Talk:Blackjack/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Effort to upgrade article

The article for Blackjack has been demoted from a Featured Article to former featured article. It is now a B-Class article. Here are the criteria which are used by Wiki editors for rating an article. What steps do you people think contributors need to take in order to reinstate the entry for Blackjack to its position at the top? There is extensive knowledge available on the subject. The Gnome 06:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Raudabaugh

I've been trying to find confirmation that Raudabaugh is the 2007 inductee to the Blackjack Hall of Fame, but haven't been able to find any sources on the web, even in blogs and message boards. Am I misspelling the name, or can someone else confirm this information? If not, I recommend we pull the name off the list. --Elonka 17:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the name was added by an anon, 24.106.36.35  (talk · contribs) in May.[1] Based on their contribs, this is almost certainly vandalism, and I'm embarrassed for Wikipedia that we missed it for as long as we did.  :/ I'm pulling it. --Elonka 17:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Split: Blackjack Hall of Fame

Pardon the blackjack pun, but I recommend that we "split" the "Blackjack Hall of Fame" section out to its own article, per Wikipedia:Summary style. Anyone else got an opinion on this? --Elonka 17:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. 2005 00:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Rray 00:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Done.  :) --Elonka 17:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Realize that the BJ Hall of Fame is simply a self-promoting group that votes for its own members and is affiliated with a casino. Objective3000 20:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? Rray 20:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Only that it is not as claimed an objective or agreed upon "public" vote. Another casino consultant could set up a "BJ Super Hall of Fame" and vote for his friends. I don't pretend to understand the criteria used in creating Wiki articles. Just thought I'd add a point that might be misunderstood. Objective3000 21:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability useful probably. I did some cleaning up of the article Blackjack Hall of Fame today because there was some ad-speak and unencyclopedic stuff going on, but feel free to have a look at it too. Rray 21:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your changes make sense. But there really isn't a public vote. I didn't bother to return my ballot last year since we all new in advance who was selected to win the "election.":-) Objective3000 21:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We should probably move any further discussion of that article to its talk page, but if we have a verifiable source for it, we should change it in the article. Rray —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rray (talk • contribs) 22:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Error in chapter on Shuffle Tracking

The entry for Blackjack currently contains the following statement, the bold part of which is not correct: "Card tracking is restricted when the casino uses a half-cut, or what is known inside houses as 'The Big C'. This is when the shoe is cut halfway, meaning that only half of the shoe will be played, so on an 8-deck shoe, only 4 decks will be played and thereafter shuffled. As card tracking relies on the principles of elimination, the half-cut makes it virtually impossible to eliminate or predict the remaining cards". The Gnome 10:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The leading paragraph for this article seems to go on forever. Is there a reason that this information isn't located in subsections of the article? Rray 22:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Since no one answered, I decided to be bold and reduce the size of the lead myself. Rray (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Open source Blackjack Trainer

I think readers of the page would find this URL very useful as it points to a completely GNU/GPL released open source software aimed at teaching the rules of the game. http://www.3dblackjacktrainer.pierotofy.it. There are no other projects like this on the internet and i think it would be a valuable resource to add. Waiting for your opinion wikipedia staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierotofy (talk • contribs) 14:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding new external link.

I'd like to add a new external link to this page as I feel we have some unique and useful content to offer. The content is located at http://www.casino-options.net/how-to-play-blackjack.asp# and is a real time black jack assistant (basically the player inputs the cards on the table and the widget returns advice on whether to stick/twist/split etc) which is incredibly useful for beginner players. As far as I am aware this is unique. In the interest of transparency, this is an affiliate site, but I feel that adding this link would be justified by the value of the content. Please advise. Ribeyejake (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding a external link to your page will not add much value to wikepedia - 1000'a of websites have similar content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.53.195 (talk) 00:02, 29

November 2007 (UTC)

Who decides which links are valuable and which are not? I mean how come you have blackjackinfo there? and why not a site like http://www.playblackjack.com who calls the shots anyways? or is it only linked if you pay?

People who edit articles decide, based on the guidelines and policies of the encyclpedia, which means when links are spammed, they get removed immediately. You can suggest your link here, and if editors think it meets the external links guideline, it could be added. But if it does not, it won't. 2005 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

3:2 'bonus' payout on Blackjack

Is a payout of 3:2 really a bonus? If a normal win pays out 2:1, 3:2 would be a reduction if anything. I've put this in discussion rather than editing the article in case I'm confused. --Samuelpinney (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC) A normal win pays 1:1. John Winston (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In gambling games, the payout is always listed as the amount of winnings you get, not including the return of your original stake. It's only for betting on events / sports where the amount includes the return of your stake and in this case, you'll see it written as $2.50, not 3:2.Owen214 (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

cheating the game

do you know you can cheat by using a invisable dye only seeable through special sunglasses, but hey in all casinos you cant wear sunglasses whilst playin, unless you had a helper and you played a blind man, the liquid is applied as you get the cards, but again there is a disadvantage because you cant touch so it may not work, but hey wait up- you can play poker with sunglasses and touch the cards, you have to do a search on the internet for the card counting fluid, also know as juice. I have tried it sometimes and with sucess as its to good to be ahead, for one some people would be giving the game away and youll be barred so take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.200.222 (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This method of cheating is more commonly used with poker rather than blackjack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.18.92 (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Origin

This game is from Spanish origin. It existed already on the XVI century. For example, Cervantes mentioned it in his novels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.153.57 (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Cervantes spoke of "one and thirty." It's really a very different game. The dealer hand doesn't even exist. And there is no doubling, splitting, insurance. You play against the other players, not the dealer. Seven and one-half, the old Sicilian game, is much closer to Blackjack. It has hit, stand, surrender, split and double down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Even money

I may be wrong but surely even money is not equal to insurance in fact it is a worse deal. Since it is the same payout as insurance but you now know that one of the ten value cards has already come up this will decreace the probability of another 10 card appearing again.

