h a l f b a k e r yNormal isn't your first language, is it?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
This is a version of the old casino favorite with a twist.
Have you ever played a round of blackjack, been dealt 20 or 21, and wished you could keep that hand? In "Same Hand Blackjack", you can.
Casinos featuring table games with side bets and variations are all the rage today (Spanish 21,
Hand-held Blackjack, etc.). This version of Blackjack falls into that catagory. Here's how it works on say a $5.00 table:
1. On the Blackjack playing surface, you have the traditional space to place your regular bet of $5.00.
2. To the upper-left of that regular space is a circle in which "same hand" bets may be placed. So, in addition to the $5.00 you would normally play, you would place an additional $5.00 chip in the "same hand" marker.
3. Dealer deals the cards and you are dealt a total of twenty on which you stay. Regardless of whether or not you beat the dealer on that initial hand, that same hand of twenty stays on the table and plays into the next deal. The hands are independent of each other unless you bust on the first hand, in which case all bets relative to that losing hand are lost.
4. The bet for a "same hand" cannot exceed the initial bet on the table, but may be less. For example, I could play $10.00 in the regular spot and up to $10.00 in the "same hand" spot.
5. Any double-downs or splits must be backed on both the initial and "same hand" bets.
6. Whatever hand is made on the first deal is carried over to the second deal and can't be changed. You cannot hit - period. If you played a 16 on the first hand and bet a "same hand" bet, you play the 16 on the next deal - period.
7. A "same hand" bet can't be played as a same hand. In essence, one a hand is being played for a second time, that is its final play.
Basically, this would probably be played when people feel that it's their turn for a good hand. "I haven't had a 21 in two shoes and I am due. It's my turn!" You might play the same hand option in that case.
I currently have a statistician working to determine the impact on the odds and the game itself, but the idea is simple. I play $5.00 for my initial bet and an additional $5.00 for my same hand bet in hopes of a solid hand to carry over for a second play.
Would you play?
[link]
|
| |
If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that a player, before the hand is dealt, bets on how a single set of cards will do against two independent "dealer" hands. |
|
| |
If that's the case, I don't see anything "wrong" with the idea, but don't think it can impart any significant advantage to a player. My biggest concern would be the time and expense of casinos educating players about it. |
|
| |
You are correct. Before a hand is dealt, a player places basically two bets for a single hand to play against two independent dealer hands. |
|
| |
True - there is no significant advantage to the player in this case. It is simply an option that the player has based on their gut feeling. It is kind of like playing that extra dollar for the jackpot in Carribean Stud Poker on the off-chance you get that once in a lifetime hand (royal flush). |
|
| |
In this case, playing the same hand option is purely a game of chance (as any gamble is) depending on the outcome of the cards. If you get a strong hand up to 21, then it was a good bet. If you get a weak hand or one the busts, the opposite holds true. |
|
| |
I don’t think this would fly. My friends who do some serious card counting can tell you that as the amount of cards in the shoe dwindles, an advantage arises for either for the house or player. If I know the count/advantage is in my favor then I would place a bet on the repeat this hand spot because, after all, the advantage is mine (if only slightly). This is how the card counters make their money. They increase their bets with a positive count and decrease it with a negative count. The goal is to keep an accurate count while not drawing attention to yourself as you fluctuate your betting. |
|
| |
So, let me get this straight, if you play a 'Same Hand' bet, you can't draw any cards? If that's the case, then no, I wouldn't play this rule.
The odds of winning are vastly reduced if you're limited to only your first two cards, why pay more to reduce your chance of winning? |
|
| |
No, zen, you can hit all you want the first time, but once the hand carries over, it stays in its previous count. |
|
| |
I like it, and I want to count cards. [+] |
|
| |
Ahh, that makes more sense daseva - I'm still not sure I'd play though. My calculations suggest that the odds of winning/losing are no different than before, just drawn out over a longer period. |
|
| |
The rule would be odds-neutral except for increasing the advantage a player could get by card counting. Depending upon how many decks a casino uses and how many cards are dealt between shuffles, the advantage may or may not be significant. What would be best for the casino would be if the rules allowed a player to feel like he was gaining something by counting cards, without allowing much actual gain from doing so. |
|
| |
Why not just bet double the amount on the hand first time round? [-]. |
|
| |
As mentioned, statistically I really dont think this affords you any better odds than just doubling your original bet, except that it spreads it into two deals. But it does introduce some interesting strategy, which may actually hurt your odds over all. |
|
| |
If you are hitting against a dealer 6 and you have say 15 showing, you better not hit it. But then you may think, you'll likely be up against a better dealer card on the next 'same hand', so maybe you should hit anyway. You bust, immediately losing both hands. Conversely if you're up against a dealer 10 you will fight hard to beat it (hitting a 16, for example), thus busting and losing both hands even if the 'same hand' ends up being against a dealer 6. |
|
| |
Oh yah.. and it better not be at the end of the shoe <g> |
|
| |