Perfect games in a casino

I have an idea, lets say someone opened a casino that had ideal blackjack (ie, stand on soft 17 3:2 etc..) ideal payouts on craps, lower commission baccarat, 9:6 JOB video poker, etc... All in attempt to have an entire casino stocked with games that had excellent odds in favor of the players. Would this be profitable? All major casinos have stingy rules to help ensure they will have a larger profit in the end, but if a place had the perfect game would it not be more likely to attract more players and thus make more money? If I opened a casino I would have 3:2 single deck BJ with a 90% shuffle point, etc... I would want my customers to have the best odds. What does every one think?

Terrible idea.

Casinos should, and probably do, find the balance of the point where they offer the worst odds, and still get customers to come and gamble.

Why would you want your players to lose less?

Because perhaps the fact my casino would have the best odds for them would make more people come to play and put down more money. I know I put the most $$$ into El Cortez because they are practically the only place to offer 3:2 on single deck BJ.

There's a phrase in business when talking about low profit margins: We'll make it up in volume.

Sounds like you and your casino are taking that kind of thinking.

But the business has to make a profit.

Quote: NicksGamingStuff

... games that had excellent odds in favor of the players.

That sounds like your casino will be operating at a loss.

But seriously, you've got an interesting idea. Yeah, El Cortez is doing some of those things you suggest. But El Cortez is a dump.

If you want a nice, fancy, casino, it costs money. And you're not gonna get the money you need by offering only games with a low house edge.

Are some casinos getting out of control with the terrible rules and bad odds? Sure. But your solution isn't the answer.

I've thought like you do before, then I saw someone throw down a few thousand at a double-zero roulette wheel and it made me cry :(. I think the problem with this design is that in order for it to work you'd have to have a walmart/southwest business model and that wouldn't work out too well for a casino. You wouldn't be able to put enough into overhead for it to be nice enough (I know that I should go downtown or to casino royale for BJ and ElDo for BJ, but I like throwing my money down at the Bellagio). You'd be better off mixing in a table of "perfect" blackjack and one single-zero $10 min roulette table on the floor rather than having a sea of them. This way the ignorant people would go to the bad games, the smart players would know you have good games, and you'd still make money off of the 6:5 idiots.

Marvelous idea but remember, you have to pay that electric bill somehow ... and the players can take their winnings and leave: you are the one who has to stay.

The old Binions came close. The M opened up with high aspirations. The trouble is that a casino must of necessity offer the players the short end of the stick. It can be a slim edge but the casino has to have an edge.

There are casinos that offer only 3:2 and never have any 6:5. They thrive. Nothing wrong with offering good odds to the players and good working conditions to your dealers. Its just that the house edge has to be there or you won't be able to keep the doors open.

Quote: FleaStiff

There are casinos that offer only 3:2 and never have any 6:5. They thrive.

Bellagio and El Cortez, to name two that I know of...would that all casinos followed their model.

I guess the OP is similar to pacomartin's idea from awhile back, where people pay a fee to enter the gaming floor in exchange for zero house edge on the games. I don't think this would work for a main casino floor--most people don't care or even know about the house edge anyway, so they'd just end up saying "why should I pay for this when I can get it for free next door?"

But for some sort of high-limit area, it just might work. Perhaps a high-stakes baccarat game with a reduced commission on banker and ties paying 9:1, in exchange for an entry fee.

Quote: OneAngryDwarf

I guess the OP is similar to pacomartin's idea from awhile back, where people pay a fee to enter the gaming floor in exchange for zero house edge on the games.

I think such a "fee" can be levied in different ways: a flat rate such as card rooms that charge a chair rental rate, a lump-sum admission fee to the Even-Gaming-Area such as has been suggested, a player forbearance of comped beverages. One way would simply be to change the name from Even-Gaming-Area to Almost-Even-Gaming-Area and charge the players the equivalent of an entrance fee by making it a "nearly even" game. In this situation there would be a public perception somewhat akin to a fine levied upon an overdue book. Its still a fine but people who read books tend to realize its going to a good cause. Its sort of a situation wherein a woman goes topless at Sturgiss: she gets cited but she is also told that the fine goes to buy some kid schoolbooks for a year. Perhaps contrast this situation with a gambler's perception of a sweat the money joint bedecked with 6:5 blackjack tables.

The economic realities are that a casino edge has to exist somewhere or else the casino simply will go bankrupt. An admission fee is difficult to levy when an overwhelmingly large percentage of people at the door know that "free" is just next door. Its also hard to levy a fee when customers routine actions are often to wander from casino to casino for variety, excitement, etc.

