Hi
I recently played some blackjack in Estonia, and in the casinos in Tallinn they practiced the rule European No Hole Card (ENHC). I played all my hands alone at the table. Just the dealer and me. The thing is that I feel that ENHC gave me a huge advantage. After the dealer has dealt two face up cards for me and one face down card for the dealer I am to act. I can decide to hit, but if I don't hit, the card I would have hit, will be dealt to the dealer. So I get to choose if I want the card or if the dealer will have the card. This must give me a huge advantage, or? You say that the strategy should not change playing ENHC, but I do not understand that.
Let's say that I have hard 14 after my first two cards and the dealer has 7. Normal strategy dictates that I should hit. Let's look closer at this scenario. I assume, for simplicity, that the second card from the top of the deck is a 10.
I have made a table of this scenario:
First card hit Second card hit My total after one card My total after two cards
Ace 10 15 Bust
2 10 16 Bust
3 10 17 17
4 10 18 18
5 10 19 19
6 10 20 20
7 10 21 21
8 10 Bust Bust
9 10 Bust Bust
10 10 Bust Bust
So if I follow the normal strategy, I will bust quite often.
Let's see what happens if I don't hit, but let the dealer have a go at the next two cards:
First card hit Second card hit Dealer total after one card Dealer total after two cards
Ace 10 18 18
2 10 9 19
3 10 10 20
4 10 11 21
5 10 12 Bust
6 10 13 Bust
7 10 14 Bust
8 10 15 Bust
9 10 16 Bust
10 10 17 17
I would say that this looks much better for me as a player.
Let's look at one case in particular. Let's say the next card is a 7, which will give me 21, the best hand I can get. But if I do not hit, and the dealer gets the 7 instead, the dealer will have 14, and will be forced to hit again, and he will most likely bust, and I win anyway. Almost every card that is good for me (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) when I start with 14 I just as well can let the dealer hit in the scenario above, since the dealer will have to hit a second card that most likely will cause him to bust.
So why risk hitting in this scenario. If the first card I hit is a 10 (which is most likely) I am screwed anyway.
I played this scenario (or similar once) time and time again when I was in Tallinn, and the bank busted time and time again. I doubled my money several times during my visit
So you get this advantage when you play alone or if you are the player sitting next to the dealer on the dealers right hand side.
So my point is; if you get to choose if you or the dealer gets the next card, even if you of course don't know what the card is, you will have an atvantage as opposed to american rules where the dealer already has a hole card.
Did I manage to get my point across?
Hope some of you have some comments regarding this.
I hope you can read them anyway.
I recently played some blackjack in Estonia, and in the casinos in Tallinn they practiced the rule European No Hole Card (ENHC). I played all my hands alone at the table. Just the dealer and me. The thing is that I feel that ENHC gave me a huge advantage. After the dealer has dealt two face up cards for me and one face down card for the dealer I am to act. I can decide to hit, but if I don't hit, the card I would have hit, will be dealt to the dealer. So I get to choose if I want the card or if the dealer will have the card. This must give me a huge advantage, or? You say that the strategy should not change playing ENHC, but I do not understand that.
Let's say that I have hard 14 after my first two cards and the dealer has 7. Normal strategy dictates that I should hit. Let's look closer at this scenario. I assume, for simplicity, that the second card from the top of the deck is a 10.
I have made a table of this scenario:
First card hit Second card hit My total after one card My total after two cards
Ace 10 15 Bust
2 10 16 Bust
3 10 17 17
4 10 18 18
5 10 19 19
6 10 20 20
7 10 21 21
8 10 Bust Bust
9 10 Bust Bust
10 10 Bust Bust
So if I follow the normal strategy, I will bust quite often.
Let's see what happens if I don't hit, but let the dealer have a go at the next two cards:
First card hit Second card hit Dealer total after one card Dealer total after two cards
Ace 10 18 18
2 10 9 19
3 10 10 20
4 10 11 21
5 10 12 Bust
6 10 13 Bust
7 10 14 Bust
8 10 15 Bust
9 10 16 Bust
10 10 17 17
I would say that this looks much better for me as a player.
Let's look at one case in particular. Let's say the next card is a 7, which will give me 21, the best hand I can get. But if I do not hit, and the dealer gets the 7 instead, the dealer will have 14, and will be forced to hit again, and he will most likely bust, and I win anyway. Almost every card that is good for me (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) when I start with 14 I just as well can let the dealer hit in the scenario above, since the dealer will have to hit a second card that most likely will cause him to bust.
So why risk hitting in this scenario. If the first card I hit is a 10 (which is most likely) I am screwed anyway.
I played this scenario (or similar once) time and time again when I was in Tallinn, and the bank busted time and time again. I doubled my money several times during my visit
So you get this advantage when you play alone or if you are the player sitting next to the dealer on the dealers right hand side.
So my point is; if you get to choose if you or the dealer gets the next card, even if you of course don't know what the card is, you will have an atvantage as opposed to american rules where the dealer already has a hole card.
Did I manage to get my point across?
Hope some of you have some comments regarding this.
I hope you can read them anyway.