How bad of a Blackjack strategy is “never bust”?

3.91% is better than a slot machine (5-10%) and the play is a lot slower. Unless I’m missing something it would be a better way to spend and evening at the casino*. Improving on it, even a little bit, without memorizing perfect play tables would be easy.

*In almost all cases, spending an evening at the casino is at odds with potential income/losses.

Is that literally just on exactly 20 (so they can still stand on 17, 18, and 19), or is that “hit on anything that’s less than 21”? Because if the latter, it’s not a game any more; it’s just a way to give away money.

Actually, it’s probably that even in the “exactly 20” case, too.

The house would have a monumental disadvantage. I would quit my job to play that game.

I went through 20+ variations that are being played in the US and didn’t see anything. Maybe a poker derivative that allows the deal to change hand between friends? My best guess.

I read the question as a hypothetical. Like, what would the odds be if that were the rule.

I didn’t. The question was :

It sounds to me like this is a rule that Asuka has actually played, in home games with friends. Not in any casino.

Ah. Somehow I skipped over the parentheses.

Yeah it was just one of those rules you play with friends “to make it interesting”, whoever was dealer could stop at 17 -19, but 20 they had to draw.

Similar to when you keep both the jokers and the “How to play Poker” cards in the deck during normal poker.

I assume you rotated who was dealer every hand, or at least every deck? In that case I guess it evens out (assuming consistent bet limits).

You never win if you are not in the game.

A better strategy is “never drink”, and “never play”