It used to be that REAL GAMBLERS went to Benny Binions place and were just as proud of it as they were proud of not going to a sweat the money joint and not going to a 6:5 blackjack place. (Ofcourse 6:5 didn't even exist then, but you get the idea). Just as the public perception can be to avoid bad deals there can be a public perception of you go to an Almost-Even-Gaming-Area to be a Real Gambler rather than a Chump. Sort of a psychologically self-imposed fee. The gambler would realize he is paying a modest "fee" to get a good deal and could proudly hold his head high because he knows he is not at a 6:5 place.

I thought maybe this post was about a "perfect game" which to my mind, is a game that can be beaten by skilled players with lots of practice, but makes money for the casino with the majority of players.

Quote: rxwine

a "perfect game" is a game that can be beaten by skilled players with lots of practice, but makes money for the casino with the majority of players.

Blackjack, video poker and keno, you mean.

Well, only the fools think they can beat keno.

I think we need to make a distinction of three types of games the smart gambler would play:

1) Minnimal house advantage games. These would be BJ not only paying 3:2 but also having the most liberal rules, single-zero roulette, etc. Also with a minnimal of sucker(side) bets. I think casinos could make money out of such games.

2) Zero house advantage games, or even games. These games would pay true odds every time. I side with Paco on this one: it won't work without charging a fee to the players. Essentialy the casino would break even in gaming and make no money at all.

3) Negative house advantage games. Such games would pay better than true odds, therefore the casino would lose money on them, therefore you'll never see a casino running such games. True, there are some VP machines with negative house edge, but I gather these are few and of low denomination. That can and does happen. But a bank of $25 full pay deuces wild? Never.

I think these days the type 1 games are found mostly in high limit rooms, where a lower house edge can be made up with volume (like giving a buyer a discount for buying higher quantities of something). Perhaps they could work just as well on the regular floor, with medium average minimums (to my mind that would be $15 to $25 minimums), while relegating the perennial low rollers to a house advantage hell.

Quote: Nareed

I think these days the type 1 games are found mostly in high limit rooms, where a lower house edge can be made up with volume (like giving a buyer a discount for buying higher quantities of something). Perhaps they could work just as well on the regular floor, with medium average minimums (to my mind that would be $15 to $25 minimums), while relegating the perennial low rollers to a house advantage hell.

This is exactly what I was going to say. The reality is that all of the games the OP wanted to offer are already available, but typically only in the high limit rooms, or at best at the $25+ tables. I think the OP wants to have a casino offer these games to $5 or $10 players. The economics of the business just don't work, because of the overhead costs. You can't give expensive (LV Strip) floorspace to a $10 B/J table with a 0.15% HA, and cover the dealer's wages and keep the lights on.

Quote: ruascott

This is exactly what I was going to say. The reality is that all of the games the OP wanted to offer are already available, but typically only in the high limit rooms, or at best at the $25+ tables. I think the OP wants to have a casino offer these games to $5 or $10 players. The economics of the business just don't work, because of the overhead costs. You can't give expensive (LV Strip) floorspace to a $10 B/J table with a 0.15% HA, and cover the dealer's wages and keep the lights on.

This explains why Downtown and off-strip casinos often have better games at lower minimums, as regards hosue advantage, than the strip casinos.

Games like BJ and 21 variants can be manipulated so much through the rules, that most people simlpy can't make sense of the HA anyway. What's unforgivable is the 6:5 payout as opposed to 3:2. Other games aren't as variable. If you play pass/don't pass and come/don't come craps with full odds exclusively, then how high free odds you can place or lay is the only factor you'd be concerned with, not what the field or hop bets pay.

Then there are side bets that carry a huge HA, but which even low rollers play with gusto. Set a BJ table with a $3 minimum paying 3:2 with the the best rules possible, single deck, etc, but with a terrible side bet, and it may make money for the casino anyway.

Is it competition that drives the high limit rules to more neutral territory or the education of the players? There are some guys out on the casino floor who have been shooting dice since infancy, some who've played blackjack for decades ... yet 6:5 tables abound on the casino floor. More favorable rules apply in the high limit rooms. I suspect however that even in the high limit rooms there are less than savvy players.

Quote: Nareed

This explains why Downtown and off-strip casinos often have better games at lower minimums, as regards hosue advantage, than the strip casinos.

Games like BJ and 21 variants can be manipulated so much through the rules, that most people simlpy can't make sense of the HA anyway. What's unforgivable is the 6:5 payout as opposed to 3:2. Other games aren't as variable. If you play pass/don't pass and come/don't come craps with full odds exclusively, then how high free odds you can place or lay is the only factor you'd be concerned with, not what the field or hop bets pay.

