Blackjack exposed, A game strictly for suckers?

Now I realize I am playing the devil's advocate, where this is a message board posted for those players who would beat the casino, but this idea has been rumnating in my mind and I just had to get it down before I went mad, if I am not so already.

This is one of those questions preferentially for the experts, but may be useful for you who wish to boggle your minds. If you come up with the answer, I would have no problem if you steal my idea because I would much rather beat a game created by the casinos than create one for money myself.

I probably got this notion two ways, first from the fact that I am obsessed to know every card in the deck in their exact sequence so I would in effect know the outcome of every round dealt before the cards even came out (cheating), and two from the belief stated by an author I have read asserting that most players would probably still lose even if they did know the composition of all the cards in the deck to be played with extreme accuracy.

But I digress and here is my game. I guess I would call it all exposure Blackjack in that all the cards would be dealt face up including both of the dealers along with the players. So what you say,
but here's the real kicker, the cards in the shoe are also face up and the top card essentially the next card to be drawn would be exposed. Now the only unpredictability I can see is the cards in the shoe behind the top one exposed would impose, but of course they will each be seen in their own right one at a time as the top card is drawn

The table would maybe need to change its rules a little to accomodate this change, which of course gives the player a huge advantage, but my question is how much of an advantage would the house have in this situation? With sufficient amendations would it be enough to sell this gimmick, for as we all know the reason the tables do so well is because players are foolish in their actions, but still believe the game can be beat, which of course lures more players to lose their money.

I had responded to your post. The next time I logged in, your post was gone and mine appeared to be orphaned at the top of the page. I assumed you had removed your post, so I deleted mine. Now your post is back. Strange.

The gist of my response was that it isn't likely to see the casinos offer such a game. They have offered double exposure games in the past, with a house advantage of about 0.2% for the common rules in such games, such as even money payouts on blackjacks. To make the game you describe profitable, it would seem to me that the casino would have to pay even money on naturals, win all ties, and limit the number of cards a player could draw. I don't see such a game being very well-liked by the players.

I had read your response when promptly posted,while mine was still at the top of the page. But as I was ready to shut down and go to sleep,
I had this queer experience. I had viewed that only about ten or so people had read my article and being the perfectionist that I am, I was dissatisfied with the work therin and decided to delete it as you had assumed. I later reposted it slightly changed to meet my high standards of requisite excellence. In haste I copied my previous post with what I believed to be the proper modifications and quickly reposted at the top before anyone else could view my previously crude work.

But as to the matter of the chance of the game being offered by a casino, I would probably agree with you except for the fact, that I would not dismiss it so quickly as certain aspects would need to be looked into more carefully. For one example is that if the rules for double exposure (which I do not really know anything about but what you mention above) were held as they were, but the players would know the denomination of the card coming out of the shoe was in advance to taking a draw, I believe it would attract more players strictly on the basis of more knowledge and predictability of their own cards and hand possibilities, not to mention the dealers chances. Okay given the statistics on dealer bust probability which I believe is about what 26 per cent the house may still have a decent chance. Here's how
the player would still play his hand first opting either to draw the exposed card, or stand thus defering to either another player or the dealer himself. But given a situation such as the let's say I don't know maybe 12 vs. dealer 2,6 while the top card to be drawn is a 5, the player will likely opt to draw to give him 17 without knowing the following card which let's say is a ten. Now for him to hit would have him bust while if he doesn't the dealer would then take the card giving him an 18 beating his hand. It is things like these which I believe would need to be analysed more to make an accurate judgement of such a game.

Understand that personally I would not like to play such a game myself
as it would take away all the fun and excitement from the game but aren't there other people who would play this game for other more economic purposes along with the somewhat falsely advertised advantage if none truly exists? That is why I call it Blackjack exposed a game strictly for suckers.

Professional Blackjack. You mentioned that you have Wong's book. It has a chapter on double exposure games that might be of interest to you.

Alright, I will look at double exposure blackjack games in Mr. Wong's
"Professional Blackjack", if you in return promise me to further look into my all exposure game as previously presented. The reason I ask this is because I both value and highly respect your opinions as the sayings of someone wiser than myself, and simply would like more information or evidence to refute the possibility of such a game to be offered by the casinos.

Who knows, perhaps in the future we may see such games, and laugh at the people who play a game called Blackjack exposed: a game strictly for suckers.

P.S. Fortunately for us we would be shrewd and know better.

While I appreciate your respect, I would prefer not to spend a lot of time analyzing a game that does not exist. Casinos are always looking for new table games, partly in the hopes of finally landing on one that would replace blackjack. I don't see a "full-exposure" game being accepted by the public based on the premise that if its too good to be true, then it probably isn't. Even ploppies know this dictum. They might not know exactly what the catch would be in such a game, but they would know absolutely that it existed. This is probably why double exposure games have never really caught on in the past.

As for whether or not you choose to study Wong's Professional Blackjack in more detail, that is your personal choice. I cannot think of one serious student of the game who has left that text to lie fallow on his shelves.

Hope you and yours are well.

Hey fellas: I appreciate that you can both write at a college level, but I read message boards to relax, not to actually have to think to make sure I'm following the conversation! ;)

..you refrain reading Boot's posts, if it detracts from your enjoyement.

The LAST thing he should do is dumb it down.

Here's a real simple answer to your query. Take a deck of cards and deal a regular BJ hand to yourself and to the "dealer". Now look at the hit card before deciding whether you want it or want to stand. Forget all about basic strategy for hitting and standing decisions. Decide only to hit if it improves your hand without busting. You"ll be amazed how fast you double your bankroll. That's why Bootlegger
indicated rules modifications. Even the most novice player could make
tons of money and why you'll never see this game actually played.