Offering low limit 3:2 blackjack doesn't actually make financial sense
The average ploppy plays well enough nowadays that they're only giving up ~ 1.5% to the house or so even with marginal rules.
So on a $10 table, with an average bet of maybe $15 and 6 hands played at a rate of 60 hands / hour, the house is looking at an EV of $81 for the house. Which on the surface doesn't look that bad.
But keep in mind the casino spends about 40% of theo on comps/promotions. So that # is now down to $48 / hour. Drink service to the table is maybe another $10 / hour. You have to pay for dealers, supervisors, etc, and the opportunity cost of having the table there. When all is said and done, a casino might make $10 - $20 / hour on a $10 3:2 blackjack game. On a $5 game? Forget about it, they'll lose money. And if there's a lot of empty tables, or a table plays unusually slow, those are a drain as well.
Pumping up the house edge with the 6:5 rule doesn't just double the house's profits, it'll make them 5X as high because a lot of the expenses associated with running a table game are fixed.
It has nothing to do with card counting, and 6:5 games don't affect serious card counters since almost all 6:5 games are low limit games. I've never seen a 6:5 game with a $25 minimum or higher on it (since at that level 3:2 games are profitable). They're almost all $5 and $10 minimum games.
Quote: onenickelmiracleMaybe they could have a rule requiring $15 for 32 payout. Noticed a casino's match play coupon pays even money on black jack the other day and felt it was cheap and sneaky being on the back.
Yeah, I thought of that, but what would the layout say?
"Pays 3:2 on blackjack, unless you're betting under $15, then 6:5" More practical just to have different tables to shaft low limit players.
As for the match play coupon, that's not really cheap, it's just stupidity. They save like 1% of the face value of the coupon in doing so. It's probably done because someone in marketing said "even money bets only for match play coupons" and some lawyer wrote up the rules/conditions on the coupon itself, and that's the end result.
Quote: sc15Yeah, I thought of that, but what would the layout say?
Blackjack pays even money with less than $x wagered.
Then you obviously have not been in Venetian and Palazzo casinos since March. Venetian and Palazzo changed the payouts to 6/5
for most of their blackjack games under $100.
Quote: Buzzard" I've never seen a 6:5 game with a $25 minimum or higher on it "
Then you obviously have not been in Venetian and Palazzo casinos since March. Venetian and Palazzo changed the payouts to 6/5
for most of their blackjack games under $100.
Ouch. That is a pretty high end property, but I'm surprised quarter players would put up with that.
Quote: BuzzardThen you do not know anything about blackjack players. Were you one of the 6/5 blackjack boycotters 10 years ago ? How did that work out ? LOL
No, I know the typical red chip ploppy is pretty dumb, but most people betting more money have some kind of intelligence.
Are you sure you have ever been around gamblers ? Ask Ace of Spades about all the smart guys he sees paying BJ in the high limit rooms ?
Quote: Buzzard" No, I know the typical red chip ploppy is pretty dumb, but most people betting more money have some kind of intelligence. "
Are you sure you have ever been around gamblers ? Ask Ace of Spades about all the smart guys he sees paying BJ in the high limit rooms ?
For the most part, people I see betting black action follow basic strategy.
Got stuck with a $4 orange juice bottle the other day and I don't think I'll ever get over it. Then $10 sandwiches, with a $5 off coupon for what should be $6 in the first place, whoopy $5.Quote: mcallister3200The free meals(especially buffets) and hotels don't cost near the $ value of comps.
Quote: mcallister3200Casinos used to spend about 40% of Theo on comps, it is probably closer to 25-30% now. Also those are not close to a dollar for dollar cost since cashback and freeplay are rare for table games(I know some places do matchplays.) The free meals(especially buffets) and hotels don't cost near the $ value of comps.
Right, casinos will give you much more in soft comps than they will hard comps, but they don't "charge" your comp account the rack rate for rooms. (Not your comp balance, but the internal comp account they have to track what they've given you vs your theo). I've seen some of the rates they put (some places show a rate on the touch screen or give you a "comp rate" at some other point during booking) and they're substantially lower than any posted rate that you can book the room at.
Give each player at the table betting $5 or $10 a large "Blackjack Pays 6:5" button that lays in front of their bet covering a "Blackjack Pays 3:2" circle in front of each betting circle. If they start betting $15 or above, simply remove the button until they go back to $5 or $10. Have a sign at the table that says "Bets Under $15 Without the 6:5 Button Pay 1:1"--or something that makes it the player's responsibility to make sure he has the 6:5 button when necessary.
Instead of 2 tables, one a 6:5 for $5 and one a 3:2 for $15, I can have one table open and adjust the minimum bet to $10 or higher as the number of players dictates.