Then there are side bets that carry a huge HA, but which even low rollers play with gusto. Set a BJ table with a $3 minimum paying 3:2 with the the best rules possible, single deck, etc, but with a terrible side bet, and it may make money for the casino anyway.

Yeah, thats exactly right. In LV you find some of the worst games in the country on the strip for low rollers, but in the same town you can find the absolute best games in the country for low rollers. Most other jurisdictions that have limited gambling licenses have just enough competition to offer an average game, but not so much that they are forced to offer a great game to get people in the door. In Indiana, with only 12 casinos, they don't have any need to offer $1 craps with 100x odds. But there are ENOUGH options for players that care about odds, that you will find 10x odds (at least) at most of the casinos. (I found out recently Horseshoe across the river from Louisville has 100x odds.)

Quote: FleaStiff

Is it competition that drives the high limit rules to more neutral territory or the education of the players?

I expect some of both, among other factors.

Quote:

More favorable rules apply in the high limit rooms. I suspect however that even in the high limit rooms there are less than savvy players.

Oh, sure! The rich just have more money ;)

Seriously, a gambler's skill or knowledge is emasured by his manner of play, not by the size of his bankroll. I bet there are high rollers who've never even heard of basic strategy, and whales who think single-zero roulette isn't as good because it has one less number.

Quote: FleaStiff

Is it competition that drives the high limit rules to more neutral territory or the education of the players? There are some guys out on the casino floor who have been shooting dice since infancy, some who've played blackjack for decades ... yet 6:5 tables abound on the casino floor. More favorable rules apply in the high limit rooms. I suspect however that even in the high limit rooms there are less than savvy players.

Yeah, I for some reason assumed high-rollers would at least take the time to learn how to play their game. But after reading about Terrance Watanabe's blackjack "strategy" I'm not so sure.

There are several models available to run your business, and it depends on competition and market conditions and your fixed cost base.

Sure, you can offer an even money pit and charge a membership or entry fee, but the issue is that players will take advantage of it by betting huge amounts of money, the reason being is that only experienced and knowledgeable gamblers will pay the fee. Casinos don't make alot of money off of knowledgeable blackjack players or the VP junkie who knows the pay tables and how to play. They make money from the other players.

The fact is that the casino has a constant stream of income which is defined by HA x money bet. Factor in the bankroll of the player << bankroll of the player and the fact that the player does not play basic strategy and you can see why the casino wants to offer games and slot machines that appear to be fair with the highest HA available.

The strip would LOVE it if both Harrahs and MGM agreed on a oligopoly that would take 3:2 blackjack off the main floor. There's already some wide agreement to take single zero roulette off the main floor. Casinos are always looking for a way to increase income.

Quote: boymimbo

The strip would LOVE it if both Harrahs and MGM agreed on a oligopoly that would take 3:2 blackjack off the main floor. There's already some wide agreement to take single zero roulette off the main floor. Casinos are always looking for a way to increase income.

All businesses are constantly looking for a way to increase income. Most find it by either cutting costs or expanding their customer base. The latter is usually achieved by giving the customer a better deal, be it a lower price, better service, etc.

I find it hard to believe casinos would increase their income by offering worse deals to their customers. Granted that in gaming the price of a service is not immediately obvious, but in these days of instant informationa access anyone can be a savvier gambler in short order.

The problem is 1) educating enough gamblers to know a good deal in the first place and 2) superstition (which tends to let people play games they know are a bad deal).

Maybe we should hire people to hand out basic gambling information cards on the strip ;)

Quote: Nareed

I find it hard to believe casinos would increase their income by offering worse deals to their customers. Granted that in gaming the price of a service is not immediately obvious, but in these days of instant informationa access anyone can be a savvier gambler in short order.

I think part of the reason that the "worse" deals for the gamblers are coming out is that Vegas gets so much revenue from non-gaming now. Set the odds worse for gaming, and you can recoup 'some' more income. With Loverman wanting Harrah's in AC to aim for this, and the 'club' scene picking up at Caesar's (Dusk) and Harrah's (The Pool), it will be interesting to see what happens. I don't believe this model can work as well, esp. with the increased competition on the East coast.

-B

I think the low profit per player, high volume approach can't work in your scenario unless A) the place is a dump with minimal costs to cover, or B) can attract lots of whales who aren't very good.

Regardless of the profit per player, you can still only fit so many players per Blackjack or craps table. Then you need to start adding more tables & more dealers, adding cost to your bottom line.

