A truly discouraging sight...

Just returned from Las Vegas. Stayed at the Aria. It's not cheap, but a really nice place to stay. I walked through the casino Thr night, and had to shake my head. The 6D 6:5 CSM tables were packed. I can understand some people being drawn in with the $10 minimum, but was shocked at the number of folks who were playing strictly green/black at these tables with good $25 games the next table over. I understand a lot of people play strictly recreationally, but this is like paying $2.15 for gas when the station right across the street is selling it at $1.95. I'm more convinced than ever that 6;5 is here to stay and it's only a matter of time before it spreads to the higher limit games.

The good news is I was still able to find a couple $10 3:2 games on the strip, and an excellent $10 pitch game in a nice off-strip resort. And I won 83% of my starting bankroll in only about 5 hours!

Yes, it's weird to see people playing 6:5. They think it's only a $3 difference on a $10 bet. But they don't consider that you'll get a blackjack about every 21 hands.

Reminds me of the SD blackjack at the Rio where blackjack pays even money. And that's even worse than 6:5.

When I was down in Vegas last week I didn't even bother with blackjack on the Strip. There are far superior conditions downtown. But it's disappointing that so many people are willing to play the dreadful 6:5 games. Unfortunately, it looks like they're here to stay and will likely keep spreading.

As a game designer, I can say that conditions never change unless game protection issues warrant it, and in those terms AP did kill the golden goose. There are no payout changes to craps, Pai Gow Poker, roulette, etc., over the years, only blackjack, and for this reason. The squeaky wheel got the grease.

I can understand the nostalgia ["*sigh*, the good old days of 3:2 Blackjack, - things were so much better then...*sigh*..."] as well as the operator's point of view ["Thank God THAT door is closing on them, - it's nice to see positive table hold numbers on a consistent basis..."]

I'll be very interested to see how that works out for them. Will they increase their earnings or will they lose a sufficient volume of business in the long haul that the gain in house advantage cannot overcome only to arrive at an overall loss? Blackjack on the strip was once totally awesome. Now it's about gouging out the public in the quickest, most effective manner possible as if cleaning out gamblers a little faster for their gambling stake makes any difference at all. You didn't make any more money than you would have before, you merely made the same amount a little faster than you would have before. I guess the thinking is that if you pummel the sh*t out of them, those f*ck*rs will maybe bring more cash next time? Will it have that effect or will the gamblers figure out that since I am horribly unlucky at XYZ casino I need to play elsewhere? That's the dumb ones who don't figure out in no time at all that 6:5 turns it into a carnival game. I think competition will keep the 6:5 nonsense to a dull roar at low level tables and time will tell how this grand experiment works out. What if they go total FUBAR on it and once they realize that they are losing money from going to 6:5 and it was a horrible mistake they will have to try and make up the losses with a new blackjack variant, "F U Blackjack", designed to pick off stray drunks or in case the banjo player from "Deliverance" strolls in flush with cash. "F U Blackjack is a lot like regular blackjack except if the dealer draws a card that he breaks on or doesn't make a hand between 17-21 it goes in the discard and he draws another card. If the dealer has to pull 3 or more cards to make a hand between 17-21 this is known as the "reverse double down" and the player loses double but in examining AC as a model on this sort of strategy, it's a lot easier to send the customers packing to never return than it is to get them to come back, especially if the competition is offering a better game.

Quote: Rio481

Just returned from Las Vegas. Stayed at the Aria. It's not cheap, but a really nice place to stay. I walked through the casino Thr night, and had to shake my head. The 6D 6:5 CSM tables were packed. I can understand some people being drawn in with the $10 minimum, but was shocked at the number of folks who were playing strictly green/black at these tables with good $25 games the next table over. I understand a lot of people play strictly recreationally, but this is like paying $2.15 for gas when the station right across the street is selling it at $1.95. I'm more convinced than ever that 6;5 is here to stay and it's only a matter of time before it spreads to the higher limit games.

The good news is I was still able to find a couple $10 3:2 games on the strip, and an excellent $10 pitch game in a nice off-strip resort. And I won 83% of my starting bankroll in only about 5 hours!

If you have people stupid enough to play it, they will offer it. In time they'll figure out it was a bad move one way or the other!

Quote: Paigowdan

As a game designer, I can say that conditions never change unless game protection issues warrant it, and in those terms AP did kill the golden goose. There are no payout changes to craps, Pai Gow Poker, roulette, etc., over the years, only blackjack, and for this reason. The squeaky wheel got the grease.

The position that you are taking--that the dreaded AP's forced the change to 6:5 blackjack--seems to go against the grain of most articles on the subject. First of all, the idea of AP play (counting) being possible led to the increase in the popularity of blackjack, which has been talked about more than once. More players failing as counters meant more money for the casinos to take. Second, most of the commentary here has been that AP's actually take less money from the blackjack tables than the casinos spend trying to prevent it. To me, that sounds like a nuisance more than a reason to change the rules. You've made a statement about "why" the conditions changed--can you provide some proof of that?

