Question regarding a strange surrender rule...

[StudiodeKadent]

Wow, I can't believe this forum came back. Excellent.

Anyway, a while ago Crown Melbourne was offering an high-limit blackjack game which offered a strange kind of surrender rule (called "Vegas Blackjack"). This surrender rule operated as follows:

1. The dealer doesn't take a hole card, and in the event of a dealer blackjack the player only loses their original bet.
2. If the player elects to surrender (which can only be done on the first two cards), the dealer places a marker on top of the player's cards, and then proceeds to the next step of the game.
3. The player receives half of their initial wager back, but ONLY if the dealer doesn't get Blackjack.

This sounds a lot like Late Surrender. However I don't think the effect is the same, because under US-style (dealer peeks) rules we can assume that the dealer's second card DOESN'T result in blackjack. Presumably this alters the strategy calculus, since if the dealer peeks then the decision to surrender is made by the player knowing that the dealer's second card isn't an ace or ten.

I guess we can call this practice "late surrender, done early." But I was wondering... how do you play under this surrender rule? How does it impact the house edge?

I presume it doesn't operate like standard-issue early surrender or late surrender?

Thanks again!

 

[The G Man]

This is late surrender and you should play according to it. The only difference with the US game is that you will use more cards on average cause all players will play their hands before knowing if dealer has BJ or not.

 

[StudiodeKadent]

This is late surrender and you should play according to it. The only difference with the US game is that you will use more cards on average cause all players will play their hands before knowing if dealer has BJ or not.

Thank you for responding so quickly.

To be clear, you're saying that the basic strategy charts and the like are NOT calculated under the assumption that the dealer checks early for blackjack... thus they presume the dealer's second card can also be a ten/picture/ace... and therefore there's no difference (probability-wise) made when the dealer checks? Just use Vegas-style Late Surrender strategy?

 

[JamesonDetroit]

It's late surrender functionally because you only get half your chips back after the dealer confirms they don't have a blackjack first. If the dealer finds out they have a blackjack, either by peeking in the case of a dealer taking a hole card OR after all players have taken action in the case of your game, they win and you don't actually get a surrender to begin with.

You could think of it this way: In a game where the dealer takes a hole card, with late surrender you think to yourself before the dealer peeks, "I'll surrender if the dealer doesn't have a blackjack." You're doing the same thing in your game, except you're saying it out loud to the dealer so they can put the marker on your cards instead of just saying it in your mind. The other players acting is just adding space between the time you think/say it and the dealer checking/taking their card; then the surrender actually happens (or doesn't, in the case of a dealer blackjack).

 

[DSchles]

It's late surrender functionally because you only get half your chips back after the dealer confirms they don't have a blackjack first. If the dealer finds out they have a blackjack, either by peeking in the case of a dealer taking a hole card OR after all players have taken action in the case of your game, they win and you don't actually get a surrender to begin with.

You could think of it this way: In a game where the dealer takes a hole card, with late surrender you think to yourself before the dealer peeks, "I'll surrender if the dealer doesn't have a blackjack." You're doing the same thing in your game, except you're saying it out loud to the dealer so they can put the marker on your cards instead of just saying it in your mind. The other players acting is just adding space between the time you think/say it and the dealer checking/taking their card; then the surrender actually happens (or doesn't, in the case of a dealer blackjack).

Nice explanation, and completely correct. (But, yes, as G Man mentions, it does waste cards.)

Don

 

[JamesonDetroit]

Thanks!

Yeah good call regarding additional cards used; though, I suppose there isn't a way around it in a casino that has no-hole-card since all their tables would suffer the same wasteful practice. (Or are there casinos with a mix of hole-card policies?)

 

[LC Larry]

There were some casinos, and possibly still are some, that did this same wasteful procedure for insurance. They would deal the hole card but not peek. You'd play your hand out then resolve it after.

 

[Backbayal]

This is indeed a late surrender rule, but with "no peek." The strategy engine shows less opportunity to surrender with "no peek."

 

[DSchles]

This is indeed a late surrender rule, but with "no peek." The strategy engine shows less opportunity to surrender with "no peek."

That's only because it's comparing early surrender to late surrender. Not peeking, as we have been discussing, does nothing to alter LS BS.

Don

 

[Backbayal]

re: Not peeking...does nothing to alter LS BS.
Yes I was wrong in my first entry, in that No Peek provides more opportunity to late surrender than Peek.
If dealer stands on soft 17 surrender 4 times on Peek,6 times on No Peek
If dealer hits soft 17 surrender 6 times on Peek, 8 times on No Peek.
I don,t want to explain why this is so.

 

[DSchles]

re: Not peeking...does nothing to alter LS BS. I don't want to explain why this is so.

Can we please stop this discussion. You don't want to explain why this is so because it ISN'T so. Stop the nonsense.

Don

 

[Backbayal]

Re: "it ISN'T so"
This information is from Strategy Engine Charts on this website.

 

[The G Man]

You are confusing the Peek (USA Style) and the NoPeek (European). However, what we are discussing here is the No Peek without the European style where player lose everything on a BJ.

This transforms the No Peek game we are looking at to a simple LS game.
So, go to Strategy Engine and play this game EXACTLY as a LS game.
The additionals LS (2) you saw on the No Peek game are coming from the fact that in the ENHC game, you don't split 8s vs 10 and Ace, but you LS instead.

I repeat, you should not play it as a No Peek game. This game has to be treated as a regular peek game.

 

[Backbayal]

RE: The G Man

The fog has cleared! Thank you for your elucidation.

 

[DSchles]

RE: The G Man

The fog has cleared! Thank you for your elucidation.

Just curious: what did you find that wasn't crystal clear about JamesonDetroit's explanation?

Don