The casino can then advertise "Full Pay Blackjack on EVERY Bet $15 or Above" and not have to have so many 6:5 tables--more tables can have the same felt and the "adjustable" payouts. Hell, they could even offer $1 1:1 buttons to advertise a $1 game available during morning hours.
I get that the casinos want to increase their hold. 6:5 does that. Driving people to $15 by making them see the difference in 6:5 and 3:2 would help them do that without having to have separate tables for the different payoffs.
Quote: RonC"Blackjack Pays 3:2 on All Bets Over $15"
Give each player at the table betting $5 or $10 a large "Blackjack Pays 6:5" button that lays in front of their bet covering a "Blackjack Pays 3:2" circle in front of each betting circle. If they start betting $15 or above, simply remove the button until they go back to $5 or $10. Have a sign at the table that says "Bets Under $15 Without the 6:5 Button Pay 1:1"--or something that makes it the player's responsibility to make sure he has the 6:5 button when necessary.
Instead of 2 tables, one a 6:5 for $5 and one a 3:2 for $15, I can have one table open and adjust the minimum bet to $10 or higher as the number of players dictates.
The casino can then advertise "Full Pay Blackjack on EVERY Bet $15 or Above" and not have to have so many 6:5 tables--more tables can have the same felt and the "adjustable" payouts. Hell, they could even offer $1 1:1 buttons to advertise a $1 game available during morning hours.
I get that the casinos want to increase their hold. 6:5 does that. Driving people to $15 by making them see the difference in 6:5 and 3:2 would help them do that without having to have separate tables for the different payoffs.
That's a nice system and all, but you're forgetting 1 thing: the casinos don't care about giving a fair game, they care about money. If it was up to them, they would make every table 6:5.
Why would they want to cap their profits from a 6:5 table at $15 bets when they could potentially get people to bet $500 on a 6:5 table. In other words, people are sitting at 6:5 $15 min tables anyway (even though there is a 3:2 $15 min on the next table over). Now when these players are feeling 'lucky' they might start pressing their bets. Maybe $50 per hand. I've never seen anybody bet the max on these tables, but of course the potential is there. What benefit does the casino have to stop players making these stupid bets? None. The casino already offered them plenty of fair blackjack games, but yet they chose the 6:5 table. It's the player's fault for not doing their homework before going to a casino, and the casino has every right to capitalize on this.
Quote: AvincowThat's a nice system and all, but you're forgetting 1 thing: the casinos don't care about giving a fair game, they care about money. If it was up to them, they would make every table 6:5.
Why would they want to cap their profits from a 6:5 table at $15 bets when they could potentially get people to bet $500 on a 6:5 table. In other words, people are sitting at 6:5 $15 min tables anyway (even though there is a 3:2 $15 min on the next table over). Now when these players are feeling 'lucky' they might start pressing their bets. Maybe $50 per hand. I've never seen anybody bet the max on these tables, but of course the potential is there. What benefit does the casino have to stop players making these stupid bets? None. The casino already offered them plenty of fair blackjack games, but yet they chose the 6:5 table. It's the player's fault for not doing their homework before going to a casino, and the casino has every right to capitalize on this.
They can reduce costs during "low" periods--instead of offering one 6:5 game that no higher level (green chippers or higher) will play and on low limit $5 6:5 game, they offer both on one table. They can always raise the minimum once the table is full and keep the players they want. Won't they make more money with 3 players at $25 playing 6:5 than with 3 players at $5 playing 3:2? It is a way to keep one less table open by offering two different games on one table (or even three).
If they make some of the 6:5 players "smarten up" and go to $15 instead of $5, they'll make more money on them as they do so.
I know it isn't fashionable to offer the best game combinations, but it could be...with the right promotion and marketing...
Quote: sc15I think this is the biggest cause for the spread of 6:5.
The average ploppy plays well enough nowadays that they're only giving up ~ 1.5% to the house or so even with marginal rules.
So on a $10 table, with an average bet of maybe $15 and 6 hands played at a rate of 60 hands / hour, the house is looking at an EV of $81 for the house. Which on the surface doesn't look that bad.
But keep in mind the casino spends about 40% of theo on comps/promotions. So that # is now down to $48 / hour. Drink service to the table is maybe another $10 / hour. You have to pay for dealers, supervisors, etc, and the opportunity cost of having the table there. When all is said and done, a casino might make $10 - $20 / hour on a $10 3:2 blackjack game. On a $5 game? Forget about it, they'll lose money. And if there's a lot of empty tables, or a table plays unusually slow, those are a drain as well.
Pumping up the house edge with the 6:5 rule doesn't just double the house's profits, it'll make them 5X as high because a lot of the expenses associated with running a table game are fixed.