Absent proof, the reason behind 6:5 is much the same as the changes to craps rules in some places that have them paying 30 for 1 instead of 30 to 1. Subtle, mostly unnoticed by the average uneducated gambler, but suddenly the game edge changes a little bit. The player frets a bit on the first underpaid blackjack, sips on his drink, and puts out his next bet. Yes, he should walk away if there is a table anywhere in town that offers 3:2 at his level, but he is here and so his his drink. Once he accepts the first underpayment and moves on, it no longer matters that the pay is short or the house edge is higher.

6:5 is a way for the house to keep more money than 3:2. They may be in bad shape and need the money, they may be unable to run good promotions to draw players, the boss may have said I need a higher hold, etc. It matters little what the reason is...it is another way to shear the sheep a little quicker.

This is the same as tightening the slot machines or any other change...get the money quicker. The sheep won't notice!

Quote: RonC

This is the same as tightening the slot machines or any other change...get the money quicker. The sheep won't notice!

There are three kinds of sheep. Those who do not notice and those who do not care. I have explained 6:5 to people smart enough to understand, but get a "meh" in return. They consider it a cost of the free drinks and pretty surroundings. Others just do not know the math. 6 is higher than 3 so it must be better! Still others don't know 3:2 is the "real" rule and just assume 6:5 is how it is.

Like many battles, this one is lost. Vegas visitors now care more about everything else in the adult Disneyland than they do the tables.

Quote: Paigowdan

There are no payout changes to craps, Pai Gow Poker, roulette, etc., over the years, only blackjack, and for this reason.

Moving from single zero to double zero wasn't a change in payout?

Reminds me of this:

One of the most vivid arithmetic failings displayed by Americans occurred in the early 1980s, when the A&W restaurant chain released a new hamburger to rival the McDonald’s Quarter Pounder. With a third-pound of beef, the A&W burger had more meat than the Quarter Pounder; in taste tests, customers preferred A&W’s burger. And it was less expensive. A lavish A&W television and radio marketing campaign cited these benefits. Yet instead of leaping at the great value, customers snubbed it.

Only when the company held customer focus groups did it become clear why. The Third Pounder presented the American public with a test in fractions. And we failed. Misunderstanding the value of one-third, customers believed they were being overcharged. Why, they asked the researchers, should they pay the same amount for a third of a pound of meat as they did for a quarter-pound of meat at McDonald’s. The “4” in “¼,” larger than the “3” in “⅓,” led them astray.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/07/great-third-pound-burger-ripoff


Though, I still wonder about the long term value of these decisions. People might not know the math, they might not care when the free drinks are flowing. But it seems to me that, over time, they will realize that they are running out of money more quickly and that they have few winning sessions.

There are the degen types, who might be addicted to losing, or oblivious or indifferent to their real losses. But I still suspect the current Vegas strategy of grabbing you by the ankles, holding you upside down and shaking every penny out as quickly as possible, might lead to a slow loss of customers over a decade or two, especially with ever more convenient options available close to home. I think there's a point where the common wisdom becomes "Vegas is one of the worst rip offs in the world," and they won't be able to get that toothpaste back in the tube.

But that's of little concern to current corporate executives.

Quote: Paigowdan

As a game designer, I can say that conditions never change unless game protection issues warrant it, and in those terms AP did kill the golden goose. There are no payout changes to craps, Pai Gow Poker, roulette, etc., over the years, only blackjack, and for this reason. The squeaky wheel got the grease.

I can understand the nostalgia ["*sigh*, the good old days of 3:2 Blackjack, - things were so much better then...*sigh*..."] as well as the operator's point of view ["Thank God THAT door is closing on them, - it's nice to see positive table hold numbers on a consistent basis..."]

No changes to craps, pai gow poker, roulette?!?

Craps - Field pays double/double and not triple/double. 30 for 1 instead of 30 to 1. Odds reduced.
PGP - Houseways are MUCH stronger now than they have been in the past. You've got to be kidding with this one - this is your bread and butter game...
Roulette: 00 looks a lot like 0. But it's actually a completely different thing, and it adds to the house edge...

Nobody was winning by counting on a $10 table with H17, no RSA, no surrender, and 60% penetration. The very fact that THIS is the game that is now 6:5, while higher denom tables with better peripheral rules are still 3:2, is enough to pretty clearly invalidate your premise.

First of all, I think the average ploppy plays blackjack quite poorly, at least the guys who are in the party pits chugging down coors lite. Even on a 3:2 game, they're likely giving up an extra 2% advantage to the house by playing poorly. I don't think ANYONE here would be able to tell the difference between a 3:2 game vs 6:5, in a "blind taste test".

For a $10 bettor at 100 HPH (you ain't getting that at the party pits), the 6:5 vs 3:2 difference is $15/hour. Although BJ isn't highly volatile, it's volatile enough so that a player (even a professional) wouldn't be able to see or feel the difference in $15/hour...especially for just a few hours over a weekend trip (i.e.: not 800 hours a year).

Casinos will offer 6:5 blackjack as long as people are playing it. Only empty tables will bring back 3:2 BJ. Hopefully this terrible game doesn't take over Reno the way it has much of Vegas.

Pennsylvania's blackjack win has increased recently and they have s17 and surrender .

Quote: RonC

Quote: Paigowdan

As a game designer, I can say that conditions never change unless game protection issues warrant it, and in those terms AP did kill the golden goose. There are no payout changes to craps, Pai Gow Poker, roulette, etc., over the years, only blackjack, and for this reason. The squeaky wheel got the grease.