In essence P(Dealer black jack given dealer upcard is an ace) > P(dealer blackjack given dealer upcard is an ace and player blackjack) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.71.112 (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are equal. Suggest you take it to a BJ forum. Objective3000 (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Attempted Improvements to Article

I have already made improvements (in my view) to the "Insurance" section. Now I am trying to improve the "How to Play Blackjack" section. I plan to continue to other sections as appropriate. Aside from logical flow and clarity, one focus is to find the right level of generality for the article. This is a general article, but at times it tends to move into excessive detail. Any feedback on my efforts is welcome. I would be happy to cooperate with others in trying to improve this article. Dickensmelville (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternative rules in Sweden

On many places in Sweden, you may only double on 7 to 11 and ace always counts as 1 if you double. How does this affect the player? Is it even worth to double if you have an ace in this case?

Another thing is a side game called "Over/under 13", where you may bet if your two initial cards are over or under 13. Ace always counts as 1 in this case. If you win you get as much money as you betted, except if you bet on under 13 and get two aces, when you will get *1.5 instead. If you get exactly 13 so is the bank the winner. Is this side game good for the player?

Edit: Forgot to mention that in Sweden so does the dealer win if you have a tie on 17, 18 or 19. How would a basic strategy chart look like in Sweden?

--81.170.129.4 (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A Basic strategy chart for Swedish rules would say "don't play." Seriously, the rules are probably the worst BJ rules in the world, worse even than American Roulette. O/U13 is beatable, but not along with the other rules. This really isn't a good place to ask questions. Try a Blackjack forum, like www.advantageplayer.com or www.blackjackinfo.com. Objective3000 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Stand on soft 17?

In the Basic Strategy section: This is based purely on anecdotal evidence, but from my personal experience, the current statement "Most casinos outside of Vegas still stand on soft 17." is not true. Does anybody have any survey to back up the statement? I do not find this to be the case at all. Mamarazzi (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

At this time, H17 is somewhat more common outside LV and outside the US. But I have no reference.Objective3000 (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, H17 games have dramatically increased in LV over the last few years primarily because of Harrah's. But if you dare state that on the Wiki Harrah's page, I predict it will be quickly deleted.Objective3000 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not privy to the situation at Harrah's, so that is something that I would never state on Wikipedia. Assuming that the first half of your statement is true, what would lead you to believe that it is "primarily because of Harrah's"? Do they have some kind of market leadership role there? How can they force others to follow? Getting back to my original statement, I am much more familiar with Reno and the northern Nevada scene, and right now I can't offhand think of a single casino (I'm probably wrong on this, given just one example) that stands on soft 17. Mamarazzi (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The dealer is always a woman

Why is the dealer always referred as a "she"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.200.81 (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Five Card Charlie

5 card charlie should probably be removed as I don't think it actually exists anywhere, ewxcept in Pontoon where it is played differently.Objective3000 (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hard 12 vs. 4

The strategy table says to stand on hard 12 against dealer's 4. However, GNOME blackjack 2.24.1 says that the best strategy is to hit. Who is right? Should we add any sentence explaining discrepancy? New seeker (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever Gnome is, ignore it. If we added a statement to an encyclopedia pointing out every incorrect source, the article would never end.:)Objective3000 (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Basic strategy for hard 12 vs 4 is HIT in all rule variations of single-deck BJ and for single-deck only. For any higher number of decks the basic strategy is STAND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Racerx11 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

See my comment below under composition depoendent.Objective3000 (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I am mistaken. See my apology below under composition dependentRacerx11 (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Basic Strat table

This table is now incorrect and I have used up my reverts. Someone please fix it.Objective3000 (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The basic strategy table is still slightly incorrect. However, rather than continue an edit war, I will wait until I have properly cited sources before I correct it. As far as the even money/blackjack insurance issue, there IS a slight difference, and I have stated and explained the difference in the article. Please do not change it back.Mk5384 (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest the following sources? Online: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bjbse.php which provides BS for different rules. http://www.qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage49.htm pages 49-59 which also provides the costs of violating BS. Offline: Blackjack Attack pages 387-490, over 100 pages devoted to BS with exact EVs for each play, and The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic page 268. All four of these sources agree with the chart in this article.Objective3000 (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I made a minor change to the key for surrender. If someone can find a better way to word it, please change. Here's the problem. The wording was originally surrender, except hit if surrender not allowed. But, it depends on what is meant by "not allowed." If surrender is not allowed at all at the table, this is correct. But, if it is not allowed because it is not the first two cards, this is NOT correct for 16v10. You should stand on 16v10 at a surrender table if surrender is not allowed, because the 16v10 is either three or more cards or the product of a split. And these siituations call for a stand. I'm beginning to wonder if this table is beyond the scope of the article.Objective3000 (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hole card versus Lose-original-bets-only game

