Best Pre-NES Blackjack Game?

[Aswald]

This excludes computer versions.

Blackjack was a staple of game consoles in those days, it seemed. With the curious exception of the Atari 5200 (and the Odyssey 2?), just about every console I can think of had one. Even the primitive RCA Studio 2.

All of them essentially had the gameplay nailed down.

Among the notables:

Casino on the Atari 2600 (1978, I think). A number of options, plus 5-Card Stud, and Poker Solitaire, which was every bit as good as a computer version (a "new" game) which appeared in 1990!

Ken Uston's Blackjack/Poker. One of the few 4-player CV games, this had a good version of Blackjack, with 5-Card Stud thrown in. Graphics could've used some improvement, though. It's main attraction was the fact that it was programmed with Ken Uston's advice for Blackjack.

Blackjack for the Intellivision. Still has the most popular dealer of all time.

[chrisbid]

id have to vote for the intellivision,

it had blackjack, 5 and 7 card stud, and 5 card draw

hell, 5 card stud isnt even played any more in the WSOP

[ryborg]

Absolutely the Intellivision version. I find the others essentially unplayable.
________
Perpetual Insurance Advice

[Aswald]

"WSOP?"

[InsaneDavid]

"WSOP?"

World Series of Poker

[Tron2005]

My Votes for the Intellivision's "Las Vegas poker and Blackjack!" thats how i learned how to play Poker and Blackjack

[icbrkr]

Ditto on the Vegas Poker and Blackjack for the Intellivision. I learned the evils of gambling in the comfort of my own home at the young age of 10 I'm sure my parents were proud.

[Jorpho]

Ken Uston's Blackjack/Poker. One of the few 4-player CV games, this had a good version of Blackjack, with 5-Card Stud thrown in. Graphics could've used some improvement, though. It's main attraction was the fact that it was programmed with Ken Uston's advice for Blackjack.

What, like hit on 16 and below, and stand on 17 and above? That was pretty much it, as I recall. (Except for splits.) I must also confess that 5-Card Stud lacks much of the thrill of pretty much any other kind of poker.

Nifty graphics and music, though, and there is much amusement to be found in the phrase "Player A Busts".

[Arqueologia_Digital]

My vote is for INTV version too...

[aaronpetrosky]

I like the Apple II version.

[Arqueologia_Digital]

I like the Apple II version.

I don´t know about this version, do you have one pic to post here?

[Red Warrior]

Intellivision Blackjack. Tons of great memories of me and my brother laughing at the dealer when he shuffled the cards... cuz it sounded like he was farting uncontrollably and simultaneously filling his pants. Any pre-NES game with fart noises like that automatically wins it for me.

[Aswald]

Ken Uston's Blackjack/Poker. One of the few 4-player CV games, this had a good version of Blackjack, with 5-Card Stud thrown in. Graphics could've used some improvement, though. It's main attraction was the fact that it was programmed with Ken Uston's advice for Blackjack.

What, like hit on 16 and below, and stand on 17 and above? That was pretty much it, as I recall. (Except for splits.) I must also confess that 5-Card Stud lacks much of the thrill of pretty much any other kind of poker.

Nifty graphics and music, though, and there is much amusement to be found in the phrase "Player A Busts".

Well, there was more to it than that- it also based the advice on what the dealer had. If his visible card was value "10," and you had a 14, you'd be advised to "hit," because out of 13 different values, if he also had a 7, 8, 9, 10, J, Q, K, or A, he would beat you with no danger of busting- he would not take another.

But if his visible card was, say, 3, you'd be advised to "stay." Keep in mind that Blackjack is a very mechanical game.

In most versions of "5-Card Stud," though, I was always suspicious of that being the version used in the casinos, because it didn't seem likely.

The problem was that you were playing against the dealer, even if the "you" was plural, combined with the fact that the better hand wins, even if either had nothing.

Therefore, if you always played to the end, there was exactly a 50/50 chance of winning.

Yet, all he could gain was what you bet. Even if you had nuthin' and he had a Royal Flush, he didn't get a penny more.

On the other hand, YOU could win more than what you bet. Two pairs, for example, would get you double what you bet. Granted, the winning did not reflect the odds, but this was still an overwhelming advantage you had. Unless you were exceedingly unlucky, you could only win, and casinos exist to take your money. You could even cut your loss by folding early if it was obvious, or even likely, that you were going to lose. Again, the dealer has no such option, even if it's obvious he's going to get clobbered by a Full House or Straight ($$KA-CHING! For you!$$).

Later, I found out that there is a minimum you must have to win anything. Why don't the electronic home versions reflect this?

[Aswald]

I will admit there is still one thing I'm not sure about with the advice:

There are 4 decks in use in this blackjack game. He does not shuffle again until half that number (more or less) have been played.

I do not know if this game keeps track of what cards have been played, which is how card-counting works. If it has been an unusually high number of "high" cards, the advice might be different than if it was an unusual number of low cards. If so, than this game is more sophisticated than most people think.

[ROBOTNIK666]

With the curious exception of the Atari 5200 (and the Odyssey 2?),

Las Vegas Blackjack! was released for the Odyssey2 in 1978.

[Aswald]

Really!

Any screenshots?

[Flack]

http://www.classicgaming.com/o2home/...d=28&cartid=28

A pretty non-exciting screenshot.

[Aswald]

Nifty! Thanks.

So, that just leaves the Atari 5200. I always did wonder why...

Still, in some ways, the Intellivision version was better than the ColecoVision version.

The only thing you can really give the CV version is the fact that up to 4 players can play, and each can choose the amount to start with. Thus, experienced players can handicap themselves against less skilled players.

[Arqueologia_Digital]

http://www.classicgaming.com/o2home/gmreview/review.asp?masterid=28&cartid=28

A pretty non-exciting screenshot.

Not only a bad screenshot...

Overall Score:
2.5
(Out of 5)
Gameplay: 3.1
Graphics: 2.2
Sound: 2.1

A very cruel review too...

[Aswald]

It no doubt deserved better. Back then, it probably would've seemed better, too.