Intercasino/cryptologic Single Deck Blackjack wrong

[thelawnet]

They have scrapped their popular 'VIP' single deck game, which had one of the lowest house advantages in the industry, under 0.1%. It has been replaced with a different game by the same name, with different graphics and faulty rules.

The rules:

http://static.wagerlogic.com/casino/...me-221-00.html

Play 1 hand
1 deck of standard playing cards is used
The dealer stands on soft 17 or higher
A winning player blackjack (an ace and 10-value card on the initial deal) pays 3:2
All other winning hands pay 1:1
Winning insurance bets pay 2:1
Insurance is limited to ½ of the wager per hand
The player may double down on any first two cards
The player may not double down following a split
The player may split once for a total of two hands
Like-value cards that are not identical may be split
Example: K and Q can be split
Example: K and K can be split
Surrender is not available
Split aces receive only one card on each ace
The player may not re-split aces
An ace and a 10-value card following a split does not constitute blackjack
The player may not hit on a soft total of 21
The cards are shuffled following the completion of each game round

That is:
1 deck, stand on soft 17, no double after split, 1 split allowed.

The game described has a PLAYER edge of 0.0248%, with correct composition-strategy edge.

The same rules are also advertised in the game lobby. Obviously they are very attractive to any blackjack player.

In fact the actual game rules are:

1 deck, HIT soft 17, no double after split, 1 split allowed.

This game has a HOUSE edge of 0.1684%, again assuming perfect composition-dependent strategy. That's 0.13% worse than the old game (before you could double after splitting, that's the reason for the difference), which is bad news, but what's worse is that they have the wrong rules up. Beware on both counts:

1. If you're an old player, it's not the game you used to play, it's worse.
2. If you're a new player, it's not the game they're advertising.

[aka23]

I noticed that as well. As I recall, they listed the incorrect rules (S17) on the game selection page, and the correct rules (H17) on the view of the table. I suspect it was an honest mistake due to sloppy work integration of their new games into the application/website. As long as we are on the topic, they also have an incorrect strategy table built in to their new double deck game and related autoplay functions.

[Scooter7]

1 deck, HIT soft 17, no double after split, 1 split allowed.

This game has a HOUSE edge of 0.1684%, again assuming perfect composition-dependent strategy. That's 0.13% worse than the old game (before you could double after splitting, that's the reason for the difference), which is bad news, but what's worse is that they have the wrong rules up. Beware on both counts

I played the game at Inter (only in practice mode so far since I don't usually play 25.00 bets) and the rules are listed correctly in the game. You're right about the help link (which I hadn't checked previously), but I have to wonder why you would even need the web rules since you obviously have very good BJ knowledge (see your own description above). It seems like a case of finding a minor error and pouncing on it to either get a bonus from them or to embarrass them (or both).

aka23 and I both posted in another thread about the double-deck strategy issue. I actually emailed someone at Inter and was told that they would research the issue and make any required changes. They also politely explained how easy it is to make changes to the table myself. Mistakes do happen and this one is pretty minor; not worthy of an all-caps WARNING imho.

I'm more impressed by them being receptive to my feedback than I am upset over a minor error. Let's save the venom for spammers, no-pay casinos, and shifting bonus terms

[thelawnet]

I played the game at Inter (only in practice mode so far since I don't usually play 25.00 bets) and the rules are listed correctly in the game. You're right about the help link (which I hadn't checked previously), but I have to wonder why you would even need the web rules since you obviously have very good BJ knowledge (see your own description above). It seems like a case of finding a minor error and pouncing on it to either get a bonus from them or to embarrass them (or both).

The rules are wrong here as well, as I said:



These are the first rules you see, they are shown to ALL players. They are wrong.

Funnily enough my blackjack knowledge doesn't give me psychic powers to determine which rules are correct - I had to test many hands to find out.

And of course I checked the rules, the game's not the same they had, I wanted to check if there were any other gotchas in store.

aka23 and I bot posted in another thread about the double-deck strategy issue. I actually emailed someone at Inter and was told that they would research the issue and make any required changes. They also politely explained how easy it is to make changes to the table myself. Mistakes do happen and this one is pretty minor; not worthy of an all-caps WARNING imho.

The warning is there primarily because the game has been made worse. Same name, different rules. Like you said, you don't even play this game. But for people that do, it's worth highlighting that their well known 'VIP' blackjack game is really not so VIP anymore.

And especially so given that the listed rules aren't correct.

[Scooter7]

I hadn't noticed 'stand' in the preview window. Thanks for posting the picture. I'll definitely agree that it's sloppy to have made that error. I wonder if the casino rep is on the forum. I'm sure a quick post by Inter's manager would be helpful here if only to acknowledge that they missed this and are on the way to fixing it (and when). I'm sure it doesn't affect too many people with the 25.00 minimum on the game, but it still should be addressed.

[thelawnet]

BTW, anyone know why they've added that VIP icon in? It just seems to change the tables around, but I don't get the sense that they are particularly 'VIP' or not.

[me_and_ed]

This place is going downhill fast, what a shame.

[thelawnet]

This place is going downhill fast, what a shame.

Nothing wrong with Intercasino, not sure however why my thread title's been changed. Is it not appropriate to warn people that the rules have been made worse without the game name being changed, and also that they are running a different game from the one they say?

[me_and_ed]

Nothing wrong with Intercasino

Thats your opinion, a lot of not player friendly changes with Inter these days, as well just like the problems with the rules, I have had numerous issues with the new software, seems like there is not much due care and attention when these changes are made and new games are introduced.

[ryan_hartley]

Hello all,

I’m very sorry about the web and preview information errors for the Single Deck Blackjack game. As soon as I was informed of the mistake I took steps to have it corrected as quickly as possible. The web rules will be updated today and the preview window line for soft 17 / stand issue will be changed ASAP...we have been assured of a turnaround on that item before month’s end. Mistakes do happen and my hope is that we can fix it to the satisfaction of our players. We’re very proud of all the new Blackjack games. We’ve replaced the old Single-Deck Blackjack, Atlantic City Blackjack and Progressive Blackjack as well as adding European 6-deck, European 2-deck, and we have an Atlantic City game with 4 decks coming out soon. All the games have new features and presentation that I hope you’ll enjoy and many of the higher limit games on the new VIP floor, now offer you higher comp point/cashback rates too.

Kind regards,