Hi Obj - I don't want a fight! I can't source my edits about the difference between these two games, so I won't reintroduce them.. I hoped the truth of that statement would be as obvious to others as it is to me, but if not, so be it. Numerous sources say these two games have the same advantage but they are speaking practically rather than mathematically. A computer can detect the difference and will occasionally play differently because of it. Zargulon (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. Your last change is good and removes a possible confusion. NHC with OBO (original bets only) has the same strategy and EV as American rules (hole-card dealt). It's also the same as American rules with no peek. It doesn't matter that you don't know in advance if the hole card creates a dealer BJ since any doubles and splits are "undone." A computer would play identically. The only differences are esoteric and related to advantage play (e.g. you eat more cards or if the dealer runs out of cards in the middle of the hand or the player got a peek at the next card and can chose between taking it or letting the dealer take it as a hole-card).Objective3000 (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

They do indeed have the same basic strategy. But perfect play could be different between the two games, even if the dealer doesn't run out of cards and the player doesn't have unauthorized information. Imagine the dealer has a ten. In the hole card game, the player is playing out his hand knowing that the undealt cards are slightly enriched in aces, since the hole card is a non-ace. Like all information about the undealt cards (such as that used in counting systems), this information can change the expectation values of hitting, doubling and splitting (although I think not standing) relative to the OBO case where the information is lacking. This is despite the fact that, as you rightly point out, the resolution matrix is the same in both games. These changes in e.g. hitting expectation values, though very small, can be calculated by a computer in all hands where the dealer has an ace or ten, and may in theory translate into a change in the perfect-play action, though as you point out these occasions would be very rare. Zargulon (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's beyond esoteric.:)Objective3000 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's Wikipedia for you. Zargulon (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction in "altered payout for blackjack"

This section seems to suggest

• a) 6:5 tables tend to be those with the lowest table minima and
• b) 6:5 tables tend to be single deck games.

Which is true?? Zargulon (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Both. 6:5 is mostly single-deck, $5 or $10 min.Objective3000 (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. What does "increasing the house edge significantly more than most U.S. player restrictions" mean? Zargulon (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a great sentence.:) BJ 6:5 is vastly worse than other common variations. Frankly speaking, it's a fraud. But there are even worse restrictions outside the US, like the Swedish ties lose rule.Objective3000 (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Zargulon (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

composition-dependent strategy

The article states "For example, a player should ordinarily stand when holding 12 against a dealer 4. However, in a single deck game, the player should hit if his 12 consists of a 10 and a 2" Seperately these are both true statements, but as they read they incorrectly imply that the total-dependent basic strategy is STAND on hard 12 vs 4 in single deck. The total-dependent basic strategy is HIT hard 12 vs 4 in single-deck. So in other words, my point is if you are playing single-deck blackjack, you should hit that hand anyway before or without even considering the composition.

The author here is likely confusing this exception with double-deck blackjack. For double-deck, the total-dependent strategy is STAND on hard 12 vs 4, while the composition-dependent strategy is HIT 10+2 vs 4.

So the sentence would more accurately read - "For example, for two or more decks, a player should ordinarily stand when holding 12 against a dealer 4. However, in a double-deck game, the player should hit if his 12 consists of a 10 and a 2" I will make the edit if no one objects.Racerx11 (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have never seen a source that states total-dependent 12v4 in any number of decks is hit, and I just ran the single-deck numbers myself and came out with stand. T,2vs4 is hit, but all remaining hands are stand and by higher EV diffs. For all the two-card, CD numbers and their frequencies for single-deck against a dealer 4, see Blackjack Attack 3e page 398. Objective3000 (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Naively, if 10-2 vs 4 in single deck is hit, then the "average" single deck action 12vs 4 should also be hit, because a 12 is more likely to be 10-2 than all the other two-card ways combined.

• 12(10-2):T2,2T,K2,2K,Q2,2Q,J2,2J - 8 ways
• 12(other):93,39,84,48,75,57 - 6 ways (since 6-6 is split vs 4).

Furthermore the dealer already has drawn one of the '4's so the combinations 84 and 48 are even less probable. However this argument doesn't take account of the fact that standing on a (10-2) may not be as bad as hitting on a 12(other). Also it doesn't take account of 3+ card totals, none of which can involve a ten (since AAT the aces would be split, and ATA/TAA would involve hitting a blackjack). Ultimately one has to trust the calculations. Zargulon (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(Had an edit-conflict there.) Yes, T2v4 is more common. But, T2v4 has a gain of .017884 with hit, whereas 93v4 has a gain of .034251 with stand. Also, there are numerous three-, four-, five-card hands that add to 12. None of these include a ten. Taking into account all the hands, diffs and frequencies, stand wins out.Objective3000 (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey my bad. I wasn't sure when I first read the article, so... I checked a chart and I don't know how, but somehow I missread it. You guys are correct as is the example in the article. Sorry about that. And thanks for quickly pointing out my error.Racerx11 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of play-behind surrender

We don't have surrender in England. What happens if I am playing behind someone and they surrender? Do I have to surrender too.. or does the next bet on the box inherit control? Zargulon (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

WHAT?

FOR A SPLIT: Non-controlling players may follow the controlling player by putting down an additional bet, or decline to do so, instead associating their existing wager with one of the two spawned hands. In that case they must choose which hand to play behind before the second cards are drawn.

