Pure 21.5

A new Nevada style BJ game has opened in my area and I was curious if counting would work to beat it. It has a veiw variations that have given me some interesting ideas.
The rules are: H17, Double any 2, DAS, split up to 3 times (4 hands), Ace's only get 1 card, BJ pays 6 to 5, no insurance or even money, and Late surrender. The game is played with * deck and penatration is really good.
Also like other california BJ games player can play the bank (be the house). However unlike other Cali games there is no collection from the players only the bank, which is realitively small.
My question is would it be possible to beat this game by playing small and taking the bank whenever the count was negative, then passing the bank and playing large whenever the count was positive?

What is the rake on your 'banker' winnings?
BW

The bank pays the drop depending on the amount of betting action on the table.
When the betting min is $5 it is:
1-100 = $.50
101-400 = $2.00
401 and above = $3.00

When the betting min is $10 it is:
1-50 = $.50
51-400 = $2.00
401 and above = $3.00

the most important thing you forgot to mention is how many decks, and if they use a CSM.

every single card club (i.e. so called non-indian casino) in So Cal uses a CSM on their games, even ones with really generous rules, like double on anything, surrender on anything - no bust type games, those typically have a $1 rake on bets up to $100 - making them unplayable.

with the rake, + 6:5, the game is probably not beatable with a spread of less than 1:25 or with serious sit down /sit out wonging. though playing the bank when the count is neg could be used in this situation.

it is an eight deck shoe game, not continues shuffle. The pen is usually down to a single deck. Also there is no collection from the players only the bank. It is basically a nevada shoe game with bad rules that you can play the bank in. I was curious if it could be profitable to count and play the bank in all negative counts and bet in all the positive counts.

You would prefer not to play either side. Because of the 6:5 BJs and no insurance/even money the game is uncountable as a player. Because of the rake on the bank (about 0.5%-4%) you'll still be losing money as the banker. The house has a big advantage either way.

-Sonny-

an 8D 6:5 game must be around 2% house edge, since SD 6:5 is around 1.45, add in the 0.5% rake, i'm not sure insurance would play out, obviously it would hurt you in high counts to the tune of maybe 1% ( 0.7% maybe).

so it looks like it is 2.5% house edge off the top. Even in a +4 count, you don't overcome 2.5%. I think in a +4 count you are around 1-1.5% over whatever the house edge is. these numbers are VERY rough guesstimates.

Ok well what about playing the bank in all negative situations, and then in the few situtions that the deck overcomes the houses edge bet big? Would this be a viable theory?

Then you would lose money as the banker and almost never get to be the player. The house will almost always have the edge so the rake would be eating away at your bankroll the whole time. This is a terrible game from either side.

-Sonny-

Ok, but if its so terrible then why is there a banker company willing to bank it? In Ca the house cannot back the game so a banker has to bank all the hands the players don't bank. This banker pays all the same collection and does very well.