It has nothing to do with card counting, and 6:5 games don't affect serious card counters since almost all 6:5 games are low limit games. I've never seen a 6:5 game with a $25 minimum or higher on it (since at that level 3:2 games are profitable). They're almost all $5 and $10 minimum games.
Assuming your $81/hour PER TABLE is accurate... You're leaving out a huge part that I already highlighted... That's PER TABLE. I've both read and been told that a casino generally goes off 20% theoretical on comps, which would bring the number down to $64.8. There's only ever 1 dealer per table as they generally cycle through tables, etc. So that's another $9/hour from the EV, bringing it down to $55.8. The supervisors, etc, for that pit are a pull from every table. Say, on average, you have 6 tables in a pit. Let's graciously pay your 2 PB's $20/hour, and your pit supervisor $30/hour. Well, that's $70/hour but divided across 6 tables, so about $11.67 per table per hour... and I've got to only imagine a bit of a higher pay grade than most PB's actually make ;).
This would leave that table, in that pit, with an EV of ~$44.13, per hour. Again, this is just that ONE TABLE in the pit. So I just wanted to point out that I believe you were fairly well off on your EV of a given table. If you want to go outside of the 1 table and 1 pit (surveillance, security, etc) then you'd have to start going out the pit to slots, drinks, food, etc as well.
Also, given your average ~1.5% ploppy disadvantage, you're really only doubling the house EV by adding 6:5 (it's worth 1.39% and has no playing decision effects). This would take your already calculated 'average' of 1.5% and make it 2.89%, not even really doubling it, let alone 5x their profits as you claimed.
I have seen $25 6:5 tables. The reason they're not at all the high limits yet is it's a progression thing. It might take years, or even decades, but they're going to phase out 3:2 from being 'normal' and thus eventually even the big rollers will accept 6:5 as 'normal' blackjack. It's a decent idea for profits and to combat counters, but what they're not looking at is the mentality of ruining the game. If enough people have a negative reaction to it, then it will be accepted as normal, but you'll only get 1/3 of the players you would have later on down the road. This is already beginning to show by Baccarat being the most profitable game for the strip last year, overtaking blackjack's reign. My personal opinion is it's an idiotic move... Almost like "I'm willing to take myself down to take you down!" I don't understand why they don't keep good rules, offer surrender (90% of players are completely retarded when it comes to surrender and thus donate money to the casino), and instead take a small small portion of those extra profits, from keeping the game POPULAR, and hire/educate better PB's on how to spot counters, etc, if they're really all that worried. Hell, even 90% of counters don't realize they're playing a losing game....
In my ~9 years of counting, at one point or another at least a couple dozen of my friends have all told me "Oh, you count cards too? Yeah I love it I've been doing it a while too!" Then I'm like, oh cool, what count do you use, how many indexes do you know, what's your BR, what's your spread/ramp? And they're like "Dude, you must not know how to count, you just use +1's and -1's then bet big." I seriously have not come across 1 other person of those couple dozen that actually knew how to count, and thus were throwing money at the casino's. The majority of them didn't even know basic strategy. Letting people think "counting works, counting is easy" is one of the biggest untapped money makers a casino could leverage, by FAR outweighing the potential profits (and backlash) of making 6:5 standard.
Not offering 3:2 low limit blackjack doesn't actually make financial sense.
Quote: DRichI think the analogy of single zero roulette and double zero roulette is the best. The vast majority of players that like roulette are going to play either way. Sadly, it will be the same for Blackjack in the future.
I disagree, because while on the surface that does sound accurate, but people forget WHY blackjack is/was so popular. People know it as a 'beatable' game. Like I mentioned, most of my friends who play blackjack on trips, etc, think they know a little something about 'counting,' when in reality all they're doing is playing at a higher house edge than your typical ploppy.
This mentality started with Thorp releasing Beat The Dealer. Suddenly anyone with $5 and a copy of the book thought they could take down the casino. This is what lead the rush to the game, popularized it, etc, when in fact I'd be willing to bet 90% of people who think they can 'count' are actually playing a losing game! Casino's should CATER to this mentality of "Oh yeah, we offer a game that's beatable... if you're really smart! ;)" They would be rolling in money from idiots or even intelligent people who just aren't fully educated and still playing a losing game. No one but real players understand what kind of a small edge and a grind counting is. By saying it's "beatable" people think they'll win every time and don't realize they're fighting for a 1-2% edge in the long run.
Seriously, what would a commercial on the TV saying "Yeah, we offer a game that you can beat, if you're smart!" do for that casino. There'd be lines out the door! Hire someone who can actually spot real counters and let the idiot one's stay, over betting their bankrolls and poor situations.
Quote: RomesI disagree, because while on the surface that does sound accurate, but people forget WHY blackjack is/was so popular. People know it as a 'beatable' game. Like I mentioned, most of my friends who play blackjack on trips, etc, think they know a little something about 'counting,' when in reality all they're doing is playing at a higher house edge than your typical ploppy.