Where did this come from?? 68.32.36.38 (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, 'where did this come from?' Zargulon (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Looked OK to me. Although there are variations. But, there are variations in everything.Objective3000 (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Playable online blackjack

Would a non-commercial, non-flash, online blackjack game be a good resource: betzaar.com 7or11 (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, there are dozens of such sites online. 2005 (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

renamed French deck

the "Anglo-American" deck mentioned is more commonly known as the French deck and even the linked article for the term gives no indication as to why it would mention America in the name or why anyone tried to change it. I suspect it's one of those fads like the "Freedom fries". If that article ends up receiving no references for the naming fad, then it will have to be updated here as well. Owen214 (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No longer an issue, the decks page has resolved the conflict and the change will be updated here accordingly Owen214 (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Maths lesson

Hi Owen, I think you took out useful information from the no-hole-card paragraph and introduced misleading phrases such as saying that splitting strategy was changed without mentioning doubling strategy. I also didn't understand your "maths lesson" edit summary.. the previous version didn't really contain any maths. Other contributors welcome to comment. Zargulon (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia should just introduce someone to the game and tell them the rules; the lengthy discussion about statistics and strategy just isn't appropriate here. If it was up to me, I'd remove the table with the "basic game" strategy, all the examples about the strategy when playing without a hole card, as well as the examples concerning doubling down. Many of your edits seem to be an attempt to comandeer the article rather than actively improve it. Some of the aspects I changed where crying out for correcting, such as the player's option "split a pair". You don't say "split a pair", you just say "split" and it's not necessarily a pair anyway. Much of the article treats readers like common baffoons; repeating rules and carrying out verbose explanations for inane strategic anomalies or irrelevant trivia which had largely been covered anyway. Owen214 (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You might have a point about the content of the article. But, it was lost on me with all the harsh words. Please try again.Objective3000 (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Just be specific about what you don't like and I'm sure we can reach consensus. I removed all occurrences of 'split a pair', it doesn't bother me either way. I think the basic strategy table should be in the article but I agree it shouldn't read like a howto, so I will change the wording. Zargulon (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Related games

Could someone more knowledgeable than I take a look at the "related games" section and identify a)which of them are predominatly casino games, and which are predominantly recreational, and b)which are established blackjack variants and which are not really notable (in particular the last one sounds like an advertisement for a variant which will probably not catch on..) thanks. Zargulon (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I would dump French/German Blackjack and Chinese Blackjack. Asian casinos generally have normal BJ rules. Three card blackjack should definitely be removed. It may still be in a few Washington State casinos, but is rare. And yes, it sounds like an ad. Almost deleted it when it was added, but wasn’t in the mood for an argument.:)Objective3000 (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Zargulon (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Last question.. two versions of pontoon are discussed.. are they both casino games? I have never seen pontoon of any kind at a London casino. Zargulon (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Never seen or heard of Pontoon in a London casino either. Pontoon is a home game and simply a crude mispronunciation of Vingt-un and barely, if at all, worth mentioning. Perhaps as a side-note to Australian Pontoon. Australian Pontoon borrows the name to avoid paying royalty fees for SP21, but is worth mentioning as it has been available in a substantial number of Western and Eastern Australian casinos. And, thank you for all your hard work here.Objective3000 (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Revert of good faith edits

I decided to put the revert reasons here as there is a space limit in edit descriptions: Upcard is in Webster’s unabridged and up-card is in the OED. “Forfeit” is correct English. RSA explanation is redundant. I’ll add back the correction to “dealers.” Thanks for the contributions.Objective3000 (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Perfect pairs blackjack

This section is for a few "examples" of blackjack variants, but I feel it is turning into an exhaustive list sometimes.. that would be a mistake as this article is already very long. This section could be reasonably be shortened but I doubt it should be lengthened. Zargulon (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I know of over 130 variations in casinos, have heard of numerous others, and there are an enormous number developed but never sold. It makes no sense to add every rule.Objective3000 (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Rules not clear in hole card games about dealer blackjacks

This sentence in the rules section begins to talk about the play in hole card games:

The dealer's hand receives its first card face up, and in "hole card" games receives its second card face down immediately (the hole card), which the dealer peeks at but does not reveal unless it makes the dealer's hand a blackjack.

So, it correctly mentions the dealer checks for a blackjack, but never says what happens if there is one and continues with talking about hold card cameras and the rest of the rules of play. IMHO, for someone completely new to blackjack, this makes it confusing when a little later in the variations of the rules section it's mentioned that:

For instance, holding 11 against a dealer 10, the correct strategy is to double in a hole card game (where the player knows the dealer's second card is not an ace), but to hit in a no hole card game.

This advice would completely make sense if it were mentioned in the rules above what happens if the dealer checks for blackjack and has it...

If no one objects, I'd like to change the rules section so it's mentioned immediately after that first sentence what happens if the dealer does have a blackjack. Meowist (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Digital versions?

Should we make a section for the various online versions and smartphone apps that offer Blackjack and variants of it? Bellerophone29 (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Online casinos mimic casinos. I see no need for mention of Blackjack applications. And, I'm a BJ app author.:)Objective3000 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Vingt-et-un

There are no sources to indicate that this name is used in the English speaking world. If readers want to know what this game is called in other languages, they can use Wictionary or check out the "other languages" section of this article. Unless someone can turn up sources indicating that Vingt-et-un is an alternative name used by English speakers, then I propose removing references to it. Rklawton (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Variations" and "...effects on the house"

These two sections should be merged as "effects" is simply a subset of "variations". Rklawton (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

DianneSteele Edits

Dianne, this is my understanding. Correct me where I am wrong. Les Golden wishes to publish a book on Blackjack. But, he is not known in the field. You are a PR person working with Golden. You have advised him that Wikipedia is a good place to become known, so that he can point the publishers to WP to prove he is known in the field. To that end, you have spent the last month adding new pages and references to Golden throughout the encyclopedia starting with a new page on him.