The position that you are taking--that the dreaded AP's forced the change to 6:5 blackjack--seems to go against the grain of most articles on the subject. First of all, the idea of AP play (counting) being possible led to the increase in the popularity of blackjack, which has been talked about more than once.

I know this, - and I agree with this. The "hole" or trap door in the game for AP play also made it more popular for the masses, true. But what's the point here, that this AP hole is obligated to remain after its discovery by the masses? No, there's no obligation on this, implied or otherwise. The casinos offer what works for all parties, and that includes people willing to play 6:5. If people play a game because they mistakenly believe a game is beatable through a disallowed AP practice, and they are wrong, they shouldn't be surprised to discover that they were "just gambling instead of AP-ing"

Quote: RonC

More players failing as counters meant more money for the casinos to take.

Correction - more players failing as counters meant more money for the successful counters to take. This was the real situation, and it's going away. The casino operators eventually refused to be a part of that game. As for the casinos making money on failed counters, it is just as wrong for the casinos to make money from failed AP players as it is for good APs to reap from failed AP players.

Quote: RonC

Second, most of the commentary here has been that AP's actually take less money from the blackjack tables than the casinos spend trying to prevent it. To me, that sounds like a nuisance more than a reason to change the rules.

The issue of casinos stopping AP play by installing CSMs, 6:5 Blackjack or other variants is not based on the belief that is costs more to thwart AP play, but less. If countable Blackjack was the cash cow that counters claim it is, casinos would not have touched it. I have routinely seen gaming report figures of loses - negative holds - of 3:2 shoe games and double decks losing money on $500,000 of monthly drop or more, generally impossible to occur on a game-protected game. Secondly, if any AP feels that it is wasteful to institute gaming protection practices such as 6:5 blackjack or CSM machines as expensive, then know that this is the operators call to spend and allocate their operational money as they see fit. They also think changing a layout to say "6:5" instead of "3:2" is damn cheap and cost effective. Commentary here or at any Internet forum consists basically of gripes or sour grapes on what is a casino decision.

Quote: RonC

You've made a statement about "why" the conditions changed--can you provide some proof of that?"

Yes, the fact that this action was taken. I can also say that proof of what induced that decision is immaterial, just that the decision to go to 6:5 was made.

Quote: RonC

Absent proof, the reason behind 6:5 is much the same as the changes to craps rules in some places that have them paying 30 for 1 instead of 30 to 1.

30 for 1 versus 30 to 1 crap game payouts on the 2 and 12 are geographically based, with 30 for 1 NOT replacing out 30 to 1 at locals properties ervsus strip locations. Furthermore, a crap player does not have to bet the one-roll 2 or 12 bet, but the blackjack player has to play the main bet that is affected on blackjack.

Quote: RonC

6:5 is a way for the house to keep more money than 3:2. They may be in bad shape and need the money, they may be unable to run good promotions to draw players, the boss may have said I need a higher hold, etc. It matters little what the reason is...it is another way to shear the sheep a little quicker.

You're right, it matters little what the reason is except to restore profits, but that 6:5 reason by the operators was to address losses from card counting, and where the 6:5 shearing shears the card counter more than proportionally.

Quote: RonC

This is the same as tightening the slot machines or any other change...get the money quicker. The sheep won't notice!

But the card counter will, because it closes a hole in the game he formerly exploited.

Dan I don't really think the profits are down because of counters I think overall it's because the general public has become educated.Most players have casinos close to where they live and they learn to play something close to basic strategy. Years ago when there was only Vegas, players played much worse.

Where do I begin...

If a table is dropping $500k in a month and no one notices, someone should be fired. I guess 6:5 is a way to "fix" the problem at the expense of every player, but perhaps actually observing and taking action when counters are caught would preserve the integrity of the game on the floor and the experience for the gambler.

Attribute it to whatever you want, but my "ploppy" dollars are lost faster now than ever with tightening, tweaking, fixing, stopping APs, whatever...tighter slots, worse pay tables, etc. take the money away faster and make the trips a lot less fun. I am not an AP and I expect to lose whatever I take to gamble...but I do play to win as best I can and I like for my money to have a half life on the table of more than 30 seconds. All of the attempts to grab it quicker and add shitty games makes the experience--which is what is for sale in Las Vegas and at other casinos--worth less.

I don't gamble as often because of it.

Quote: Hunterhill

Dan I don't really think the profits are down because of counters I think overall it's because the general public has become educated.Most players have casinos close to where they live and they learn to play something close to basic strategy. Years ago when there was only Vegas, players played much worse.

The general improvement in play is a bit part of it, too, yes, but it would NOT have resulted in consistently negative holds (losses), which casinos must address.

Quote: RonC

Where do I begin...

If a table is dropping $500k in a month and no one notices, someone should be fired. I guess 6:5 is a way to "fix" the problem at the expense of every player, but perhaps actually observing and taking action when counters are caught would preserve the integrity of the game on the floor and the experience for the gambler.

True, it is at the expense of every blackjack player. 6:5 is simply a bad value at 2% HE, there's no other way to put it.

