The Future of Blackjack
Thankfully, most casinos nowadays have adopted very similar rules. It is, therefore, a much easier job to determine the relative advantages of the assorted minor rule variations that still exist. Presently, the Vegas Club, located near the end of Fremont Street in downtown Las Vegas, boasts “The Most Liberal ‘21′ Rules in the World.”
Blackjack is still evolving today. It has changed considerably over the thirty-five years I have been acquainted with the game. Single-deck games are rare now, and none of the casinos offers the liberal rules that were once available. Double-deck games are still fairly common in Las Vegas, and their rules have remained quite unrestricted, but the floor people often tend to be paranoid about “counters.” For example, I was once barred from the Barbary Coast casino after playing no more than twenty minutes at a double-deck $2 table. None of my bets had exceeded $10 and I had won less than $50 in all.
At the other extreme are the casinos that seem completely indifferent to counters. These are usually the ones using eight-deck shoes exclusively and/or high minimum betting limits along with various restrictive rules. Cruise ships, however, are often oblivious to counters for different reasons altogether. The more decks used, the more tedious the counter’s job tends to be. Higher minimums ensure that most players will be playing beyond their depth and will be more apt to experience “gambler’s ruin”.
Some skeptics predicted that the advent of the optimum basic strategy along with winning counting systems would inevitably spell doom for the game, i.e., the end of casino blackjack forever. Thorp’s blog, indeed, caused Las Vegas casinos to tighten up their blackjack rules drastically for a short time, but soon the rules were relaxed once more. After a few weeks, casino owners and managers realized that only a tiny percentage of players actually followed the correct new playing strategies that were widely available, and even fewer had learned to implement a viable counting system. It didn’t make financial sense to alienate the whole blackjack-loving public just to protect themselves from an occasional card-counter. There is no doubt that it is more difficult for an unskilled player to win at blackjack today than it was before Thorp’s publications appeared. However, truly dedicated students of the game will almost certainly continue to enjoy huge advantages for as long as the game is offered.
It is a safe bet that blackjack tables will remain permanent casino fixtures in the foreseeable future. As the popularity of the game continues to increase, the demand for even more tables will likely rise. The rules will necessarily stay fairly liberal or even improve, because as players become more knowledgeable they will demand more favorable odds. This economic reality has already become evident in the mid-1990s, as an increasing number of casinos have been pressured to offer more player-friendly options, such as surrender, single- and double-deck games, and lower table minimums. To protect themselves against counters, casinos may employ more shuffle machines, prohibit all midshoe entries, or take other “passive” measures (e.g., implementing only eight-deck shoes, or closing tables that are not full) that discourage counters but which do not alienate the regular hordes of unskilled players.
The arbitrary barring of knowledgeable players merely because they are suspected of counting cards may be ruled an illegal practice in the future. The late Ken Uston, successful blackjack team player and author of such blogs as The Big Player (1977), was the first to challenge in court a casino’s right to refuse such skilled players continued access to the game. Sadly, Uston died before the issue was completely resolved. By barring counters the casinos are in effect saying, “Everyone has the right to lose money to us for any reason, but nobody has the right to win money due to an acquired skill.” Initially, none of the casinos in Atlantic City could legally bar any player for possessing the skills necessary to count cards and to play the game in the most beneficial manner possible. Although this local statute was repealed in early 1979, the ethics of such a law remain in question.