I am afraid that you have this backwards. You do not use an encyclopedia to become notable. You are added to an encyclopedia BECAUSE you are notable. Your over 100 edits are specifically not allowed. See WP:SPAM, with particular attention to the statement that Wikispam is “adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced.”

Your failure to discuss is not helping matters. Please find a different venue for promoting your client.Objective3000 (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The book isn't already published (or it's self published)? If so, then remove all references to it, and immediately block the editor indefinitely if she persists. Rklawton (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not published. Refs are not to the book, but to articles he is written to entice a publisher to publish a book by him. She has made 146 edits, all to promote this person. I am not an admin.Objective3000 (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, this has now gone way too far. I have received a phone call from the person being promoted. I found this quite unnerving. Someone else should handle her continuing edits.Objective3000 (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly support getting an admin involved. I don't know the situation first hand but if things are as Objective says then this is clearly an abuse. Zargulon (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

DianneSteele was found to be one of twelve socks of Drlesmgolden and the accounts have been blocked.Objective3000 (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If further admin action is required, please don't hesitate to ask me. I have no objection to blocking spammers or PR people who have been duly advised - as in the present case. Rklawton (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Card Counting

The subject of card counting is not covered in the blackjack article. I would like to add a section introducing the subject, and will remain general (not favoring any individual system).

Has this been done in the past and removed, or would it be welcome?

Mbbradford 20:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an article on Card counting, but yes, the subject should be included here, but with a link to the main article. You might also do some editing over at the main article, because it still needs some cleaning up. Rray 22:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference to card counting in the rules section seems flawed. The page says "although this reduced payout has generally been restricted to single-deck games where card counting would otherwise be a viable strategy, the move was decried by longtime blackjack players." The trouble is that card counting doesn't work in single-deck games, because the deck is shuffled after each hand in single-deck games. -DelRayVA 2 January 2007

Point of fact: There are indeed single deck blackjack games to be found that are not shuffled after every round. However, the true trouble with most card counting systems is that they did not and could not take into account the players' facedown cards at single and double deck games, the most winnable and desirable games, because they had not devised a method to account for those cards. So any claim of accuracy falls by the wayside. John Winston (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

First, counting by inference has been around for decades. Secondly, the fact that the cards are face down does indeed reduce the gain. But all counting systems are approximations and the accuracy hit is more than acceptable. Objective3000 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest players re-read Bringing Down The House by Ben Mezrich in which Jeffrey Ma (an MIT team player who provided much if not all of the material for that book) spoke of how ineffective the Hi-Lo card counting system the MIT teams used was. In fact, he said, the small 2 per cent advantage it gave them was so low that, according to him, they had to make huge and risky bets and bring huge sums to the table (each player, if my memory is correct, was given $150,000 per session) in order to profit from that low edge. I would suggest that Jeffrey Ma is one of today's best players and knows what he's saying. He clearly said the "advantage" Hi-Lo gave the MIT teams was not acceptable. He certainly couldn't have afforded to play that way without outside money. Anyone who's tried card counting knows this is true. Card counting is fuzzy math. Richard Harvey has some good examples of this on his blog at http://blackjacktoday.com/blackjackblog.htm. I don't know if I read it there or elsewhere, but he used the example once of how, if four Aces and four 2s were dealt, the Hi-Lo (and many other card counting systems) would say the count is zero. Zero is supposed to mean the cards are balanced or neutral. But, as you can see, they're not close to being balanced or neutral. No other cards were dealt but Aces and 2s. The undealt cards are heavy in 10s, among other things, an important fact that card counting cannot expose. Card counting is not the answer to dealing with the card fluctuations or imbalances Thorp and others admitted make basic strategy highly ineffective. John Winston (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I know most of the top MIT players (had drinks with one last night) and they would in no way agree with the nonsense on Harvey's website. Objective3000 (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The advantage from card counting IS small, but that doesn't mean it does not work. There is currently a documentary playing in film festivals about a card counting team that I helped run where we won over $3 Million dollars in 4 years from card counting. It definitely wasn't fuzzy math or luck. We've also trained dozens of others through on how to effectively count cards. I've become friends with the MIT guys, Tommy Hyland, and many other professional card counters, and can verify that it is not "fuzzy math." It's all math, but with the slim margins, you need to follow it perfectly. And to make much money, you need to be properly funded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinbradleyjones (talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

NW

Why is NW being pushed so hard on this page and who is he that he deserves to have such a large number of references, external links on this page and card counting page? i see qfit.com blackjackincolor.com (both from this NW fellow, who is not notable enough to have his on Wikipedia page) and wizzardofodds.com everywhere, and a huge warning not to add any other external links. I think since we have so many excellent books by blackjack hall of fame legends, there is no need to keep citing these same 3 websites. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have a specific problem with a citation, then say so. I don’t see any reason for what appears to be a general attack. (I will assume it is a coincidence that I !voted delete on an AfD that ended with delete yesterday, for a BLP page of someone that used a dozen socks, including one to attack me on two pages in the exact manner of your attack. I fully expected to be attacked this week as a result of this AfD.) But in response:

• Links to sites of mine that are in external links were NOT added by me.
• I have added cites to sites of mine when citations have been requested and I could find no other sources.
• I have added cites to other sites and books, including to books by people I don’t like. And I have removed cites to my pages that I thought inappropriate. In fact, just recently I removed a link to a site that sells my software as it was inappropriate.
• I !voted against a suggestion to mention BJ software, which would have benefited me.
• The reason so many cites are to sites of mine, is that I have the oldest BJ site on the web, and by far the largest, including a free 560 page book on the subject. Altogether, I have put about 80,000 pages of Blackjack tables, charts, calculators, studies and instructions on the web, without all those blinking online gambling ads you see everywhere else. Fact is, I am the only online source for some of the cited info, and only source period for some info.
• It is no surprise that wizzardofodds.com also has many cites as it is an excellent, very large, source of free gambling info. This is not one of my sites.
• ALL WP links are No Follow and do not give you search engine points – this is commonly not understood by those trying to put links to gambling portals.
• If someone adds a page with my name to WP, I will nominate it for deletion and !vote delete. I have no desire to be in WP.
• I would appreciate it if you did not use my real name and believe this is inappropriate, as I received a disturbing phone call from the editor that just lost the AfD. (See above section.) Please remove the name and substitute with site names. I would also ask if you have been contacted by Les Golden, who was caught canvassing during the AfD and is known to react extremely badly when things don’t go his way, as per his reaction after his trial. Although I assume good faith, the fact that I was attacked in the EXACT manner that I expected, one day after an AfD close, is worrying.Objective3000 (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I was already investigated earlier this month by a handful of people and was officially declared a real human who don't wear socks. Pure coincidence on my part to get to this page since I just watched a blackjack documentary on card counting and decided to take a peak whats been going on here since I last edited these parts 9 months ago. Dunno much about goldberg or NW. I do know tho, that bonafide blackjack hall of famers have books out that are ignored (for whatever reason) and there is a heavy push for a small number of websites.

I have no issues with wizardofodds, since i see him quoted in relation to gambling statistics often, yet he is not a blackjack guru, and i fail to see why a large number of references for card counting refer to his website.

No Follow links are still followed by google spiders as has been conclusively proven repeatedly by searchenginewatch.com in a number of experiments, and thats besides the point. My issue is with excessive use of the same domains over and over, when they are not authority on the subject when compared to the books listed in the bibliography section.

I am sorry I just read what you wrote in the beginning. maybe you should disclose somewhere what sites you own. because if its those two domains I listed above that have 30% of links pointing to them, yet you revert all others from adding links, it looks like a conflict of interest.

I will take it in good faith, but you must admit that to balance the article out, especially one with hundreds of primary and secondary sources, there simply is no need to rely on a handful of sources. I would like to use books and academic articles from a variety of notable, verifiable sources. Cheers! Meishern (talk)

A few points:

• You have mentioned the BJHOF now three times. Realize that it is just a gimmick created by three guys to promote themselves. They selected all the members at once, then have a party and add one or more of the pre-selected names a year. But, the list is just their names, their friends and some now deceased experts to make it look legit. The BJHOF is not a reliable resource and the page should have been AfD’d long ago.
• I did identify myself on my user page. I removed the id after the disturbing phone call.
• There is NO heavy push, or any push at all, for a small number of websites. That is simply untrue. It is a simple fact that the majority of what has been published on the subject on the Web was published by me and you will find that I had substantially more detail than other sources. Books are good, but most of the books in the biblio are dated, research has since taken place, and books are not as convenient. Which is why Wikipedia is not a book.
• It is simply false that I revert all other links. The gambling pages have a storm of links added to horrible, useless gambling portals promising you riches. So, there is far more addition and deletion of links. And, in fact, the last link I deleted was to a site that promotes my software.
• The “wizard” is foremost in the field in evaluating new rules and side bets. Again, books cannot keep up with this field. Hence the use of sites.

Sorry, but you seem to have popped into this page and made a lot of assumptions, among them that all the other editors on this page are either incompetent or act in bad faith. Please assume good faith. And if you are going to start making wholesale changes to cites that have been accepted for years, please look for consensus first. Regards,Objective3000 (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether the hall of fame is made up or not, there are certain authority figures that are accepted as notable individuals when it comes to blackjack. I have no problems with multiple citations on the same concept from different sources. Rather than removing links, I think adding and building on them from other published works (not website based) currently in the Blackjack Literature - Rose, Snyder, Wong, Uston + others. I have no issues with the current citations being left alone as long as we can add citations from books, law library links, etc. As I go through, i dont want to fix what isn't broken, introduce questionable links or remove citations. If there is a disagreement I rather quickly settle it on talk page. I will wait a few weeks anyway for this section to cool off a bit. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Most articles can use additional cites. Of the people you mentioned, Rose is the most topical. I publish his articles on my blog, with his permission of course. (No, I won’t give the link here or add to WP.) I think that you will find that the sources you believe are “current” are generally well behind the times. (Like the rather poor biblio in this article.) A great deal of research has taken place in the last three decades and there exist far better resources. If you have never heard my name, you might want to catch up on your reading as I’m mentioned in 23 books on the subject (as well as the only real magazine that mentioned the BJHOF). (And I still don’t claim “notability,” and as you have seen, I don’t want my name here. Just saying that you might be a bit behind on a fast-moving subject.) Basically, if you read the old books, you cannot make it with today’s rules and circumstances. regards, Objective3000 (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I have updated disclosure on my talk page. I write news articles on intentional gambling laws, as well as sports betting, casino games (traditional, online and mobile) including blackjack for salary. I have no equity in the blogs I write for and do Wikipedia editing on my own time. This is why I want to limit myself to using only books and notable academic sources since there is a conflict of interest on my part as well. Wikipedia is a hobby for me and I want to make this article more professional, well rounded - GA level article. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI was cleverly written to avoid excluding anyone that has expertise in a subject.:) Speaking of Prof. Rose, hall of fames and academic sources -- by sheer coincidence, I’m on Rose’s mailing list and received an e-mail this morn. He’ll be at the Gaming Hall of Fame dinner Tuesday, where Bill Eadington will be inducted. Eadington is an economics prof and has long studied the gaming industry. He also co-edited Optimal Play: Mathematical Studies of Games and Gambling with Stewart Ethier, Math head at Univ of Utah and probably the best probability expert in the country. I don’t think you’ll find them mentioned on any gambling-related sites (outside of mine) as pure academics are generally given short shrift in gambling discussions.Objective3000 (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Will look for that book, thanks. I respect Prof. Rose and enjoy reading him. Its not often that a serious academic is capable of expressing complex ideas in a way that's understandable and interesting to both professionals and the general public. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Les Golden

