Benefit of 6:5 - to the casino?
This is a game where all of the variables are consistent. The rate of play is determined by a clock that ticks down the time to place a bet. There's a clock that runs between every single card being played. There can be one player or a thousand - the time for a hand does not change. There's a constantly-fresh deck of cards. No true count, running count, no benefit of any index plays. I don't know them, but other variables are also fixed - splits, double downs, insurance.
Assuming 3:2 payouts on Blackjack, and a $5 bet, what's the casino's expected return? Can that be expressed as a return in cents-per-dollar-bet?
Changing the payout from 3:2 to 6:5 increases that return. But by how much? It's the only change, so all of the difference is because of this decision.
It's easy to go from there to what an estimated drop-off in volume (probably not much) would do to the benefit.
Some one of the empty suits must have done the math.
Can someone here?
7.5/5 - 6/5 = 1.5/5.
So the casino saves / makes $1.50 for every $5 wagered when the player gets blackjack & the dealer does not.
Quote: billryanPeople may double down on a soft 21 rather than take the 6-5 payout, so it might not be as simple as that.
That player needs a comp buffet.
typically that would raise the house edge to maybe around 2%
https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/rule-variations/
All things being equal EXCEPT for the payout on a natural, what can the casino expect to gain by making the change.
I'll make up some numbers:
After one million hands at $5 per hand, with a set of game rules that can be simulated, and a 3:2 payout on a blackjack, let's say that the casino will have made $1,000,000, or an average of $1 per hand played.
After one million hands at $5 per hand, with a set of game rules that can be simulated, and a 6:5 payout on a blackjack, the casino will have made $1,010,000, or an average of $1.01 per hand played.
So the net benefit is a penny per hand if the casino does nothing more than change the odds on blackjack.
Let's assume that 3:2 versus 6:5 does not impact on player actions. Nobody doubles their blackjack. everybody takes the 6:5 payout. (Can you even DO that, blackjack payout notwithstanding?)
I'm thinking that maybe offering bad odds on a blackjack reduces the overall total of hands played, but that loss is more than offset by the increase in per-hand profit that accrues from 6:5.
Not that the empty suits would have bothered, or listened to anyone that did, but what's the profitability of going from 3:2 to 6:5. What exactly?
Is that right?
I don't have any data on this, but if you look at this from an economic point of view, 6/5 would not exist if it made less than 3/2 for the casino spreading the game.
Quote: racquetI'll make up some numbers:
why are you making up numbers? did you see the Wizard link?
Quote: racquetI'm thinking that maybe offering bad odds on a blackjack reduces the overall total of hands played, but that loss is more than offset by the increase in per-hand profit that accrues from 6:5.
Not that the empty suits would have bothered, or listened to anyone that did, but what's the profitability of going from 3:2 to 6:5. What exactly?
You mean, what amount? There's no way of knowing without comparing the number of people who played when it was 3:2 to the number that play under the same conditions when it is 6:5. However, as long as people think they are good enough to beat a 6:5 game by counting, something tells me the two numbers are very close to identical, especially when you are dealing with people where gambling is secondary to clubbing or shows.
However, as long as the amount is, "something greater than zero," that is all of the profitability the casino needs to make the change.
Note that this is not universal by any means; Cache Creek casino, somewhere between San Francisco and Sacramento, runs TV ads and billboards promoting that all of its blackjack games are 3:2 (although that has taken a backseat to promoting its 1700 penny slot machines).
Quote: ThatDonGuyYou mean, what amount? There's no way of knowing without comparing the number of people who played when it was 3:2 to the number that play under the same conditions when it is 6:5. However, as long as people think they are good enough to beat a 6:5 game by counting, something tells me the two numbers are very close to identical, especially when you are dealing with people where gambling is secondary to clubbing or shows.
However, as long as the amount is, "something greater than zero," that is all of the profitability the casino needs to make the change.
Note that this is not universal by any means; Cache Creek casino, somewhere between San Francisco and Sacramento, runs TV ads and billboards promoting that all of its blackjack games are 3:2 (although that has taken a backseat to promoting its 1700 penny slot machines).
I saw a Cromwell ad that featured Double Deck 3-2 BJ.
Quote: billryanI saw a Cromwell ad that featured Double Deck 3-2 BJ.
Being in LV it was sad to see a pile of 6:5 blackjack with a pile of people playing. Even in Binions they had piles of 6:5 blackjack at $5, people playing happily along, completely not understanding that they were getting screwed.
Quote: boymimboBeing in LV it was sad to see a pile of 6:5 blackjack with a pile of people playing. Even in Binions they had piles of 6:5 blackjack at $5, people playing happily along, completely not understanding that they were getting screwed.
I guess we know what looking at a cow girl costs now.
We are thinking of changing the odds on a natural in blackjack from 3:2 to 6:5. Assuming all other other rules remain the same, and assuming the same level of play, what increase can we expect in our total income?
We understand that paying 6:5 for a blackjack saves us money. We get it that paying $6 on a $5 bet is a better deal for us than paying $7.50.