Obviously we disagree. I believe that 99% of people that are coming to Las Vegas and play BJ will play anyway. Even with your analogy of people thinking they can beat the game, the vast majority do not understand that 6:5 makes it harder to win (they are just happy they automatically won that hand). Even if they do realize they are getting paid less, they still won.
Having worked in the casino business for over 20 years now, I think you are way overestimating the average gambler. When I started casinos were hesitant and embarrassed to put out slot machines paying only 92%. Today 80% of non video poker slot machines pay back less than 92% (many as low as 85% on the strip).
Quote: sc15I think this is the biggest cause for the spread of 6:5.
The average ploppy plays well enough nowadays that they're only giving up ~ 1.5% to the house or so even with marginal rules.
So on a $10 table, with an average bet of maybe $15 and 6 hands played at a rate of 60 hands / hour, the house is looking at an EV of $81 for the house. Which on the surface doesn't look that bad.
I've never seen a 6:5 game with a $25 minimum or higher on it (since at that level 3:2 games are profitable). They're almost all $5 and $10 minimum games.
I can understand that, sort of. You all know about my math deficiency. Though can you tell me how much a Bingo Room makes in hour, particularly an even hour when they ain't playing no bingo but those fixed costs ain't disappearing. 81 and hour looks pretty good in comparison to zero per hour.
So what would you do: say no poor people can play blackjack below 25 a hand? Gonna be some half naked dealers in the Tits Pits that won't be getting any tips. Casinos have to cater to the guy who has two beers and stares at two tits for two hours because that is all the Off Leash time he has per week.
Quote: RomesAssuming your $81/hour PER TABLE is accurate... You're leaving out a huge part that I already highlighted... That's PER TABLE. I've both read and been told that a casino generally goes off 20% theoretical on comps, which would bring the number down to $64.8. There's only ever 1 dealer per table as they generally cycle through tables, etc. So that's another $9/hour from the EV, bringing it down to $55.8. The supervisors, etc, for that pit are a pull from every table. Say, on average, you have 6 tables in a pit. Let's graciously pay your 2 PB's $20/hour, and your pit supervisor $30/hour. Well, that's $70/hour but divided across 6 tables, so about $11.67 per table per hour... and I've got to only imagine a bit of a higher pay grade than most PB's actually make ;).
This would leave that table, in that pit, with an EV of ~$44.13, per hour. Again, this is just that ONE TABLE in the pit. So I just wanted to point out that I believe you were fairly well off on your EV of a given table. If you want to go outside of the 1 table and 1 pit (surveillance, security, etc) then you'd have to start going out the pit to slots, drinks, food, etc as well.
Also, given your average ~1.5% ploppy disadvantage, you're really only doubling the house EV by adding 6:5 (it's worth 1.39% and has no playing decision effects). This would take your already calculated 'average' of 1.5% and make it 2.89%, not even really doubling it, let alone 5x their profits as you claimed.
I have seen $25 6:5 tables. The reason they're not at all the high limits yet is it's a progression thing. It might take years, or even decades, but they're going to phase out 3:2 from being 'normal' and thus eventually even the big rollers will accept 6:5 as 'normal' blackjack. It's a decent idea for profits and to combat counters, but what they're not looking at is the mentality of ruining the game. If enough people have a negative reaction to it, then it will be accepted as normal, but you'll only get 1/3 of the players you would have later on down the road. This is already beginning to show by Baccarat being the most profitable game for the strip last year, overtaking blackjack's reign. My personal opinion is it's an idiotic move... Almost like "I'm willing to take myself down to take you down!" I don't understand why they don't keep good rules, offer surrender (90% of players are completely retarded when it comes to surrender and thus donate money to the casino), and instead take a small small portion of those extra profits, from keeping the game POPULAR, and hire/educate better PB's on how to spot counters, etc, if they're really all that worried. Hell, even 90% of counters don't realize they're playing a losing game....
In my ~9 years of counting, at one point or another at least a couple dozen of my friends have all told me "Oh, you count cards too? Yeah I love it I've been doing it a while too!" Then I'm like, oh cool, what count do you use, how many indexes do you know, what's your BR, what's your spread/ramp? And they're like "Dude, you must not know how to count, you just use +1's and -1's then bet big." I seriously have not come across 1 other person of those couple dozen that actually knew how to count, and thus were throwing money at the casino's. The majority of them didn't even know basic strategy. Letting people think "counting works, counting is easy" is one of the biggest untapped money makers a casino could leverage, by FAR outweighing the potential profits (and backlash) of making 6:5 standard.
Not offering 3:2 low limit blackjack doesn't actually make financial sense.