If there's anything in here by Les Golden - remove it. He doesn't have the sort of expertise we'd like to see in an encyclopedia, and for awhile he was using this article to promote himself. His own self-created article just got AfD'd. Rklawton (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the refs to Les Golden when they were added. That's when I got the disturbing phone call, and the attacks like the one above. I almost added to the AfD that editors that took part should look out for retribution canvassing.Objective3000 (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh, looks like i walked into some kind of a war here. But if u check your history Objective3000, u will see that we already spoke about references 8-9 months ago. I dunno LG or RW, nor really care about your war. However I will start adding proper primary/secondary sources to bring these few articles to academic standard. Since I dunno who is who or what is what, i took out all names from above to be on the safe side. I got death threats myself in the past, over my editing, so I am aware it is not a comfortable experience. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we did discuss refs early in the year. The site you cited contained too much misinformation and the consensus went against the ref. The problem we have with the gambling pages is that there is probably more misinformation and just plain fluff on the web about gambling than any subject except politics. Partly because there are so many gamblers, but mostly because there are tens of thousands of casino affiliate sites and gambling scam sites trying to make easy money. The other problem is that everyone that has read a book on card counting (or just flipped through one) seems to think he is a BJ expert, not realizing how much the advantage play field has expanded in the last couple decades. I am not talking about you. Just realize that there are a lot of folks that edit something based on a movie or documentary they saw, or something a friend said, and as a result the gambling pages tend to require a lot of reverts. Just the nature of the subject. Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow that is intense, chill out poeple.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Room for Improvement

While this is a well written article there are a few things I believe can be improved. I know it's easier to complain than to correct but I lack confidence in my editing skills.

-Pictures: This is a minor gripe, but this article is centered on casino blackjack and neither picture shows an accurate example of cards laid out in casino fashion. The top picture shows a blackjack spread behind the bet. If this is a handheld game the cards should be in front of the bet, if not spread correctly. The second picture is the worst layout I've ever seen. Cards are always laid out in a staggered fashion so that the center pip of the card and both indices (the corner numbers) are fully visible. In that second picture the 5 of hearts would not be readable by most casino cameras or a floorperson at an average distance since the center pip is not visible.

-"Rules of Play at Casinos": "The players' initial cards may be dealt face-up, or face-down (more common in single-deck games)." This is more common in handheld/pitch games, not just single-deck.

-"Player Decisions": "signal: (handheld) Scrape cards against table. (face up) Tap the table or wave hand toward body" A tap is not an acceptable hit signal at any casino I've ever been to due to the possibility of misconstruing an idle gesture by the player. Nor is a general hand wave toward the body. The correct signal is a scratch of the hand/fingers along the felt away from the bet.

In the UK, a tap or double tap is widely accepted as a valid method to request another card. I have seen some players use the wave described but it is rare and almost always results in the dealer initiating a verbal confirmation. Never really noticed any felt scratching but now that you've mentioned it I shall feel compelled to look out for it. Alan LeHun (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

-"Player Decisions": "doubles: signal: Place additional chips beside the original bet, and point with one finger." There is no common hand signal for doubling a bet. In ambiguous cases such as a pair of fours or fives the dealer will ask the player "one card?" in addition to putting one finger up. This proves to surveillance that the dealer clarified the player's intent. There is also no common split signal. The above ambiguous cases are already covered by the dealer's verbal confirmation plus the dealer's hand motion. In non-ambiguous cases where the player later decides to claim he did not intend to split his cards it will be pointed out that he had plenty of time to object when the dealer set up his cards and his bet for the split.

-"Card Counting": "or by using a shuffling machine to reintroduce the exhausted cards every time a deck has been played." Another minor gripe, but this should read "CONTINUOUS shuffling machine" as they are very different than traditional shufflers. AddBlue (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Do go ahead and edit. Worst comes to worst we will have a friendly discussion here. I am not an expert, particularly not on the operations side, but your points all sound reasonable to me. Zargulon (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The way to gain confidence in your editing skills is to edit. :) Be bold. Rray (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not enough to be an expert. Wikipedia has no way to determine which of its editors are experts. Thus, it would be most helpful to all if you edit AND provide reliable sources that back up your edits. Rklawton (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hands face up

"Wave hand horizontally (face up)" is clearly referring to the body part, and not a 'hand' of cards. The first part of the line says "slide cards under chips (handheld)", this is what you do when you have a 'hand' of cards. One's hands do not have faces, therefore i am changing it from 'face up' to 'palm up'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.39.238 (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no palm-up hand gesture in blackjack. [2]. Handheld signals[3] Rklawton (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

An IP just capitalized all uses of twenty-one and suggested the same for Blackjack. This must have been discussed before; but I can't find it. Personally, I cap Blackjack. But, I don't believe this is correct. As far as I can see, games are not capitalized unless trademarked. For example, football is not capped. The Wiki style guide doesn't appear to call for caps for names of games.Objective3000 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Feedback for you reverting

@Objective3000, would you please explain the need to "Rvt three good faith edits by 98.66.239.114. U.S. centric, English errors, some inaccuracies. The original text was better."