You're talking about a fairly generic product here. Yes, there are variations, but overall, FOR MOST PEOPLE, Blackjack is Blackjack. It's like buying a candy bar. You can get one anywhere, so you go wherever is convenient for you, or where the cute girl works the cash register, or where you can also buy a six pack of beer to drink at home.

Quote: Nareed

All businesses are constantly looking for a way to increase income. Most find it by either cutting costs or expanding their customer base. The latter is usually achieved by giving the customer a better deal, be it a lower price, better service, etc.

I find it hard to believe casinos would increase their income by offering worse deals to their customers. Granted that in gaming the price of a service is not immediately obvious, but in these days of instant informationa access anyone can be a savvier gambler in short order.

The problem is 1) educating enough gamblers to know a good deal in the first place and 2) superstition (which tends to let people play games they know are a bad deal).

Maybe we should hire people to hand out basic gambling information cards on the strip ;)

Exactly. As I mentioned earlier, Vegas strip has some of the worst games you could ever find, from the player's perspective, anywhere. The reason...Vegas likely has the most casual of all gamblers as part of the demographic. How many people would never make a trip 20 minutes to a local casino, but will throw some money away at B/J or roulette while on a Vegas vacation?

Well I appreciate everyones thoughts on the subject. People like to go to Vegas for the sights and sounds of the strip, for me the most fun part of Vegas is just walking around looking at everything. I guess everyone is right, they can have 6:5 blackjack and people will play it saying "how often does a BJ come around anyways" I personally never go to the california card rooms because the $1 per $100 bet fee on the weird CA blackjack is lame, as is the game itself. I have seen two versions of CA blackjack, one where there are jokers in the deck and one where an A and a 10 value card is a 22, not a 21!

Quote: ruascott

Yeah, I for some reason assumed high-rollers would at least take the time to learn how to play their game. But after reading about Terrance Watanabe's blackjack "strategy" I'm not so sure.

I've heard the name Watanabe and seem to recall a lawsuit but don't recall any details.

I think its generally assumed that Slots pay best on Boulder Strip, then Downtown and then The Strip. Presumably this is driven by a loosely defined market of ignorant tourists, savvy tourists and local sharpies though I hesitate to term anyone who plays a slot machine as other than a sucker. Locals casinos are said to compete but I'm sure a good many customers of locals casinos are simply geography based and play near where they live or work. I think some of the advantage of locals casinos is that they are smaller and more efficient. And in these Less Than 15 Machines Premises, drinks come real fast when there is only one bartender. Comps are more direct and personal as well. However the casino is simply purchasing local customers, not sharpies who know what a house edge is or care to know.


I think its always going to be: Boulder Strip, then Downtown, then The Strip. There will never be a separate category of Purely Even Gaming in casinos that charge a fee. Too many people would win... and then leave. And too many people would simply wander off to a "free" casino for some Blackjack ... and not even know what Basic Strategy is.

Quote: FleaStiff

I've heard the name Watanabe and seem to recall a lawsuit but don't recall any details.

I think its generally assumed that Slots pay best on Boulder Strip, then Downtown and then The Strip. Presumably this is driven by a loosely defined market of ignorant tourists, savvy tourists and local sharpies though I hesitate to term anyone who plays a slot machine as other than a sucker. Locals casinos are said to compete but I'm sure a good many customers of locals casinos are simply geography based and play near where they live or work. I think some of the advantage of locals casinos is that they are smaller and more efficient. And in these Less Than 15 Machines Premises, drinks come real fast when there is only one bartender. Comps are more direct and personal as well. However the casino is simply purchasing local customers, not sharpies who know what a house edge is or care to know.


I think its always going to be: Boulder Strip, then Downtown, then The Strip. There will never be a separate category of Purely Even Gaming in casinos that charge a fee. Too many people would win... and then leave. And too many people would simply wander off to a "free" casino for some Blackjack ... and not even know what Basic Strategy is.

I seem to recall often seeing claims of slots with 99% payback. I don't know if that still exists anywhere or not, but even at 96-97%, I wouldn't classify slots as a sucker play. They can be fun, and unlike most table games, you at least have the hope of hitting a big payout. I occassionally enjoy playing them for a short while, usually 25c machines, but I find myself getting bored real quick.

Of course most machines payback like 90-93%, and that's pretty awful.

Quote: ruascott

I seem to recall often seeing claims of slots with 99% payback.

Many of those signs actually read UP TO 99 percent payback. And if you see a sign relating to a specific machine, that gives the casino a sort of "halo effect" that applies to all slot machines even though its not merited.