It's over in CT (and all of New England?)

I don't think 6:5 has caught on because of a desire to deter the sharps.

They're moving to 6:5 because they can get away with it. The sharps might stay away, but the "dulls" will continue to show up and get screwed.

I walk by all the other games, and the slots, and the shops, to play blackjack. Sure, you have to eat, and there are a lot of very nice restaurants at the casino. But you don't have to pay $16.85 for a pack of cigarettes or $27.95 for a tee-shirt. But people do. Those shops are offering 6:5 on their products, and people happily pay up.

They weren't losing money at 3:2. Far from it. But they will make a LOT MORE money at 6:5. They'll get away with it... because they can.

I still say they won't make more money. Theyll still make the exact same amount from each person, just at a faster rate. Losing $200 on 3:2 is exactly the same as losing it at 6:5.

Quote: racquet

They're moving to 6:5 because they can get away with it. The sharps might stay away, but the "dulls" will continue to show up and get screwed.

They weren't losing money at 3:2. Far from it. But they will make a LOT MORE money at 6:5. They'll get away with it... because they can.

The dulls never see that the little difference matters so much. The party nights I deal we play 2:1. You would never have our rules in the real world. I think Wizard clocked it for me many years ago to a 1% player edge. I see it because I have hundreds of hours seeing how such a little thing matters so much to a player.

Then I tell people I know, and THEY DON'T CARE! They say they "expect to lose." Hopefully PA keeps our current rules.

Quote: AZDuffman

The dulls never see that the little difference matters so much. The party nights I deal we play 2:1. You would never have our rules in the real world. I think Wizard clocked it for me many years ago to a 1% player edge. I see it because I have hundreds of hours seeing how such a little thing matters so much to a player.

Then I tell people I know, and THEY DON'T CARE! They say they "expect to lose." Hopefully PA keeps our current rules.

Does the dealer win ties?

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Does the dealer win ties?

At the parties? No.

People not getting a push is a whole nother pet peeve. I wonder if I should make a thread on party dealing for my 10 year anniversary coming up. It has really given me an interesting outlook on it all.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I still say they won't make more money. Theyll still make the exact same amount from each person, just at a faster rate. Losing $200 on 3:2 is exactly the same as losing it at 6:5.

Right, but the reason 3:2 is not very profitable is the overhead for paying the dealer, security, pit boss, etc, and you will lose that $200 faster on 6:5.

Quote: gamerfreak

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I still say they won't make more money. Theyll still make the exact same amount from each person, just at a faster rate. Losing $200 on 3:2 is exactly the same as losing it at 6:5.

Right, but the reason 3:2 is not very profitable is the overhead for paying the dealer, security, pit boss, etc, and you will lose that $200 faster on 6:5.

Problem is, you won't get more people to replace the person that lost. As I said before, you'll have that same dealer standing there twiddling his thumbs.

Blame high wages and unions for it not being profitable.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Quote: gamerfreak

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I still say they won't make more money. Theyll still make the exact same amount from each person, just at a faster rate. Losing $200 on 3:2 is exactly the same as losing it at 6:5.

Right, but the reason 3:2 is not very profitable is the overhead for paying the dealer, security, pit boss, etc, and you will lose that $200 faster on 6:5.

Problem is, you won't get more people to replace the person that lost. As I said before, you'll have that same dealer standing there twiddling his thumbs.

Blame high wages and unions for it not being profitable.

That may be the case in Vegas, but not so much in markets where the next casino might be a 2 hour+ drive.

It’s not uncommon for those casinos to have packed tables on a Saturday night, and people standing behind the table waiting for a seat to open.

And I thought in most places dealers get paid less than minimum wage because it’s a tipped position, am I mistaken?

Come out to Reno and enjoy all the 3:2 BJ you want. $3 minimum on up, single, double or six deck shoes

Quote: AZDuffman

I will at least partially buy that. One day I am going to crack and strangle a person who says to a new player, "see, the object is to get as close to 21 as possible without going over."

I agree it's a bad explanation, but it's clear and easily understandable. What kind of equally succinct summary would you give? "The object is to win by having a higher total than the dealer or by letting the dealer get a total over 21."? That has far more complexity-- for one, they have to be looking at their own hand and the dealer's to decide what to do. I don't think most people, when first starting out, would be able to comprehend a more complex set of instructions.

Since I've taken up playing at VBJ machines, I've seen a crippling amount of, ah, unusual behavior, ranging from standing on a pair of aces to doubling a 23vT. (Thankfully, every machine I've seen auto-stands at a hard or soft 21, so we won't have a repeat of "You have a hard 31.") I broke my policy of letting them do whatever crazy thing they wanted when somebody's friend was telling them to double their TTv8... that was just so egregiously off that I startled at it. He only listened to me, and instead of his friend who still insisted that it was a good idea, when he noticed I was betting table max and assumed that I knew what I was talking about. There's just a tremendous lack of basic knowledge about the game.