But:
If one million $5 bets are made in a game played by our rules, how much money will we be left with after all those bets, assuming 3:2 blackjack?
If one million $5 bets are made in a game played by our rules, how much money will we be left with after all those bets, assuming 6:5 blackjack?
In any company, if someone goes to senior management with a suggested change in pricing of its product, a reasonable question is: what will it do to our income?
Ignore extraneous decisions that might be made like: "not as many people will play" or "people will reduce their average bet".
Quote: racquetCasino management asks:
We are thinking of changing the odds on a natural in blackjack from 3:2 to 6:5. Assuming all other other rules remain the same, and assuming the same level of play, what increase can we expect in our total income?
We understand that paying 6:5 for a blackjack saves us money. We get it that paying $6 on a $5 bet is a better deal for us than paying $7.50.
But:
If one million $5 bets are made in a game played by our rules, how much money will we be left with after all those bets, assuming 3:2 blackjack?
If one million $5 bets are made in a game played by our rules, how much money will we be left with after all those bets, assuming 6:5 blackjack?
In any company, if someone goes to senior management with a suggested change in pricing of its product, a reasonable question is: what will it do to our income?
Ignore extraneous decisions that might be made like: "not as many people will play" or "people will reduce their average bet".
I can't imagine the conversation going down like that.
I think it's much more likely that someone noticed the drop getting lighter after party pits started popping up and the decision was to make the adjustments nessissary to pay cow girls.
Quote: racquetCasino management asks:
We are thinking of changing the odds on a natural in blackjack from 3:2 to 6:5. Assuming all other other rules remain the same, and assuming the same level of play, what increase can we expect in our total income?
We understand that paying 6:5 for a blackjack saves us money. We get it that paying $6 on a $5 bet is a better deal for us than paying $7.50.
But:
If one million $5 bets are made in a game played by our rules, how much money will we be left with after all those bets, assuming 3:2 blackjack?
If one million $5 bets are made in a game played by our rules, how much money will we be left with after all those bets, assuming 6:5 blackjack?
In any company, if someone goes to senior management with a suggested change in pricing of its product, a reasonable question is: what will it do to our income?
Ignore extraneous decisions that might be made like: "not as many people will play" or "people will reduce their average bet".
A BJ happens approx. every 22-23 hands. Lets call it 20 just to make the formula easier.
Divide 1,000,000 by 20, then multiply the answer by $1.5. So we have 50,000 BJs, each one saving the casino $1.50.
In this case, the numbers show an extra $75,000.
These numbers aren't accurate as the number of BJs will be higher, but then some of them will be negated by dealer BJs that result in no payoff. As they happen in both 6-5 and 3-2 games, I think that would result in a wash
Quote: racquetMaybe I'm not being clear.
All things being equal EXCEPT for the payout on a natural, what can the casino expect to gain by making the change.
I'll make up some numbers:
After one million hands at $5 per hand, with a set of game rules that can be simulated, and a 3:2 payout on a blackjack, let's say that the casino will have made $1,000,000, or an average of $1 per hand played.
After one million hands at $5 per hand, with a set of game rules that can be simulated, and a 6:5 payout on a blackjack, the casino will have made $1,010,000, or an average of $1.01 per hand played.
So the net benefit is a penny per hand if the casino does nothing more than change the odds on blackjack.
Let's assume that 3:2 versus 6:5 does not impact on player actions. Nobody doubles their blackjack. everybody takes the 6:5 payout. (Can you even DO that, blackjack payout notwithstanding?)
I'm thinking that maybe offering bad odds on a blackjack reduces the overall total of hands played, but that loss is more than offset by the increase in per-hand profit that accrues from 6:5.
Not that the empty suits would have bothered, or listened to anyone that did, but what's the profitability of going from 3:2 to 6:5. What exactly?
Perhaps this question is all more complicated than it seems to me.
Perhaps the OP is being teased for such a simple calculation.
1 million hands @ $5 = $5,000,000 risked. Doubles and splits don't matter for this, because either you have bj in the first two cards or you don't.
6:5 bj pay instead of 3:2 adds 1.39% to the HE. This calculation has already accounted for when the dealer has bj, too.
$5000000 x .0139 = $69,500 more to the casino, theoretically.
Quote: VegasriderForget 6:5, I'll take even money and I'll take that insurance bet too.
I'm sure the casinos love you.
Quote: dglscorriganI am a low limit better. If it is $5 at 6/5 or $15 at 3/2. I play 6/5. It is the right choice for a $100 or $200 bankroll
Sitting at a $6-5 table is dumb
Sitting down at a $15 table with $100 or $200 is even dumber.
Of two evils, choose neither. Grow your BR and attack the $15 table, assuming its got decent rules.
Quote: beachbumbabsPerhaps this question is all more complicated than it seems to me.
6:5 bj pay instead of 3:2 adds 1.39% to the HE. This calculation has already accounted for when the dealer has bj, too.
$5000000 x .0139 = $69,500 more to the casino, theoretically.
So the change in HE can be easily converted to the actual increase in income to the casino?
For every dollar wagered, the casino can expect to make an additional 1.39 cents?
