{Ralph so what about the dealer has to stick on 17 or higher & has to hit until on 17+? I'm pretty sure those are standard enforced rules that the player doesn't have to go by? Then Roulette has a green zero that is an automatic house win that a player can't bet on, some even have a zero & double zero.}

{Those are determined by mathematical odds that the casino operates under - those rules aren't set in stone. What is set in stone is that a blackjack immediately wins the game unless the dealer has one as well. There's no casino on earth I can think of that allows the dealer an attempt to tie up a game on a 21 from a blackjack, though.}

{I wasn't really suggesting this particular issue be classed as a house rule - just that those other oddities that are intentional, rather than just inaccuracies, should be a selection made by the owner.}

{Can we get a vote on this, or at least an administrator who is willing to post their reasoning behind why the dealer is entitled to try and tie a blackjack, or..?}

I have opened the voting on this.

It is purely for the original suggestion.

If users would like to see a "House Rules" option for casino owners to pick and choose their own, they will need to make a suggestion for it and see this considered separately.

Yeah that's exactly what was decided enkindle.

Slight issue, this shouldn't happen.

Dealer has Blackjack
Player stands with 21 and pushes
Hand Bet: $200,000
Your bet of $200,000 was returned.

Blackjack should bet 3 card 21

Also dealer doesn't auto win with blackjack any more but should.

I believe a dealer shouldnt get his last card till all players have finished their turns from memory

The dealer usually waits for the player's actions before revealing if he has a blackjack (allowing for the player to double or buy insurance, and that sort of thing), so I think this just has to be tweaked so that a blackjack from either player supersedes a 21.