Quote: RonC

Attribute it to whatever you want, but my "ploppy" dollars are lost faster now than ever with tightening, tweaking, fixing, stopping APs, whatever...tighter slots, worse pay tables, etc. take the money away faster and make the trips a lot less fun. I am not an AP and I expect to lose whatever I take to gamble...but I do play to win as best I can and I like for my money to have a half life on the table of more than 30 seconds. All of the attempts to grab it quicker and add shitty games makes the experience--which is what is for sale in Las Vegas and at other casinos--worth less.

I don't gamble as often because of it.

This is a sad but natural consequence of 6:5 for the blackjack player, and it is regrettable.
I generally stick to craps, Pai Gow Poker, UTH, and notice little change for that reason.

Quote: rdw4potus

No changes to craps, pai gow poker, roulette?!?

Craps - Field pays double/double and not triple/double. 30 for 1 instead of 30 to 1. Odds reduced.

Again, is - and always had been - a locals' property versus strip property convention. Go off strip for better odds.

[rdw]PGP - Houseways are MUCH stronger now than they have been in the past. You've got to be kidding with this one - this is your bread and butter game...
I know. I was the guy re-writing a number of the stronger house ways; I was asked by an exec of MGM Resorts a few years ago to supply them stronger PGP house ways. For that matter, PGP play had become stronger also.

Roulette: 00 looks a lot like 0. But it's actually a completely different thing, and it adds to the house edge...
Single Zero American roulette has been in existence alongside single zero European roulette since antiquity, with single zero targeted for high rollers.

[rdw]Nobody was winning by counting on a $10 table with H17, no RSA, no surrender, and 60% penetration. The very fact that THIS is the game that is now 6:5, while higher denom tables with better peripheral rules are still 3:2, is enough to pretty clearly invalidate your premise.

No. If it weren't an issue, it wouldn't have been touched.

Quote: Paigowdan

No. If it weren't an issue, it wouldn't have been touched.

Only the worst games for counting were touched. Pretty clear to most folks that it's a cash-grab by the house, preying on players who don't know or care about the difference. If the target were counters, they'd have changed the games that are/were actually good for counting.

I'm not buying for one second that 6:5 has anything whatsoever to do with APs and game protection. That 3:2 with good rules can be found in the same casinos at higher minimums gives lie to this argument. If 6:5 was being deployed as a countermeasure to APs it would have been done across the board.

I've spent 28 years in the corporate world, and what I'm seeing is no different than any other business. Prices at Disneyworld increase yearly, their food gets worse, and the lines just get longer. Disney is even using the lines to their advantage - providing after-hours access (for a fee) only to people who are staying at the Disney resort hotels. It's the same in the resort casinos. Resort fees and room rates increase, comps dry up, paid parking is added, and house edge increases. 6:5 "21" (I refuse to call it Blackjack) is just part of this. The bean counters see an opportunity and exploit it so long as it's not rejected by their customers. As a for-profit enterprise they're attempting to maximize shareholder value. That's their job. As much as I'd like to, I don't blame the casinos.

You'll notice that off-strip casinos have been more resistant to 6:5. I think this reflects the fact that their customers are better educated players that are there primarily to gamble. These casinos need to compete for those players and understand that they'll lose business with unfavorable rules. The resort casinos have more captive, uneducated (in gaming terms) players. The casino action is typically a sidelight to the trip. That's what's discouraging to me - that otherwise intelligent, well-educated, affluent folks allow themselves to be held captive to a game that delivers bad value for their entertainment dollar when better options are just around the corner. I guess you could call them "enablers".

6:5 was in no way the result of counters, period!! It's no different than other companies making more money in a faster way. It's no different than that ice cream container you bought ten years ago for $2.59. Today it's still $2.59, but the container is smaller!! 6:5 is no different. You're buying the same thing but getting less value out of it.

If 6:5 replaced 3:2 as a reaction to professional gamblers, AP or not, it would have started at the higher limit tables and worked its way down to the lower. That's all you need to know. It's business, it's probably been good business, for the business. The story isn't over yet, we are still part of the story.
'Ride captain ride, on your mystery ship' !

Hey, did you guys hear they are gonna charge for parking now? Well, once again the APs (Advantage Parkers) killed the golden goose.
Just because you find free parking does not mean you should blatantly take advantage of it. And the APs had been openly talking about it on internet forums and such. Then, every ploppy took advantage of free parking. Naturally, the casions now have to respond and charge for parking, their hold was just too low because of all the APs. Way to ruin it for everybody, APs!

Quote: Canyonero

Hey, did you guys hear they are gonna charge for parking now? Well, once again the APs (Advantage Parkers) killed the golden goose.

I asked the concierge what they know about paid parking - when it's going to start, pricing, etc. Nothing is set in stone yet, but the latest this guy had heard parking was going to be free for Mlife members with Pearl status (not hard to achieve) or above. They were also discussing an option that would allow you to park at any MGM property and move between them freely once you paid your daily fee. He described the paid parking as a means of collecting revenue from people who are using the MGM parking but not patronizing the restaurants, casinos, shops, hotels, etc.

I suspect this is going to shift a lot of traffic to other strip properties, who will then respond with their own paid parking. And I think MGM understands this. Again, trying to increase shareholder value . . .

Quote: Rio481

I'm not buying for one second that 6:5 has anything whatsoever to do with APs and game protection. That 3:2 with good rules can be found in the same casinos at higher minimums gives lie to this argument. If 6:5 was being deployed as a countermeasure to APs it would have been done across the board.

