins are paid out at 1:1. Since the player is receiving 2 dollars for every one dollar bet then shouldn't it be a ratio of 2:1? Tellurium128 (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's 2 for one or 1:1. You only win one. They mean the same. O3000 (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It get what your saying, but in the section Rule variations and effects on house edge - Altered payout for a winning blackjack, it says that paying 1:1 for blackjack is a way to increase the house edge. This is clearly different to the ratio of 1:1 mentioned earlier so there is inconsistency. Tellurium128 (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally, hands pay 1:1. BJ is supposed to pay 3:2. Although, numerous casinos now pay 6:5 -- which is highway robbery, IMHO. Paying 1:1 for a BJ without a balancing rule would certainly increase the house edge -- enormously. O3000 (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Picture of Video Blackjack machine?
Can anyone contribute a picture of a video blackjack machine? If not, I will try to take one the next time I'm at a casino. Thanks.-- Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk 22:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Added.-- Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk 23:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Rule Variation.
I was taught this game by some gambling addicts in high school in 1970. THey had a variation where 5 cards under 21 paid 3:1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E448:D401:BD8F:53B6:5B46:1CED (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)