A dealer costs the casino more than $9 / hour. That's roughly their base wage, but there's a lot of other costs with having a dealer at the table (or having employees in general). It probably costs the casino around $20 / hour to have a dealer. Multiply that by 1.33 since there's 1/3rd of a relief per dealer, and that's $26.6. I'll go with your math on the PCs even though I think it's a bit low (again, since the cost of an employee is higher than their salary), and we have a staffing cost of around $38 / hour. The waitress and drink service probably costs another $10 / hour at the table. So that's $48 / hour in fixed costs per table at a major resort.
With the new comp figure of 20%, $56 / hour - $48 / hour = $8 / hour in profits. (Under the 40% comp rate they would be losing money). If you start counting in that table's share of other expenses incurred by the casino (security, electricity, paying interest on the bonds that got the place built) it'll be deep in red.
With the added juice of the 6/5 blackjack, the earn rate goes up to $156 / hour, minus 20% in comps = $125 / hour. Minus the fixed 48 / hour in expenses results in $77 / hour in profits.
Perhaps. There was never a "Beat the Croupier" on the best seller list the way Thorp's Beat the Dealer was.Quote: DRichI think the analogy of single zero roulette and double zero roulette is the best. The vast majority of players that like roulette are going to play either way. Sadly, it will be the same for Blackjack in the future.
Roulette, Blackjack, Craps, Casino War, Guess Which Hand ... it makes no difference. Players vary.
Just think how one can sit down at BJ today and at your very first hand a player beside you will point out what your proper strategy is.
Or you can go to a Let It Die table and find a woman who all weekend long has dragged every new male up to her room for sex and then come back to the Let It Die table where she just loves the bejesus out of those free drinks and donts want to talk about strategy or house edge or nothing. She just wants her next free drink and her next willing male because she enjoys gambling. Mathematics of gambling? Yeah she knows mathematics: Twosome, Threesome, Foursome, ... plus you get free drinks.
Quote: DRichI think the analogy of single zero roulette and double zero roulette is the best. The vast majority of players that like roulette are going to play either way. Sadly, it will be the same for Blackjack in the future.
I use to play at a casino that offered both. The 00 table was centrally located in the pit, and closest to the entrance. The 0 table was in a corner. Their distance from each other was less than ten yards with no obstacles, and in plain view of each other. The 00 table was, by far, more popular.
Quote: Romes
Also, given your average ~1.5% ploppy disadvantage, you're really only doubling the house EV by adding 6:5 (it's worth 1.39% and has no playing decision effects). This would take your already calculated 'average' of 1.5% and make it 2.89%, not even really doubling it, let alone 5x their profits as you claimed.
Basic strategy in 6:5 is to take even money. Practically speaking, the average ploppy isn't going to play 6:5. Worse than average ones are, so the average edge will be higher. Also, 6:5 only makes sense if they are operating at capacity. Then they can replace half-way smart players with dummies, forcing the smarter players to leave or play a higher limit. An isolated casino that gets little business isn't going to do something like that; only a casino that is packed every night. Your point about surrender is valid, but in the end, your 3:2 argument doesn't hold water.
Quote: SonuvabishI use to play at a casino that offered both. The 00 table was centrally located in the pit, and closest to the entrance. The 0 table was in a corner. Their distance from each other was less than ten yards with no obstacles, and in plain view of each other. The 00 table was, by far, more popular.
You sure the 00 table didn't have a lower limit?
Most of the times a single 0 wheel has a higher minimum.
Also, at 6:5 they don't offer even money on blackjack.
Quote: sc15You sure the 00 table didn't have a lower limit?
Most of the times a single 0 wheel has a higher minimum.
Also, at 6:5 they don't offer even money on blackjack.
I'm sure, same minimum. I think what happens is when it's slow, the 00 min goes down. I remember asking the PB if there was anything else that may be different about the game...there wasn't. I asked why they play the game with the extra green spot...she said, sometimes players think that certain numbers on a certain wheel are hot. I thought wow. But it seemed to me that they are going to think that equally about both wheels...the location of the wheels in the pit seemed to be the most important factor. No one cared about the house edge. If they did, they wouldn't play roulette.
I sat down and played 6:5 once, just for the minimum and to talk to the dealer. They paid even money on their blackjacks. I'm not sure how this works in most casinos. But in that casino, and any other that does offer even money, even money is the correct play since you're insuring your whole bet for 20% instead of 50%.
Quote: SonuvabishI'm sure, same minimum. I think what happens is when it's slow, the 00 min goes down. I remember asking the PB if there was anything else that may be different about the game...there wasn't. I asked why they play the game with the extra green spot...she said, sometimes players think that certain numbers on a certain wheel are hot. I thought wow. But it seemed to me that they are going to think that equally about both wheels...the location of the wheels in the pit seemed to be the most important factor. No one cared about the house edge. If they did, they wouldn't play roulette.
