Editor
California cardrooms’ ability to deal blackjack and other non-poker games is under threat. However, one potential outcome of this year’s drama could be the creation of a new category of games to comply with the rules.
Last year, California tribes earned the one-time right to sue the cardrooms and challenge the legality of their more casino-like offerings, including blackjack. Meanwhile, the Office of the Attorney General has proposed new rules that would ban blackjack as we know it. Those rules also lay out what changes to the game would be required for it to count as “not blackjack,” legally speaking.
Poker’s long history in California allowed cardrooms to be grandfathered in as the state shaped its contemporary gaming laws. Originally, the idea was that they would be allowed to offer poker and other player-versus-player, card-based games. Meanwhile, tribes would receive the exclusive rights to offer player-versus-house casino gaming.
Over time, however, the cardrooms have begun offering games with a more casino-like experience. To get around the player-versus-player requirement, cardrooms often hire outside companies to put players in the game and accept the dealer role. That practice is enshrined in the gaming rules as “third-party proposition player services,” or TPPPS.
Tribes are seeking to challenge the legality of those games. In the meantime, the state is looking to rein them in with new rules. One proposal would require at least two non-TPPPS players to take on the dealer role every 40 minutes. Another would ban blackjack. That game seems to be the main bone of contention for the tribes, as it’s an important draw for their casinos.
Right now, the rules are just in the public comment phase. However, let’s take a look at what would replace blackjack if they were ratified.
What ‘Blackjack’ Is and Isn’t, Under California’s Proposal
The proposed rules begin by providing a legal definition that will be familiar to anyone acquainted with the rules of standard casino blackjack. They then outlaw that game at cardrooms and provide a list of rules modifications that would not change the game enough to make it legal. For instance, it wouldn’t be sufficient to add jokers to the deck or introduce special rules that apply only to the initial deal.
Unusually, the rules go on to lay out the minimum changes that would be required to make a game that isn’t blackjack. These are:
- The game must not have “blackjack” or “21” in its name.
- The target number must not be 21.
- There must not be an equivalent to blackjack’s instant-win condition, where the player receives an Ace alongside a Ten or face card.
- The player must win ties, not the dealer.
- There must be no “busting”—the winner must be the closest to the target number, regardless of whether they have gone over or not.
Undoubtedly, casino game developers are already pondering how to design a game that meets these stipulations, is fun, and has an appropriate house edge. Those last two rules create the greatest challenge. The lack of busting will make it hard to make a game that feels much like blackjack. Meanwhile, the dealer winning ties is the primary source of the house edge in blackjack, so awarding ties to the player creates the need to find an alternative way to tilt the game in the dealer’s favor.
What Could Replace Blackjack in California?
The rules specify what the game can’t be, but when we take those things away, we have an idea of what it can be.
- The player and dealer still start with some number of cards each.
- The goal is still to get as close to a target number as possible.
- The player can choose to take as many additional cards as they like or stand.
- Some information about the dealer’s hand is available immediately, probably one or more face-up cards.
- After the player’s turn is over, the dealer follows some algorithm to take additional cards or not, and thereby arrives at their final score.
- Some combinations of starting cards might produce an instant win for the player, just not an Ace plus a Ten or a face card.
- The player wins ties.
Let’s call this hypothetical game California 30 and consider how it might work.
Imagining California 30
The most obvious alternative target number is 20. However, if face cards are still worth ten, that makes it too easy to reach the exact total, especially if the player wins ties.
Let’s assume, then, for the sake of argument, that the target is instead 30. That would mean the player should start with three cards, not two. That would give a 2.9% chance of starting with a perfect hand, only a little less than the chance of getting a blackjack, which is 4.8%. And since there’s no Ace involved, it’d be legal to pay out immediately in such cases.
Aces could just be worth one, and have no special status in this game.
The problem then is just that the strategy is quite simplistic. Any score of 25 or less would be an automatic hit, as you couldn’t get any worse than a 35, which is just as close to 30. The only real decision-making would come on totals of 26 or 27.
Making the game interesting would probably mean exploring new mechanics. For instance, perhaps pairing a face-up card could have negative consequences for the player, like requiring them to hit again automatically, or negating the paired cards and ending their turn. Such rules could also provide the dealer’s edge if they didn’t apply to or worked differently for the dealer.
There’s going to be a lot of trial and error involved in making such a game work without making it confusing for the players. But necessity is the mother of invention, as the saying goes. It’s possible to imagine a future where the game invented to replace blackjack proves interesting enough to spread out of the state and become a new casino staple.
