The game I played this week is Blackjack, a popular casino card game widely believed to have originated in 18th-century France. The goal is to get as close to 21 as possible without going over, while having a higher value than the dealer’s hand. Its straightforward rules and quick rewards make it especially appealing among casual and social players.
During a few rounds of online Blackjack, I played and observed three of my roommates play as well. I noticed how quickly we attributed our performance to luck, saying things like “I’m just not lucky” or “I’m on a roll!” Rarely did anyone mention probability, especially with the dealer being a computer, which made outcomes feel less predictable.
However, this sense of unpredictability doesn’t diminish the feeling of control. Instead, players still believe their decisions of whether to hit or stand directly influence the outcome. That illusion is part of what makes Blackjack so risky. Like many games of chance, Blackjack puts players at risk for addiction by feeding them intermittent rewards tied to randomness while offering just enough perceived control to keep them engaged. Randomness can be used meaningfully in game design, but it can become morally impermissible when it manipulates player psychology without transparency.
In Blackjack, you rarely lose big. Most of the time, you’re just a few points away from 21, just one decision off. That “near miss” feeling keeps players coming back, convinced they’ll win the next round. Blackjack’s design takes advantage of this, using fast rounds and immediate feedback to sustain that momentum.
Interestingly, I also noticed players switch between attributing outcomes to luck and to personal error. In one of my roommate’s rounds, she kept saying “I knew I should’ve hit!” after each loss, implying that her failure was a miscalculation rather than a result of chance. This reflects a pattern where outcomes are often interpreted as skill-based rather than randomness. While Blackjack does include strategic elements like choosing to hit or stand based on odds, casual online play usually lacks the consistency to justify skill, and yet players still cling to the idea that they’re in control.
During another roommate’s round, she had consecutively chosen to hit after starting with low cards and ended up exceeding 21 every time. At one point, she decided to play it safe and stand, even though her hand was still low. Even the game suggested she hit, but she still stuck with her choice given her previous history. The dealer then hit and won without busting, to which my roommate groaned “How is that fair?”, revealing how quickly players start to rely on patterns and perceived streaks.
A similar experience happened to me, where I was frustrated that every time I hit, I’d go over 21 while the dealer always stayed just under. When I was down to half my original amount and ready to quit, I was suddenly winning multiple rounds in a row. At one point, I went all-in, hoping to lose and end the session, only to hit exactly 21 twice in a row. It felt as if the game didn’t want me to end it yet. These sudden shifts, especially after repeated losses, tap into the same intermittent reinforcement strategies found in slot machines, where it’s just enough of a win to reignite hope and keep players engaged.
From an ethical standpoint, using chance in games isn’t inherently wrong, as it can help add suspense and fairness. It can, however, become exploitative when it’s paired with designs that obscure probabilities and fuel compulsive behavior. Games that “never end”, for instance, draw players into addictive loops, and Blackjack is precisely that until you end up losing all your money.
Blackjack’s mechanics lend itself to decision-making under pressure and thus an aesthetic of suspense, victory, and sometimes regret, which together form a fun, compelling experience. However, that is what makes it dangerous since the game gives you just enough choice to feel responsible but not enough to reliably influence outcomes. This illusion is what keeps people playing, which can morph into compulsive behavior if not protected with safeguards.