I sat down and played 6:5 once, just for the minimum and to talk to the dealer. They paid even money on their blackjacks. I'm not sure how this works in most casinos. But in that casino, and any other that does offer even money, even money is the correct play since you're insuring your whole bet for 20% instead of 50%.
You only get even money if the dealer has a 10 under. If the dealer doesn't "have it" it doesn't pay even money: $10 initial bet, player has BJ, $5 insurance, dealer doesn't have it. Player looses $5 insurance, BJ pays $12. $12 - $5 insurance bet = $7 profit, not $10. I know you know the math so where are you playing where it's different?
Quote: GreasyjohnYou only get even money if the dealer has a 10 under. If the dealer doesn't "have it" it doesn't pay even money: $10 initial bet, player has BJ, $5 insurance, dealer doesn't have it. Player looses $5 insurance, BJ pays $12. $12 - $5 insurance bet = $7 profit, not $10. I know you know the math so where are you playing where it's different?
I only played it once...not going to say where I played. You got even money before the dealer checks for blackjack; the definition of even money. By the way this board is going, this doesn't seem to be the case in most places. I am not an expert in 6:5, as it's a scam and I don't play it. If you are more familiar with 6:5, then you may be correct that my experience is not the majority rule.
Quote: SonuvabishI only played it once...not going to say where I played. You got even money before the dealer checks for blackjack; the definition of even money. By the way this board is going, this doesn't seem to be the case in most places. I am not an expert in 6:5, as it's a scam and I don't play it. If you are more familiar with 6:5, then you may be correct that my experience is not the majority rule.
It's possible that the dealer made a mistake to pay even money at a 6:5 game. If anyone else has heard of a 6:5 game paying even money, please reply.
Quote: GreasyjohnIt's possible that the dealer made a mistake to pay even money at a 6:5 game. If anyone else has heard of a 6:5 game paying even money, please reply.
No, it isn't. My educated guess is they'd do it to avoid extra math.
What you don't get is a $5 bettor wants to bet $5. PERIOD.
It is not the 6 but the $5 that attracts a player to a 6/5 table.
$5 bettor buys in at $40-$60. Let's go with 60.
Tries $15, after a few hands down 1 unit.
Then gets 8's against a dealer 6. Split and 10 on first 8 , 8 in seconds and resplit, then 10 for 18 again.
Yeah, gets a 3 on third 8. Digs into wallet and brinks out another 20.
Of course dealer has 5 under 6, and rolls to 21.
Or just any series if dealers 20's and 21's.
$60 means $5 bettor can be 11 units down and still playing. $15 and 4 unit is byebye time.
Take 6 deck h17 3/2 at $15 and $5 at 6/5. Lose 9.45 cents a hand BS at $15 Lose 10.0 cents a hand BS at $5
Big F***ing difference !
Well, with the music, the pretty girls, the booze, the general festivity at least those lousy five dollar bettors won't last long at all.Quote: BuzzardWhat you don't get is a $5 bettor wants to bet $5. PERIOD.
The whole appeal of those is someone can buy in for 20 bucks and play for an hour.
A table full of $1 players paying the 25 cent fee would be 60 hands / hr * 6 spots * 0.25 = $90 / hour from the fee, MORE than a table full of $15 / hand players playing 3:2 BJ.
At that point the casino is pretty much charging them a flat fee for sitting at the table for entertainment (+ drinks)
Quote: Buzzard" I get that the casinos want to increase their hold. 6:5 does that. Driving people to $15 by making them see the difference in 6:5 and 3:2 would help them do that without having to have separate tables for the different payoffs. "
What you don't get is a $5 bettor wants to bet $5. PERIOD.
It is not the 6 but the $5 that attracts a player to a 6/5 table.
$5 bettor buys in at $40-$60. Let's go with 60.
Tries $15, after a few hands down 1 unit.
Then gets 8's against a dealer 6. Split and 10 on first 8 , 8 in seconds and resplit, then 10 for 18 again.
Yeah, gets a 3 on third 8. Digs into wallet and brinks out another 20.
Of course dealer has 5 under 6, and rolls to 21.
Or just any series if dealers 20's and 21's.
$60 means $5 bettor can be 11 units down and still playing. $15 and 4 unit is byebye time.
Take 6 deck h17 3/2 at $15 and $5 at 6/5. Lose 9.45 cents a hand BS at $15 Lose 10.0 cents a hand BS at $5
Big F***ing difference !
The idea is not to give the $5 player a better game; it is to save on the number of open tables by offering both games in the same place. Casinos don't want the $5 player if $15 players are available. They only allow $5 betting because the market doesn't allow them to go higher. As they already do, they can drive the $5 player out without closing the table or having higher limit 6:5. It could be marketed and might even be successful.