No. The segregation of 6:5 and 3:2 is to also reduce the surveillance load by funneling card counters to manageable groups of tables. The same surveillance group that cannot provide protection for twelve tables can do it for three.

Quote: Rio481

I've spent 28 years in the corporate world, and what I'm seeing is no different than any other business. Prices at Disneyworld increase yearly, their food gets worse, and the lines just get longer. Disney is even using the lines to their advantage - providing after-hours access (for a fee) only to people who are staying at the Disney resort hotels. It's the same in the resort casinos. Resort fees and room rates increase, comps dry up, paid parking is added, and house edge increases. 6:5 "21" (I refuse to call it Blackjack) is just part of this. The bean counters see an opportunity and exploit it so long as it's not rejected by their customers. As a for-profit enterprise they're attempting to maximize shareholder value. That's their job. As much as I'd like to, I don't blame the casinos.

I also spent three decades in the corporate world, - to include gaming.
You are correct that gaming is in many ways no different than other businesses, - but here 6:5 is driven greatly by loss prevention. Bean counters perform this for shareholder value, too.
But changing game parameters is not an inflationary type price increase, as raising the table minimums and limits would be that action. But you are correct in that business profit parameters (including loss prevention) are driven by what the market will bear, and it seems that it can bear 6:5 blackjack.

Quote: Rio481

You'll notice that off-strip casinos have been more resistant to 6:5. I think this reflects the fact that their customers are better educated players that are there primarily to gamble. These casinos need to compete for those players and understand that they'll lose business with unfavorable rules. The resort casinos have more captive, uneducated (in gaming terms) players. The casino action is typically a sidelight to the trip. That's what's discouraging to me - that otherwise intelligent, well-educated, affluent folks allow themselves to be held captive to a game that delivers bad value for their entertainment dollar when better options are just around the corner. I guess you could call them "enablers".

No. Station casinos converted to 6:5 company-wide as a purely locals casino group, among other local companies; The larger strip chains are generally nation-wide conglomerates with more indicators and "canneries in the coal mines," and so were on the vanguard of 6:5 implementation.

Another reason 6:5 wasn't caused by AP's was the fraudulent "whopping" advertisements from Ballys when it debuted.

Quote: Paigowdan

No. The segregation of 6:5 and 3:2 is to also reduce the surveillance load by funneling card counters to manageable groups of tables. The same surveillance group that cannot provide protection for twelve tables can do it for three.

Sorry, not buying this BS. Many of the same tables that have 6:5 (including ALL 6:5 tables at Aria) are also CSMs. CSMs are a very effective counter to APs. The only reason to add 6:5 is to increase hold. FWIW, I'll play low limit CSM tables when playing with friends. It's cheap entertainment. But adding 6:5 turns it into gouging.

Quote: Paigowdan

I also spent three decades in the corporate world, - to include gaming.
You are correct that gaming is in many ways no different than other businesses, - but here 6:5 is driven greatly by loss prevention.

Agreed. But there's a big difference between loss prevention and game protection. Of course losses will be mitigated with 6:5, and hold will increase. But game protection is about countering cheats and other "undesirables" (i.e. APs). There are very effective means for countering APs and cheats that don't involve 6:5. Sorry, but it's a pure money play - nothing to do with integrity of the game. And I agree that the market will bear 6:5, at least on the strip. That's obvious from what I saw last week. My disappointment is with the market (aka, players).

Quote: Paigowdan

No. Station casinos converted to 6:5 company-wide as a purely locals casino group, among other local companies; The larger strip chains are generally nation-wide conglomerates with more indicators and "canneries in the coal mines," and so were on the vanguard of 6:5 implementation.

I never said off-strip was impervious to 6:5, just more resistant. On my trip last week I had no problem finding $5 3:2 games off-strip, and even $10 pitch games at 3:2. I didn't visit any Station properties, but the casinos I did visit for the most part reserved 6:5 for low limit SD games. On the strip however, 6:5 was nearly universal for anything under $25.

I think we can agree that in the end it's all about the money. But you're a long way from making the case with me that this has anything to do with countering APs, game protection, or integrity of the game.

Quote: Rio481

Sorry, not buying this BS. Many of the same tables that have 6:5 (including ALL 6:5 tables at Aria) are also CSMs. CSMs are a very effective counter to APs. The only reason to add 6:5 is to increase hold. FWIW, I'll play low limit CSM tables when playing with friends. It's cheap entertainment. But adding 6:5 turns it into gouging.

1. Yes - Agree - it is to increase hold! ...to counteract loss of hold primarily from card counting. If there were no AP on a game that otherwise holds fine, then no action would have been necessary.
2. Adding a CSM to a 6:5 is a waste, and is just borne of stupidity. Just because a man wears a suit doesn't mean he has a brain in his skull, regardless of industry.

Quote: Rio481

Agreed. But there's a big difference between loss prevention and game protection. Of course losses will be mitigated with 6:5, and hold will increase. But game protection is about countering cheats and other "undesirables" (i.e. APs). There are very effective means for countering APs and cheats that don't involve 6:5. Sorry, but it's a pure money play - nothing to do with integrity of the game. And I agree that the market will bear 6:5, at least on the strip. That's obvious from what I saw last week. My disappointment is with the market (aka, players).

