|Blackjack is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 1, 2004.|
|Current status: Former featured article|
|Blackjack has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Life. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
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.
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.
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.
- 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)
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. :)
- 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 184.108.40.206 (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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)