What is so wrong with trying something different?
Quote: sc15Keep in mind AC has those $1 blackjack games with a 25% house edge.
The whole appeal of those is someone can buy in for 20 bucks and play for an hour.
A table full of $1 players paying the 25 cent fee would be 60 hands / hr * 6 spots * 0.25 = $90 / hour from the fee, MORE than a table full of $15 / hand players playing 3:2 BJ.
At that point the casino is pretty much charging them a flat fee for sitting at the table for entertainment (+ drinks)
Just a note on the AC $1 BJ games. I think they are history...haven't seen one in a while now. Not exactly sure how long they've been gone, as I of course ignored them to begin with. But probably a year or so. You are right though, there was a market for it, those tables were most always busy.
Quote: sc15A dealer costs the casino more than $9 / hour. That's roughly their base wage, but there's a lot of other costs with having a dealer at the table (or having employees in general). It probably costs the casino around $20 / hour to have a dealer. Multiply that by 1.33 since there's 1/3rd of a relief per dealer, and that's $26.6. I'll go with your math on the PCs even though I think it's a bit low (again, since the cost of an employee is higher than their salary), and we have a staffing cost of around $38 / hour. The waitress and drink service probably costs another $10 / hour at the table. So that's $48 / hour in fixed costs per table at a major resort.
With the new comp figure of 20%, $56 / hour - $48 / hour = $8 / hour in profits. (Under the 40% comp rate they would be losing money). If you start counting in that table's share of other expenses incurred by the casino (security, electricity, paying interest on the bonds that got the place built) it'll be deep in red.
With the added juice of the 6/5 blackjack, the earn rate goes up to $156 / hour, minus 20% in comps = $125 / hour. Minus the fixed 48 / hour in expenses results in $77 / hour in profits.
How does a dealer cost ~$20/hour? If dealers are making $20/hour, then why the HELL do people ever tip (considering the dealers probably make more than most of their patrons).
The average salary for a BJ dealer is just over $15k (part timers making ~$11K), and I would more than assume this is after tip reporting (although I'm sure they don't properly report their tips just like servers but this doesn't effect the cost to the casino): http://www1.salary.com/Blackjack-Dealer-Salary.html
ADDING their tips to their hourly wage (which doesn't cost the casino anything), meaning I'm definitely overestimating... That would make an hourly wage of $7.36. I'd also assume this is pre-tax, as most salaries are listed.
Also, riddle me this... So you're telling me for the last 40 years they were offering all 3:2 the casino's were hemorrhaging money or breaking even? Guess all of those casino's that spung up in the desert are mirages? Even if we throw numbers left and right, the growth and profit of the industry over the years alone tell you that your numbers are off.
Quote: vendman1Just a note on the AC $1 BJ games. I think they are history...haven't seen one in a while now. Not exactly sure how long they've been gone, as I of course ignored them to begin with. But probably a year or so. You are right though, there was a market for it, those tables were most always busy.
Those AC games have been gone for at least a couple of years. They came with an ante of a quarter a hand. Between the dealer having to sweep the ante before dealing, the constant changing of chips to quarters for the ante and players agonizing over every decision, play was at a snail's pace. Many players had no idea how much they were paying to "rent" a seat at one of those tables and many wouldn't have cared.
Quote: RomesHow does a dealer cost ~$20/hour? If dealers are making $20/hour, then why the HELL do people ever tip (considering the dealers probably make more than most of their patrons).
The average salary for a BJ dealer is just over $15k (part timers making ~$11K), and I would more than assume this is after tip reporting (although I'm sure they don't properly report their tips just like servers but this doesn't effect the cost to the casino): http://www1.salary.com/Blackjack-Dealer-Salary.html
ADDING their tips to their hourly wage (which doesn't cost the casino anything), meaning I'm definitely overestimating... That would make an hourly wage of $7.36. I'd also assume this is pre-tax, as most salaries are listed.
Also, riddle me this... So you're telling me for the last 40 years they were offering all 3:2 the casino's were hemorrhaging money or breaking even? Guess all of those casino's that spung up in the desert are mirages? Even if we throw numbers left and right, the growth and profit of the industry over the years alone tell you that your numbers are off.
When did I say dealers were making $20 / hour? I said it costs the casino $20 / hour. Big difference. The casino pays for health insurance, employment taxes, costs associated with a lot of state/federal regulations, sick days, vacation days, retirement benefits, etc.
Quote: 1BBThose AC games have been gone for at least a couple of years. They came with an ante of a quarter a hand. Between the dealer having to sweep the ante before dealing, the constant changing of chips to quarters for the ante and players agonizing over every decision, play was at a snail's pace. Many players had no idea how much they were paying to "rent" a seat at one of those tables and many wouldn't have cared.