Your quote: "Of course losses will be mitigated with 6:5..." hence its usage.
There's a lot of disappointing imperfection in gambling and casino operations. Trust me, we're looking at a whole bunch of suits who were rejected by NASA, med school, MIT, their father's business, and Mensa, you name it, though they'll never act like it.....

Quote: Rio481

I never said off-strip was impervious to 6:5, just more resistant. On my trip last week I had no problem finding $5 3:2 games off-strip, and even $10 pitch games at 3:2. I didn't visit any Station properties, but the casinos I did visit for the most part reserved 6:5 for low limit SD games. On the strip however, 6:5 was nearly universal for anything under $25.

I think we can agree that in the end it's all about the money. But you're a long way from making the case with me that this has anything to do with countering APs, game protection, or integrity of the game.

Absolutely! It is all about money - and any real or perceived threats to their pocketbook.

Quote: Rio481

...There are very effective means for countering APs and cheats that don't involve 6:5. Sorry, but it's a pure money play - nothing to do with integrity of the game. And I agree that the market will bear 6:5, at least on the strip. That's obvious from what I saw last week. My disappointment is with the market (aka, players)...

Exactly! MGM Detroit here has 5 blackjack pits. Only one is 6:5 and is ONLY open on Friday and Saturday nights. On top of that, every other hour when the red lights are on, blackjacks revert back to 3:2 and a ten on spilt aces count as blackjack and pay 3:2 as well. If the whole place was 6:5, the place would shutter it's doors.

P.S. Motorcity and Greektown do NOT have any 6:5 blackjack. Greektown did at one point about 5 years ago, but it didn't fly here.

As for it starting on SD games. Had that always been one round then shuffle, like on all poker games, counting would be a mute point.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Exactly! MGM Detroit here has 5 blackjack pits. Only one is 6:5 and is ONLY open on Friday and Saturday nights. On top of that, every other hour when the red lights are on, blackjacks revert back to 3:2 and a ten on spilt aces count as blackjack and pay 3:2 as well. If the whole place was 6:5, the place would shutter it's doors.

P.S. Motorcity and Greektown do NOT have any 6:5 blackjack. Greektown did at one point about 5 years ago, but it didn't fly here.

A ten on split aces counts as a blackjack? That's got to give the player a decent edge over a normal game even if aces don't happen that often.

Quote: PokerGrinder

A ten on split aces counts as a blackjack? That's got to give the player a decent edge over a normal game even if aces don't happen that often.

I don't think it helps a lot. These are 6D, H17 tables as well. Also, not sure if it's paid immediately of has to wait until the dealer resolves their hand. That I've not asked or witnessed.

Quote: Rio481

Of course losses will be mitigated with 6:5, and hold will increase.

Percentage hold will increase, but any increase in total hold and improvement in losses will depend entirely on the response of the players and whether enough of them are foolish enough to accept the game, as questioned in the original post.

I am not a card counter at all. I have played 6:5 "blackjack" exactly one time. I played it until the second hand dealt, which was a blackjack for me. I saw the short payout, realized what the game was, got up and walked to another game. No sense at all staying at that table. Craps is a lot more fun than crap.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Exactly! MGM Detroit here has 5 blackjack pits. Only one is 6:5 and is ONLY open on Friday and Saturday nights. On top of that, every other hour when the red lights are on, blackjacks revert back to 3:2 and a ten on spilt aces count as blackjack and pay 3:2 as well. If the whole place was 6:5, the place would shutter it's doors.

P.S. Motorcity and Greektown do NOT have any 6:5 blackjack. Greektown did at one point about 5 years ago, but it didn't fly here.

I'm heading to Detroit for business for a few days. Would like to play a bit. Can I find red chip tables at either MGM or Greektown?

Quote: Doc

Percentage hold will increase, but any increase in total hold and improvement in losses will depend entirely on the response of the players and whether enough of them are foolish enough to accept the game, as questioned in the original post.

Precisely, and hence my dismay at the packed 6:5 tables. Clearly the market is saying 6:5 is fine, so total hold will increase.

Quote: Rio481

I'm heading to Detroit for business for a few days. Would like to play a bit. Can I find red chip tables at either MGM or Greektown?

Greektown's limits will always be lower than MGM. They always seem to have at least one $10 table.

MGM tends to jack up their limits in the evenings and weekends.

Quote: Rio481

I'm heading to Detroit for business for a few days. Would like to play a bit. Can I find red chip tables at either MGM or Greektown?

$10 and $15, yes. GT is all CSM. MC is a mix. MGM is all shoes. I stay away from playing tables here and just recreationally play VP.

Quote: Paigowdan

1. Yes - Agree - it is to increase hold! ...to counteract loss of hold primarily from card counting. If there were no AP on a game that otherwise holds fine, then no action would have been necessary.

