a blackjack rule hurting the house?
If Las Vegas existed in the world of theoretical math, I agree that Ceasars is smart to prevent educated players with a soft 17 from doubling down against a dealer 3. But Las Vegas does not exist in an abstract theoretical world; Las Vegas exists in the real world. And in the real world, drunk tourists who don't know basic strategy outnumber sober tourists who do. Ceasars must be losing money by enforcing this rule, right?
Another thought: Doubling means the player is risking more of his bankroll, so the casino should want the action for this reason alone.
Quote: WizardBill Zender talks about this topic in his book Casino-ology. He says prohibiting soft doubles likely does not increase the house advantage, because most players don't soft double anyway. It just makes the rules look stingier, which can inhibit play. The whole book drives home the point that the measures taken to protect casinos against skilled players cost them much more than they save from the much larger pool of recreational players.
Very few amateur players (drunk or not) double on soft hands, so I don't think they are losing the "drunk" money. What I would do is have a solid game with a very low house edge, but add a couple of different side bets with higher house edges. The recreational gambler loves the side bets, and it would make up for the smaller percentage of "serious" gamblers who would know to avoid it. I love how the tourists are afraid to double 11 on a 7, but they can't get their money into the "Lucky Ladies" circle fast enough.
Quote: cclub79Quote: WizardBill Zender talks about this topic in his book Casino-ology. He says prohibiting soft doubles likely does not increase the house advantage, because most players don't soft double anyway. It just makes the rules look stingier, which can inhibit play. The whole book drives home the point that the measures taken to protect casinos against skilled players cost them much more than they save from the much larger pool of recreational players.
Very few amateur players (drunk or not) double on soft hands, so I don't think they are losing the "drunk" money. What I would do is have a solid game with a very low house edge, but add a couple of different side bets with higher house edges. The recreational gambler loves the side bets, and it would make up for the smaller percentage of "serious" gamblers who would know to avoid it. I love how the tourists are afraid to double 11 on a 7, but they can't get their money into the "Lucky Ladies" circle fast enough.
I would say the amateur players double on way more soft hands than they are supposed to, especially soft 13 vs 2, 3, and 4 (and these people don't double soft 18s when they are supposed to) Restrictive rules also prevent the morons from doubling on hard 5-8s, which they are very prone to do.
True but the casinos still take great pleasure in rooting out the skilled players that are trying to "take them". Perhaps the type of person who becomes a Floorman and sweats the money is the problem for the casino's bottom line.Quote: WizardThe whole book drives home the point that the measures taken to protect casinos against skilled players cost them much more than they save from the much larger pool of recreational players.
Quote: WizardBill Zender talks about this topic in his book Casino-ology. He says prohibiting soft doubles likely does not increase the house advantage, because most players don't soft double anyway. It just makes the rules look stingier, which can inhibit play. The whole book drives home the point that the measures taken to protect casinos against skilled players cost them much more than they save from the much larger pool of recreational players.
I think part of the problem is casino management lives in an isolated world. I have used the "McGovern Example" about this board being isolated from the larger pool of players. For newbies the example is McGovern Voters said after his landslide loss, "but everybody I know voted for him!" Meaning when you flock with a group you imagine the population at large thinks that way even if they do not.
So casino management sees someone double a soft 17 against a 6 upcard. They lose twice the amount on the hand. They sweat the money and change the rule. So the smart player leaves. Meanwhile when the smart player does this 3 of the other players at the table think he is nuts, 2 don't understand the play, and 1 complains because the smart guy "took the dealer's bust card!"
The smart player stops playing the still-negative expectation game and the other 6 notice nothing.
BTW: I have had dealers ask if I wanted to double on a soft-17 vs a 6 upcard. But they generally first have to notice that you know what you are doing at the table. At the Monte Carlo Night games I deal I will offer it but I only bring it up to players I consider sharp enough to understand it or would have played it but didn't think about the play/missed it. To show such an advanced concept to an uninterested or unskilled player merely confuses them.
Quote: cclub79Quote: WizardBill Zender talks about this topic in his book Casino-ology. He says prohibiting soft doubles likely does not increase the house advantage, because most players don't soft double anyway. It just makes the rules look stingier, which can inhibit play. The whole book drives home the point that the measures taken to protect casinos against skilled players cost them much more than they save from the much larger pool of recreational players.
Very few amateur players (drunk or not) double on soft hands, so I don't think they are losing the "drunk" money. What I would do is have a solid game with a very low house edge, but add a couple of different side bets with higher house edges. The recreational gambler loves the side bets, and it would make up for the smaller percentage of "serious" gamblers who would know to avoid it. I love how the tourists are afraid to double 11 on a 7, but they can't get their money into the "Lucky Ladies" circle fast enough.
I agree with this... It must have a high rent fee, but I don't see why 21+3 hasn't made its way onto all of the casino floors across the country. The bonus has a RELATIVELY low house edge (around 3%), they hit frequently enough for players to want to play them, and it's kind of fun. Instead, Lucky ladies is all over, and I won't put $1 on the bet. Sometimes, I do play 21+3