Quote: racquetSo the change in HE can be easily converted to the actual increase in income to the casino?
For every dollar wagered, the casino can expect to make an additional 1.39 cents?
While hanging out in Vegas this weekend, I came to the realization that people who want to play 3:2 blackjack will seek out places that offer it at the level of play they want to play it at. These are people who are in it for the HE, the purists.
But they are also people who want to do something in the casinos and hang out, drink for cheap, and be social. There is no other perfect play than a gaming table. It's a great community game that pits community vs the dealer. You can't do a community thing at a slot machine as well: you have one person pressing the buttons while everyone else talks. People have had enough exposure to it and can add and there is usually someone at the table who will provide pointers, including the dealer. All these people care about is tossing in $5, losing their $.10 a hand, play a couple of hundred of hands over 2-3 hours, lose $20, and pound back 4-6 drinks for $5 (tips) rather than having to shell out $10 / drink (and more) at the bar. They have fun, get to ogle the dealers, get drunk for cheap, and then head into the nightclubs and save a bunch of money on alcohol that they don't have to buy since they're already drunk.
Quote: racquetCasino management asks:
We are thinking of changing the odds on a natural in blackjack from 3:2 to 6:5. Assuming all other other rules remain the same, and assuming the same level of play, what increase can we expect in our total income?
We understand that paying 6:5 for a blackjack saves us money. We get it that paying $6 on a $5 bet is a better deal for us than paying $7.50.
But:
If one million $5 bets are made in a game played by our rules, how much money will we be left with after all those bets, assuming 3:2 blackjack?
If one million $5 bets are made in a game played by our rules, how much money will we be left with after all those bets, assuming 6:5 blackjack?
In any company, if someone goes to senior management with a suggested change in pricing of its product, a reasonable question is: what will it do to our income?
Ignore extraneous decisions that might be made like: "not as many people will play" or "people will reduce their average bet".
As I, and others, stated earlier, everything else - including the number of bets - being equal, each hand has about a 1/21 chance of being a blackjack - make it 1/22 to take into account that it's really 1/21 that the player has a blackjack and 20/21 that the dealer does not.
The house should keep an extra 0.3 x 1/22 x $5 = 6.818 cents per $5 bet, or $68,180 per million $5 bets.
However, note that I bolded the last line of your post. You cannot make this assumption in the conversation. Otherwise, why not change the rules to, "The house wins all hands where the player does not have 21"? The casino will make far more money than it does now, and never mind that very few people will play it.
Even something as innocuous as whether or not the dealer hits a soft 16 has to take into account the possibility of fewer people playing the game because of it.
Quote: ThatDonGuy
Even something as innocuous as whether or not the dealer hits a soft 16 has to take into account the possibility of fewer people playing the game because of it.
Where do I find the stand 16 game? I want in on that! :-)
Ploppy logic :
Take even money on a blackjack vs A
Never take insurance.
*Face Palm*
Quote: prozemaWhere do I find the stand 16 game? I want in on that! :-)
d'oh - that's what happens when you type while worrying if using your microwave too long will burn your house down.
I'll leave that for a separate thread - and here it is.
Hmmm...I wonder what the house edge would be on a game where the dealer stands on all 16s, but wins all ties?
Quote: ThatDonGuy
The house should keep an extra 0.3 x 1/22 x $5 = 6.818 cents per $5 bet, or $68,180 per million $5 bets.
Ignoring all the extraneous matter and concentrating on my question, I think I have two possible answers:
1.39 cents per dollar wagered
6.818 cents per $5 bet --> 1.36 cents per dollar.
Close enough for me. I'm going to round to 1.4 cents.
I know that there will be extraneous factors that will effect the actual amount taken in. People will not play a 6:5 game. They will alter their play - surrender/take even money.
But before considering those factors, the first question is what's the expected increase in revenue, all things being equal.
The situation I see is a Fusion or Stadium game with a CSM, reduced splitting options, and other increases in HE that tells me that there will not be as great a falloff in play as you might expect - the clientele at those stations are already idiots. Some of them might notice 3:2 changing to 6:5. Some might have read somewhere that 6:5 is not as good for them as 3:2. Many won't notice. Many will continue to play the same way they were playing before, and yes, some will modify their play to give the house an even greater edge.
But if none of that happens, and play were to continue as it had previously, then they'd make a little less than a penny and a half more per dollar wagered.
Which, if you assume the average edge (due to player strategy errors) to be 2% prior to going to 6:5, is 70% more than they were making with 3:2. A 70% increase in revenue is quite significant.Quote: racquetBut if none of that happens, and play were to continue as it had previously, then they'd make a little less than a penny and a half more per dollar wagered.
Quote: JoemanWhich, if you assume the average edge (due to player strategy errors) to be 2% prior to going to 6:5, is 70% more than they were making with 3:2. A 70% increase in revenue is quite significant.
I guess "player strategy error", would get worse, since anyone who doesn't get up and walk away when the odds change from 3:2 to 6:5 is an idiot. So that might generate an increase in average return, perhaps offset by a reduction in "coin in" because the smarter players would vote with their feet.