Yeah, you're right, the games probably moved at like 30 hands / hour, so collecting $45 / hour in antes (and maybe another $5 / hour in actual EV) doesn't cover the cost of the table.
Another retarded decision with those tables was imposing a $10 table max. So if the suckers at the table wanted to press their bet more than that they can't. I mean, that part makes no sense at all. Are they worried about card counters or something? Because no card counter in his right mind would sit at that table even if it was a 500 max.
Quote: sc15When did I say dealers were making $20 / hour? I said it costs the casino $20 / hour. Big difference. The casino pays for health insurance, employment taxes, costs associated with a lot of state/federal regulations, sick days, vacation days, retirement benefits, etc.
Yes, but fundamentally you're still going outside of "the table." If you want to look at how much a table makes per hour, you look at the variables of that table, for that hour... not the employee's vacation 2 months from now.
If you want to add in security at the front door, vacation, electric, air conditioning, etc, then start pulling more money in from all over the casino. Who says that slots doesn't cover all casino operation costs and that table is strictly profit? The same argument could be made the other way. I'm simply saying you're choosing to pretend that table is booting all of the costs when in fact it's shared on a much larger scale. Meaning a lot of what you took out as "operations" money is actually a ton less once it's been spread out over the pit/casino.
Quote: RomesYes, but fundamentally you're still going outside of "the table." If you want to look at how much a table makes per hour, you look at the variables of that table, for that hour... not the employee's vacation 2 months from now.
If you want to add in security at the front door, vacation, electric, air conditioning, etc, then start pulling more money in from all over the casino. Who says that slots doesn't cover all casino operation costs and that table is strictly profit? The same argument could be made the other way. I'm simply saying you're choosing to pretend that table is booting all of the costs when in fact it's shared on a much larger scale. Meaning a lot of what you took out as "operations" money is actually a ton less once it's been spread out over the pit/casino.
The average cost of training, hiring, and retaining dealers is directly attributable to table games.
How is the cost of the dealer's compensation attributable to anything other than the table game he's at?
You clearly know nothing about business management.
Quote: sc15The average cost of training, hiring, and retaining dealers is directly attributable to table games.
How is the cost of the dealer's compensation attributable to anything other than the table game he's at?
You clearly know nothing about business management.
If we're going to let the personal insults fly, then it's clear you have no idea what I'm talking about. There's two ways to look at that table. If you look at it from a business management (as you are), then yes, everything you're saying applies. However you were misleading with your opening post because you're claiming all of these extra costs in to figuring out ONE specific table's EV. If you're going to attribute all business costs, then you must also attribute all business profits, such as the bar, a restaurant, slots, craps, etc. All of those go in to the "operational" cost of the casino.
I.E. The one blackjack table in Pit 5 doesn't have it's winnings raped to pay entirely for the next wave of dealer's training. That's an expense the casino as a whole must pay for, so that one specific table pays 1/#tables+#slots+PokerProfits+BarProfits+etc+etc... not 1/CostOfTraining.
I was simply pointing out to get that one exact tables EV for any 'specific' hour, that those other costs, when broken down for that specific hour and spread across the entire casino (slots, tables, poker, etc, etc) are WAY WAY WAY smaller than you're claiming them to be for one specific table.
Quote: RomesIf we're going to let the personal insults fly, then it's clear you have no idea what I'm talking about. There's two ways to look at that table. If you look at it from a business management (as you are), then yes, everything you're saying applies. However you were misleading with your opening post because you're claiming all of these extra costs in to figuring out ONE specific table's EV. If you're going to attribute all business costs, then you must also attribute all business profits, such as the bar, a restaurant, slots, craps, etc. All of those go in to the "operational" cost of the casino.
I.E. The one blackjack table in Pit 5 doesn't have it's winnings raped to pay entirely for the next wave of dealer's training. That's an expense the casino as a whole must pay for, so that one specific table pays 1/#tables+#slots+PokerProfits+BarProfits+etc+etc... not 1/CostOfTraining.
I was simply pointing out to get that one exact tables EV for any 'specific' hour, that those other costs, when broken down for that specific hour and spread across the entire casino (slots, tables, poker, etc, etc) are WAY WAY WAY smaller than you're claiming them to be for one specific table.
How do you attribute the cost of training a dealer for blackjack to slots, poker, and the bar?
You attribute the cost of training dealers to table games. You attribute the cost of training slot attendants to slots. Costs like security get attributed to the entire business.
If you open less tables you hire less dealers. All the additional costs for a dealer leave with them as well.
The casino doesn't open the table for 1 hour and pay the dealer $9 to stand there. It has to pay for all the costs associated with having that dealer there.