What part of the diction was U.S. centric? What were the English errors? What were the inaccuracies? What consensus determined that "The original text was better"? I would appreciate your feedback that addresses the above. 74.190.2.185 (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. But, there were some problems:

• The original text describes international standards of multiple players betting in one box, and then provides the exception in U.S. casinos. Your rewrite reverses this, stating that playing in multiple boxes is unusual. That is, it is U.S. centric.
• The original text states that in the U.S. many casinos only allow someone to play two or three spots. You changed this to an absolute. Actually, even the original text is too strong. But, there is no absolute rule in most casinos.
• Your statement that the only bet changes are DD and split. This is too strong. Insurance, side bets, surrender, and other variations exist.
• You repeated the dealing procedure in two paragraphs.
• In the second explanation, you only allowed for face-up dealing.
• Starter is not a common term.
• The ref you added for hole-carding is incorrect. Hole-carding is a separate subject relating to players gaining info about a face-down hole-card.
• You state that in all cases a dealer will have one card up and one down and then wait for a new paragraph to contradict this for European casinos. This is a U.S. rule and is very rare outside the U.S. The exception belongs in the same paragraph, as it was in the original text.
• The hole-card is only typically considered a ten by very poor players.

Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. Zargulon (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

ties pay the dealer

Rather than calling this rule "catastrophic to the player," the article should give the house odds under this condition. Dynzmoar (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You have a point. But, as unencyclopedic as it may sound, catastrophic is a fair description.:) You are welcome to change it. But, I'm fairly sure this has been discussed here in the past.Objective3000 (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Playing behind war..

My opinion on how playing behind should be described is that it really deserves a 2 or 3 sentence paragraph of its own. Players playing behind aren't, to my mind, really playing blackjack but instead are gambling upon the outcome of someone else's game. The original wording that stood for so long was confusing and inappropriate to my mind and although the latest text is an improvement, any mention of the number of players that can play, can only serve to complicate the text.

Why not add something like..

"In many casino's it is allowed to 'play behind' a player who has control of a box. That is, they can place a bet behind a player that pays out upon the outcome of that players hand, but they have no say in the playing of that hand other than they can refuse to double or split their bet if the controlling player should choose to do so. Most casino's do not allow more than 2 people to play behind in each box."

..as the next paragraph. I'm sure this would make the section much more readable and a lot easier to understand although it may need to be expanded to explain how splits are refused.

Hope this little contribution doesn't make things worse. :)

Alan LeHun (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. The wording is certainly awkward.Objective3000 (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Poor Charlie's being ignored?

I read a lot of this article, and it's good - but I couldn't seem to find much on the "odds" or probabilites of hands, apart from the bit "...the dealer's second card has a fairly high probability (nearly one-third) to be ten-valued". To be honest I was searching for the odds of a 5,6 card "charlie" and was surprised it wasn't on Wikipedia, I had to go and start looking on other sites :-) I guess I could type something myself but I'm no expert - Regards 88.104.142.160 (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a vast number of blackjack variations. Far too many for an encyclopedia article. You can find 123 variations here. There are even multiple variations of five-card charlie. Objective3000 (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Video Link

@Objective3000: The video doesn't contain misinformation. It shows how to play. Just watch it for yourself and you'll see. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Paging User:Objective3000, who wrote the book on blackjack. What does the video get wrong? Blackguard 07:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I see, even if the video is perfectly accurate, it doesn't meet any of the WP:EL guidelines for inclusion. It pretty much duplicates information in the article, and doesn't offer anything that can't be found in 10,000 other blackjack tutorials. Toohool (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Complete rules

NY Gaming control board's details rules of how to play and procedures. I intenteded to put this but someone posted a template expressly advising not to post any more links. So where the one I suggested fall in? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It's page 501, but there has to be a way to automatically jump to the page. The Gaming control board PDF has detailed board-game style instructions for each casino game. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that this would add any value to the article. The article already explains the rules of blackjack in detail, and the particularities of how the game is played at casino night fundraisers in New York don't seem to be of particular importance. Toohool (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. These rules are very specific to charity games in one state in one country and apply to a tiny fraction of a percent of bj games. Objective3000 (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

DMOZ?

• Would adding this General rules This link be okay? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Not at all a good article. Objective3000 (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• What makes DMOZ a reliable source? It sort of works like craigslist (when you enter DMOZ.com), DMOZ returns a list of links about blackjack. DMOZ redirects the reader to a search engine and list of links as opposed to another blackjack site the confers with the content in the article. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

DMOZ isn't a particularly good source these days. Objective3000 (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Is there an official source we can use as opposed to DMOZ? (as a FIDE link for a Chess article?) VegasCasinoKid (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no "official" source. I have a free 540 page book at http://www.qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage-10.htm which is the most complete explanation of the game. But, I'm not adding a link to it. The reason that the warning (that you deleted) about adding links was there is because the gambling articles are constantly edited to include spam links. Objective3000 (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

While most links are good, "spamming" the article with useless data isn't, so I agree. Links should be kept to a minimum. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I put up a clarified sign in regards to spam. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)