Mandatory Side Bets?

Just curious,

Have casinos ever REQUIRED side bets (such as Lucky Ladies) at Blackjack or other table games? In your opinion, do you think that this would be a better idea than 6 to 5 BJ, especially at lower limit tables? For example: 3 to 2 BJ is $5 minimum with a $1 side bet mandatory minimum. This would encourage players to bet higher, while allowing casinos to advertise "$5 3 to 2 Blackjack" tables. Just a thought....

Quote: nvr55xx

Just curious,

Have casinos ever REQUIRED side bets (such as Lucky Ladies) at Blackjack or other table games? In your opinion, do you think that this would be a better idea than 6 to 5 BJ, especially at lower limit tables? For example: 3 to 2 BJ is $5 minimum with a $1 side bet mandatory minimum. This would encourage players to bet higher, while allowing casinos to advertise "$5 3 to 2 Blackjack" tables. Just a thought....

Why not advertise 6/5 Blackjack with a $5 minimum bet and a mandatory $1 side bet ? Get almost as many players. Why pay 3/2
on $5 minimum game ?

Or in the words of the late EvenBob ( Dead on this site ), : " NEVER SMARTEN UP A CHUMP ! "

Oh , can anybody tell me how that 6/5 BJ boycott, that started about 10 years ago, is working out ?

I never posted it here, but I once came up with an idea as a parody to the Obamacare individual mandate. Just like health insurance you must also take insurance at blackjack, or else pay a "penalty" of 1% of your bet this year, 2% next year, and 2.5% from 2016 onwards when the dealer's upcard is an ace. If that were true, which would be the better play - take the "mandated" insurance or pay the "fine"?

Been over ten years since casinos were accused of being greedy with 6/5 BJ. TIME FLIES LOL

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2004/04/12/casinos-get-greedy.aspx

Never underestimate the stupidity of gamblers in general, despite what you read :

" Gamblers will eventually wise up, and when they do, I can't see how these companies won't be hurting their brands with this tactic. "

YEAH,RIGHT !!!!!!!!!!

" you must also take insurance at blackjack " I think this was part of John Patrick's Presidential campaign message .

Quote: nvr55xx

Just curious, Have casinos ever REQUIRED side bets (such as Lucky Ladies) at Blackjack or other table games?

I am familiar with a couple of casinos that do this. For example, one casino has a $3 blackjack game (pays 3-to-2), but they require a minimum of $1 on the side bet (which I believe is 21+3). Without the side bet requirement, the game could not exist.

According to the Akwesasne Mohawk Casino Three Card Poker web page , you must play both the “Ante” and “Pair Plus” wagers.

Fort McDowell Casino in Az has a $2 Blackjack (might be $3) game that requires a $1 side bet to play it.


ZCore13

If you off in the middle of nowhere with a half empty casino and a lousy two dollar table ... the dealer won't be making much and I don't blame a casino for trying to do something to make the table pay for itself.

Quote: nvr55xx

Just curious,

Have casinos ever REQUIRED side bets (such as Lucky Ladies) at Blackjack or other table games? In your opinion, do you think that this would be a better idea than 6 to 5 BJ, especially at lower limit tables? For example: 3 to 2 BJ is $5 minimum with a $1 side bet mandatory minimum. This would encourage players to bet higher, while allowing casinos to advertise "$5 3 to 2 Blackjack" tables. Just a thought....

Yes, on low-limit tables.

Northern Quest Casino in Airway Heights WA has a $2 min table that has a semi-mandatory 21+3 sidebet. It's optional, but you have to do it to play at a $2 min. If you don't play the sidebet, your min is $5 like the other tables.

I think CET properties require you to play Pair Plus if you want to play the 6 card Bonus bet on 3 Card Poker.

Quote: miplet

According to the Akwesasne Mohawk Casino Three Card Poker web page , you must play both the “Ante” and “Pair Plus” wagers.

It's true, I had a thread about it. It does have the better 1-4-6 pay table though.

deleted

Quote: tringlomane

I think CET properties require you to play Pair Plus if you want to play the 6 card Bonus bet on 3 Card Poker.

I can verify this, and add that if you want to play that bet on UTH as well, you must play the Trips.

I view the Blind bet in many SHFL games, like Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em and Double Draw Poker, to be a forced side bet.

Quote: Wizard

I view the Blind bet in many SHFL games, like Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em and Double Draw Poker, to be a forced side bet.

I see your point, but I don't view those bets that way. Those bets are needed to offer other player options that make the game more exciting. A side bet to me is a bet where the main game can still succeed completely without it.

Quote: tringlomane

A side bet to me is a bet where the main game can still succeed completely without it.

Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em could be played without the Blind, but it would have a huge player advantage. If having some big payoffs is critical to the game, they could have added bonuses, like they do in Three Card Poker. The way I see it, the Blind is the price the player pays for the option to raise on good hands. In other words, a forced very negative side bet.

Gee I see a game that has a sign $5 minimum. If I have to bet more than $5 to play a hand, how can anyone deny I am being forced to play a side bet ?

Quote: Buzzard

Gee I see a game that has a sign $5 minimum. If I have to bet more than $5 to play a hand, how can anyone deny I am being forced to play a side bet ?

So when you play blackjack switch, is the hand on the left the side bet or the hand on the right?

Hey, I get 2 hands at $5 each. DUH !

On a serious note , before a certain English bloke gets angry, the $10 minimum bet on weekends, basically killed Switch in Colorado. This had been a $5 market for 20
years before it went to $100 max.

Players were reluctant to bet $20 to play. Switching had a negative unintended effect as well. Beside putting out $20 to play an unfamiliar game, the prospect of splitting and/or doubling after switching, could quickly exceed the comfort level of a nickle player.
He could see himself losing $50 or more, when that dealer 6 rolled out to a 21.

At least that's my opinion. The only one I have.

Don't say it, Tom or Mission.

I plead the 5th :)

Mickey says you drank a fifth !

Quote: Buzzard

Mickey says you drank a fifth !

He was hammered at the time so his word may not be worth much :)

I think there's two interesting issues. The first is whether a casino, trying to get more House Edge where the base game is such as Blackjack, can force the players to make a side bet, thus making the table viable. To me that sounds like a business decision subject to normal economics; if players accept, it will succeed and if not, it won't.

The second, which I find more interesting, if whether a game's designer, or casino trying to get rid of 19/20 like payouts, deliberately adds in a mandatory Bet as part of playing the game to even out the maths and combined House Edge.

In simple terms the base bet(s) [Ante/Raise or just Play] is positive to the player, perhaps an Ante with an optional Raise (always leaving players in the game where the Ante might be zero or negative HE). Thus the game looks and feels good. To make up for this there is an additional (or equal) Bet required that has a higher -HE to offset the other parts HE. [Where the "Play" part is +HE. the "Bet" part has to be an equal bet - otherwise people would max Play and min Bet.] Some poker games use this mechanism.

As a stupid example, you introduce a very friendly version of normal Blackjack that allows everything nice (DDAS, S17 etc.) and pays bonuses like Spanish 21, 5-card Charlie's it might land up +5%. Now you insist on an equal sidebet but pays lousy odds for something or like some of the poker ones, doesn't lose very often but doesn't pay often either. Would players find it more fun?