I thought of a new casino table game that I think would be a smash hit.

[CHOPTALK]

I would call it 22 instead of blackjack 21.

The strategy would basically be the same as 21 except 22 would be the new blackjack.

You would have to get AA for a blackjack.

BJ would pay something like 10 to 1 instead of 6 to 5 or 2 to 1.

The dealer would have to stand on 18 instead of 17.

You would bust on 23 instead of 22.

ACE would no longer be soft.

I think this game would be a hit.

 

[Murphy8276]

player AA vs dealer AA progressive jackpot would climb pretty high.

-murph

 

[CHOPTALK]

player AA vs dealer AA progressive jackpot would climb pretty high.

-murph

Great idea.

 

[RoofTop]

I always thought roulette would be more fun if you played with 2 balls instead of one

 

[CHOPTALK]

player AA vs dealer AA progressive jackpot would climb pretty high.

-murph

Especially if its 1 deck.

 

[MotorCityMadman]

I would call it 22 instead of blackjack 21.

The strategy would basically be the same as 21 except 22 would be the new blackjack.

You would have to get AA for a blackjack.





BJ would pay something like 10 to 1 instead of 6 to 5 or 2 to 1.

The dealer would have to stand on 18 instead of 17.

You would bust on 23 instead of 22.

ACE would no longer be soft.

I think this game would be a hit.

Did you figure out the HA ? I wouldn't even know where to start.

 

[packer2012]

I always thought roulette would be more fun if you played with 2 balls instead of one

That's what SHE said!

 

[CHOPTALK]

Did you figure out the HA ? I wouldn't even know where to start.

No I have not. But all you have to do is take the structure of the game which I came up with then you adjust the odds to equal any % HA you want.

 

[packer2012]

Interesting post. Casinos should consider something like this. Because......

Casinos might go for this Chop!

No doubt they would really like to reduce ALL BJ table into firewood and burn them. They have to pay employees and show some attention to BJ pits because players will win periodically on that game. Obviously casino execs would love to fill this floor space with slots and brutalize the masses of crippled up blue-hairs that they have no gotten around to yet.

Call it a new name, change the rules, screw the clients, and most of the payers won't even know the difference anyway.

 

[TheComputerGroup]

I always thought roulette would be more fun if you played with 2 balls instead of one

I like this idea......what would the odds be on the payout of the straight up wagers on the numbers?

Same payout of 35-1? Also, I hate the double zeros........what happens if both balls land on the same number? (That doesn't sound right)

If 2 wheels are in place, it can still bring up the same number but I would think the payout would double to 70-1 if the same number is landed on

 

[packer2012]

If you don't like the Double Zero.... then don't play the damn thing.

And..... I don't believe they EVER touch this game. They have it set-up perfectly to fleece brain-dead morons. Why would they change anything to confuse the issue? It is the game most in their advantage besides keno. I don't even know what level of ignorance to assign to keno players. (off the charts)

 

[shdw01]

Two wheels or one, to hit both balls would pay way more than 70-1 (hahaha...sounds painful)

 

[shdw01]

I havent played but dont they already have versions of blackjack where dealer 22 is a push? I wonder how often that happens?

I wouldnt like the game....20s already make me feel uneasy watching the dealer hit....with more room for them to win id have ulcers

 

[SECplayer]

I think casinos would love this game. As already mentioned, they hate the 2/1 blackjack more and more now so this all but eliminates it. Yet still gives the player the idea that he could hit the new version of "blackjack" (AA). Then the casinos could advertise the big payout for hitting the AA "blackjack" even though the odds are really low. Pay it out at 10/1 or whatever is necessary to make it profitable.

I'm guessing the dealer busts ratio wouldn't change that much if they are now hitting on 17 instead of 16 but gives the casino that little more edge of beating a player's 20.

Only thing I didn't like is that I would still allow a soft ace too.

 

[SECplayer]

I havent played but dont they already have versions of blackjack where dealer 22 is a push? I wonder how often that happens?

I wouldnt like the game....20s already make me feel uneasy watching the dealer hit....with more room for them to win id have ulcers

I think that might be "face up" blackjack. All cards including both dealer cards are dealt face up. Only played this like once so can't remember 100%.

I think a push might even lose???

 

[Mr_Mark]

reminds me of 7min abs from Something About Mary

 

[Mr_Mark]

 

[dirtymoose]

Step into my office.....

 

[TheComputerGroup]

You're fired!

 

[CHOPTALK]

I think casinos would love this game. As already mentioned, they hate the 2/1 blackjack more and more now so this all but eliminates it. Yet still gives the player the idea that he could hit the new version of "blackjack" (AA). Then the casinos could advertise the big payout for hitting the AA "blackjack" even though the odds are really low. Pay it out at 10/1 or whatever is necessary to make it profitable.

I'm guessing the dealer busts ratio wouldn't change that much if they are now hitting on 17 instead of 16 but gives the casino that little more edge of beating a player's 20.

Only thing I didn't like is that I would still allow a soft ace too.

You could play around with the soft ace vs not soft ace. The is plenty of room with this structure to adjust the odds for the house to build in the exact advantage they need to make the game profitable.

I think it would be a hit with the players because this game would make a bj a lot more special.
A 10 bet would payout 100 instead of 15