So you're arguing that the casinos are trying to increase hold on low limit tables (by adding 6:5 to CSM, 8 decks, 60% penetration, no surrender, etc.) to make up for the loss on high limit tables???? Sorry, but that makes no sense. If the high limit tables are losing money to APs the casinos would put the countermeasures there. And they have, but notice they didn't add 6:5. BECAUSE IT'S NOT A COUNTERMEASURE!!! They understand 6:5 turns away the educated gambler who is more likely to be at the high limit table. They understand that with extremely rare exceptions the card counter is not a significant threat. And they have measures (surveillance, observation, flat-bet, back-off) to identify and mitigate the threat. They also understand that recreational gamblers will look only at the $10 min and ignore the rest of the rules on the placard. Sorry, but that's strike two.

Quote: Paigowdan

2. Adding a 6:5 to a CSM is a waste, and is just borne of stupidity. Just because a man wears a suit doesn't mean he has a brain in his skull, regardless of industry.

Fixed it for you. CSM is the AP countermeasure. 6:5 is a pure revenue play.

Quote: Paigowdan

Your quote: "Of course losses will be mitigated with 6:5..." hence its usage.
There's a lot of disappointing imperfection in gambling and casino operations. Trust me, we're looking at a whole bunch of suits who were rejected by NASA, med school, MIT, their father's business, and Mensa, you name it, though they'll never act like it.....

I'm not saying casino execs are either stupid or evil. They are simply trying to maximize shareholder value. Adding 6:5, CSM, reducing comps, etc are all ideas to increase revenue, and to the degree they work will remain in place. I'm not bashing the casinos, just wish the market wasn't so willing to play along.

If this was all about the counters, there would be no need for 6:5. Use CSM's on low level games and funnel the counters to certain pits based on the games you offer. No need for 6:5 at all. 6:5 is purely to up the hold...

Quote: Rio481

Quote: Paigowdan

1. Yes - Agree - it is to increase hold! ...to counteract loss of hold primarily from card counting. If there were no AP on a game that otherwise holds fine, then no action would have been necessary.

So you're arguing that the casinos are trying to increase hold on low limit tables (by adding 6:5 to CSM, 8 decks, 60% penetration, no surrender, etc.) to make up for the loss on high limit tables???? Sorry, but that makes no sense. If the high limit tables are losing money to APs the casinos would put the countermeasures there.

No. As stated, the high limit tables can afford to have greater surveillance and other countermeasures to avoid losses that the low-limit tables shouldn't need to spend as much on. Again, Surveillance can't adequately protect twelve tables when they can protect three tables.
If you're trying to state that AP issues didn't cause or contribute to the introduction and usage of 6:5 blackjack, well, know that it did, even if it is distasteful to accept, choosing to believe that AP players are the do-gooding friends of the casino operator.

Quote: Rio481

And they have, but notice they didn't add 6:5. BECAUSE IT'S NOT A COUNTERMEASURE!!!

Oh yes it is, and an effective one.

Quote: Rio481

They understand 6:5 turns away the educated gambler who is more likely to be at the high limit table.

They understand 6:5 turns away card counters, who would then have to be ushered into the high-limit surveillance filming rooms.

Quote: Rio481

They understand that with extremely rare exceptions the card counter is not a significant threat.

They understand if any threat can be done away with cheaply, as well as increasing their profits in the process, they'll just put up a table sign that says "Blackjacks pay 6:5" and be done with it. Besides, casino bean counters make this decision as to the risk, not posters on a gambling forum. Why offer 3:2 blackjack and then have to pay for Bob Nersesian's hourly rate from a back-off gone wrong, when a 6:5 table sign basically covers this and costs $20?

Quote: Rio481

And they have measures (surveillance, observation, flat-bet, back-off) to identify and mitigate the threat. They also understand that recreational gamblers will look only at the $10 min and ignore the rest of the rules on the placard. Sorry, but that's strike two.

And they have measures of 6:5 payouts, too, and they seem to using it more and more. Looks like the windup for a possible strike three.

Quote: Rio481

Quote: Paigowdan

2. Adding a 6:5 to a CSM is a waste, and is just borne of stupidity. Just because a man wears a suit doesn't mean he has a brain in his skull, regardless of industry.

Fixed it for you. CSM is the AP countermeasure. 6:5 is a pure revenue play.

Nope. Both CSMs and 6:5 payouts are counter measures. And both CSMs and 6:5 are revenue enhancers. Both are used for both purposes.

Quote: Rio481

I'm not saying casino execs are either stupid or evil. They are simply trying to maximize shareholder value. Adding 6:5, CSM, reducing comps, etc are all ideas to increase revenue, and to the degree they work will remain in place.

They aren't completely stupid or evil. They finally seem smart enough to use what works for their bottom line. If 3:2 worked better, they'd keep it more widely.

Quote: Rio481

I'm not bashing the casinos, just wish the market wasn't so willing to play along.

I can imagine. Those damn casino bean counters and their ploppies messing up the AP gravy train for us card counters. The nerve of them protecting their business interests. If you think a game is a bad value, don't play it but neither lament it.

I wouldn't be surprised if casinos offered 3% HE even money shoes, then only to later bring out and say "we're bringing out 6:5 just for you! Lower house edge! - We're so good to our customers!" (With pictures of beautiful people laughing and smiling over a 6:5 table, the whole ad blitz....life is good....)

Quote: RonC

If this was all about the counters, there would be no need for 6:5. Use CSM's on low level games and funnel the counters to certain pits based on the games you offer. No need for 6:5 at all. 6:5 is purely to up the hold...

