Game Name: Blackjack
Creator/Origin: Originated in 18th-century French casinos; now a staple in both physical and digital gambling spaces around the world.
Platform: Available in person at casinos, online gambling sites, mobile apps, and gaming platforms like Steam.
Target Audience: Primarily aimed at adults aged 21+, particularly middle-aged men (25 to 45) who are interested in strategic, chance based card games and gambling.
Playing Blackjack for the first time for this critical play, I was surprised at how simple the instructions were and how easy it was to pick up. Within five to ten minutes, I understood the basics: try to get a hand as close to 21 as possible without going over, and beat the dealer. The core choices were straightforward: either “hit” or “stand.” While there were additional rules like splitting and doubling, they weren’t essential to start playing or even to win. That’s part of what makes the game so accessible, but also what makes it risky. I noticed that once you’re in, it’s really easy to keep going.
Image 1: Represents the simplicity of the rule mechanics of the game, making it easy to pick up
I played a few rounds with the computer and some friends. What I quickly realized is that the real complexity isn’t in the rules but instead it’s in the stakes and the illusion of more control than what is present. Blackjack makes it easy to fall into a loop of repetitive play, and I could clearly see how this can lead to addictive behavior. Even though I was playing a free version of the game with no real money involved, I felt myself getting pulled in. The version I played gave each player $1000 in chips. I started with a basic $100 bet and lost twice. The first time, I stood at a value of 17 in my hand, and the dealer ended up getting 20. The second time, I was at 15, decided to hit, and drew a queen, which made me bust.
Image 2: Playing with a friend and realized I bust and lost the round.
After that, I lowered my bet to $50 so I wouldn’t lose too much again. Ironically, this round I got a king and ace right away, resulting in a perfect 21. This win made me feel like my luck had turned around and I raised my bet back to $100. To my delight, I won again, and then decided to go bold with $250. Spoiler alert, I lost it. Even though I wasn’t losing real money, it was an undesirable feeling to undergo. I was already starting to think about how to “make it back” which is exactly the kind of thinking that keeps people playing longer than they meant to.
Image 3: One round where I got “lucky” and won!
This experience reminded me of how Addiction by Design describes the psychology of gambling systems. One concept that stood out is the idea of “variable ratio reinforcement,” where rewards are given out on an unpredictable schedule. This pattern of random wins spaced between losses is what makes games like slots and Blackjack so compelling. Players don’t know when the next win is bound to happen, and that keeps them playing and hopefully that their luck will turn around. Even if the odds are bad, the possibility of a good hand creates a powerful motivation to continue.
Blackjack also plays into the feeling of being in a machine zone which is a mental state where players become fully immersed and dissociated from their surroundings. I started feeling this during play. I wasn’t paying attention to time or strategy anymore, instead I was just reacting, betting, and trying to recover my earlier losses. Even though Blackjack is not a machine in the same sense as a slot game, it still uses a tightly looped, repetitive structure that encourages players to stay engaged and ignore external signals like logic or mental exhaustion.
Even though Blackjack involves some skill, like knowing when to hit or stand based on probabilities, the outcome is still heavily luck based. The randomness of the cards, combined with your small decisions, gives a false sense of agency. You feel like you’re making smart moves, but at the end of the day, you’re still relying on a shuffled deck. Players think they’re in control but the outcomes are still largely unpredictable causing this illusion to deepen their commitment to the game, making it harder to walk away.
Compared to games like slots or roulette, where outcomes are clearly random and players have no influence at all, Blackjack gives players a misleading sense of control. You think you’re in charge because you’re making choices, but those choices are limited and still subject to chance. In contrast, games like Candy Land or Snakes and Ladders are obviously random and don’t pretend to be anything else and they usually don’t involve high stakes. That’s where Blackjack becomes dangerous. It deceptively presents itself as a strategy game, but structurally, the house almost always has the edge.
Another thing that I noticed while playing with others was how people talk about luck. A friend who lost a round said, “I’m just not lucky with this game.” But when someone won, they said things like, “I knew I should’ve hit.” This kind of dialogue shows how players connect the sense of winning to skill and losing to chance. It builds the illusion that if you’re just smart enough, or bold enough to take a chance, you can beat the system, when in reality, the system is designed for most players to lose.
To answer the question of when it is morally permissible to use chance in games, I think randomness can be fun and even necessary. It adds unpredictability, creates suspense, and helps keep games exciting. But I think it crosses a line when chance is paired with hidden structures that exploit a player’s mental and psychological tendencies. In games like Blackjack, the built-in dealer advantage, the pace of play, and the unpredictable wins all work together to keep people playing longer than they intend, which can be classified as manipulation
I know casinos use these models to make money, but it still feels wrong to brand something as fair or luck based when it’s actually rigged in subtle ways. If players aren’t fully aware of how low their chances really are, or how the system is designed to keep them spending, that becomes a moral issue. At the very least, games like this should be transparent about the odds and the mechanics. I believe that players deserve to know what they’re stepping into especially when real money is involved.