CSM's cost something like $2,000 per table month to rent. 6:5 is free. Remember the bean counters.....

Quote: Paigowdan

CSM's cost something like $2,000 per table month to rent. 6:5 is free. Remember the bean counters.....

speaking of bean counters, the CSMs subtract a little from the house edge for all but the counters. Now the bean counters have to compare the the number of counters vs the number of non-counters, AND add in somehow the fractional proportion of really bad counters. That prolly kept them their jobs for another year or so. Compare that to the monthly cost of the CSMs. Wonder what they are doing this year to justify their employment?

<edit> apparently at at least some of their properties the CET bean counters have drastically cut the RC and TC for table game play, or so I've been told. ('twas a little bird that could speak southern human language).

If a casino can't spot a card counter....they're doing something awfully wrong. If they try to use the 6:5 as covering up for being a card-counter counter-measure.....oh boy...

There are SO MANY ways to counter-measure these "rule breakers" (as you call them...lol), CSMs, 6:5, poor rules, poor penetration, etc. are not necessary as counter-measures. With a slight modification to how the El Cortez runs their BJ pits, they would be a perfect example of how a casino should be run.

I ain't saying casinos should not have CSMs, 6:5 BJ, poor rules, etc. (poor penetration is just stupid), since those are ways the casino makes more money faster....especially in a market like the LV strip where people are gonna be playing whether the game has good rules or not.

But, those "counter measures" are used to make more money, not to stop card counters.

Quote: Paigowdan

CSM's cost something like $2,000 per table month to rent. 6:5 is free. Remember the bean counters.....

20% more hands dealt should help them a lot with that $2,000...

Agree RonC....the CSM's real benefit is never stopping the action for shuffling or replacing burnt 6 decks with freshly shuffled 6 decks from standard shuffling machine (and then offering someone the chance to cut the decks)...all time and motion stuff that disappears with a CSM. Of course they also thwart the counters, but I don't think that benefit alone is sufficient to justify the lease rate.

Quote: RS

If a casino can't spot a card counter....they're doing something awfully wrong. If they try to use the 6:5 as covering up for being a card-counter counter-measure.....oh boy...

They often can and can't. Dealers have enough of a time dealing and adding; surveillance tracks the counters. If they can make counting one less issue, then in goes 6:5 or something similar for most tables, and then funnel the counters into the filming room/high-limit room. Any game that requires excess surveillance babysitting is an issue.

Quote: RS

There are SO MANY ways to counter-measure these "rule breakers" (as you call them...lol), CSMs, 6:5, poor rules, poor penetration, etc. are not necessary as counter-measures. With a slight modification to how the El Cortez runs their BJ pits, they would be a perfect example of how a casino should be run.

Cortez is a bit extreme. Casinos decide their mix of measures. By having less countable games, less rules are broken, less back-offs occur, less legal issues occur, with savings there. And yeah, if you get a tap on your shoulder for a back-off, it's because a rule is broken in the eyes of the casino, not the player.

Quote: RS

I ain't saying casinos should not have CSMs, 6:5 BJ, poor rules, etc. (poor penetration is just stupid), since those are ways the casino makes more money faster....especially in a market like the LV strip where people are gonna be playing whether the game has good rules or not.

You can consider the Strip casino pits as feeding troughs, where any gruel served up that gets consumed is successful. And if having a counter's point of view, any measure that hurts counters will be considered "stupid" or anti-player by the counter, and effective by the operator. If the masses are happy and the coffers full, they'll argue it ain't stupid, and will have a point.

Quote: RS

But, those "counter measures" are used to make more money, not to stop card counters.

Believe what you want, if counting becomes unfeasible or impossible, this was not an accident. Any loss prevention positive gets factored in.

PGD -
First, I appreciate the spirited debate. I understand your position, just completely disagree with it.

Second, you're right it's strike three. I'm not at all convinced. Let's take the very specific case of games with both CSMs and 6:5. CSMs are a perfect countermeasure to card counters. And they're actually cheaper than the placard at the table. By eliminating down time between shoes they more than make up for the $2000/month they cost to rent. So let's look at an example. With 6D H17 (common on the strip before CSMs were introduced) the house edge is something like .57%. It's not easy to overcome that advantage in a 6D game, but it can be done. Now the CSM is introduced as a countermeasure for a small population of skilled counters. Card counting is now completely ineffective. So what's the point of now introducing 6:5? There's no longer a threat to defeat. The answer is very simple and one that I've repeated - shareholder value. Now, if you want to make the argument that a larger hold is needed to cover increased payroll costs for the dealers, higher maintenance charges for the facility, construction for new facilities, more lavish environment, etc then I think we have something to talk about. But let's please not pretend that 6:5 is about protecting the game from counters, or that APs were the direct cause of the 6:5 trend. I'm sure this is probably the way it's discussed by the operators, but I'm afraid it's a case of them starting to believe their own BS.

Third, I reserve the right lament anything I please. I choose not to play games that are a bad value, but I do not run over to the tables and try to persuade people not to play. It's their money, and if they choose to lose it more quickly than necessary it's their business. But I do not relinquish my right to complain. And I accept that others may reject my opinions and arguments, either in good spirit or not. And I will defend your right to express your opinions even though I disagree with you. Ain't this free speech thing great?!!