Quote: Venthus

I agree it's a bad explanation, but it's clear and easily understandable. What kind of equally succinct summary would you give? "The object is to win by having a higher total than the dealer or by letting the dealer get a total over 21."? That has far more complexity-- for one, they have to be looking at their own hand and the dealer's to decide what to do. I don't think most people, when first starting out, would be able to comprehend a more complex set of instructions.

I say, "The object is to beat the dealer without going over 21."

Sometimes even that does not work as I have had players grumble they have to hit on a 19 because another player has 20! They thought they were playing against the other players!

The best hand of blackjack ever played!

https://youtu.be/XI4fex06rc4

I think there's often something that gets missed with these "low house edges", and that's being out bankrolled, or more importantly 99.54% of the players in a casino having a super high RoR. If the VAST MAJORITY of players have massive RoR's, then the casino doesn't even need a big edge to beat them (or an edge at all really), they just need to outlast them until they donate their money.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Quote: Wizard

As players, we are losing the fight against 6 to 5, battle by battle, and will eventually lose the war. I hope this won't be any big corporate reveal, but when I worked for a major Strip casino I calculated the company only broke even on a $50 3-2 player with average strategy, to say nothing of the basic strategy player. The thin house edge covered the cost of labor but left nothing to be filed under profits.

When the day comes that there are no affordable 3-2 games, please don't forget about Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em, which has an Element of Risk of 0.53%. Craps too. The only reason that game is still alive is the many sucker bets on the table.

So instead of letting the players play for a bit longer, make them lose faster so the dealers are standing around doing nothing but twiddling their thumbs. Makes sense. I'll say this again, casinos are not making more money by doing this.

Say it as many times as you want - doesn't make it true. Glad to hear from such an expert as you, though.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I still say they won't make more money. Theyll still make the exact same amount from each person, just at a faster rate. Losing $200 on 3:2 is exactly the same as losing it at 6:5.

Then why would they make such a change? There are people that are far smarter and more experienced than we are making these decisions. Why would they change from 3:2 to 6:5 if you claim their revenue will remain the same or even go down?

Quote: TigerWu

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I still say they won't make more money. Theyll still make the exact same amount from each person, just at a faster rate. Losing $200 on 3:2 is exactly the same as losing it at 6:5.

Then why would they make such a change? There are people that are far smarter and more experienced than we are making these decisions. Why would they change from 3:2 to 6:5 if you claim their revenue will remain the same or even go down?

They think they'll get faster turn over of customers. Won't happen.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

They think they'll get faster turn over of customers. Won't happen.

Well, 6:5 has been in other places for years, right? How is the turnover at casinos that implemented it ages ago? Is stuff like that even public knowledge?

Quote: TigerWu

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I still say they won't make more money. Theyll still make the exact same amount from each person, just at a faster rate. Losing $200 on 3:2 is exactly the same as losing it at 6:5.

Then why would they make such a change? There are people that are far smarter and more experienced than we are making these decisions. Why would they change from 3:2 to 6:5 if you claim their revenue will remain the same or even go down?

The fact that roulette EXISTS is proof enough that the 2-3% house edge 6:5 BJ can exist, and even thrive. Maybe they lose the .1% of players that are APs or even smart enough to know the difference. But they are making an extra 50 cents on every green chip bet at every 6:5 table. If the market shows that not enough players will play 6:5 then it wil go away, just like roulette has. Just like 92% slots have. Just like inside bets at craps have. Just like resort fees have. Just like parking charges have.

There probably is some restaurant forum where some guy is saying.... If we really charge $40 for a bottle of wine that we buy for $10 no one will come to that restaurant! I think I had dinner there last night........

A key difference is that involves player decision in it's edge and has a real impact in results. (Comparing to, say, baccarat where your decision influences nothing, or craps, where the throw is an RNG generator*.) I've heard a rather reasonable opinion that suggests that the greater the player responsibility in the outcome, the lower the edge should be (in optimal play).

*Or not. /DI

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

There are people that are far smarter and more experienced than we are making these decisions.

Well, I don't think so. But I'm sure they think that's true.

I think that the rationale is that in a limited competitive environment, with an implicit but unprovable case of collusion, and with an opportunity to establish the rules of the game before more casinos come online, Mohegan has decided to improve the profitability of blackjack.

The math is easy. 6:5 has a much higher house edge than 3:2. Very much higher. No great intelligence needed to see that.

H17 and eight deck also improve house edge, although to a lesser degree.

I have never seen any studies that demonstrate the effect of these changes on profitability. The math tells us that for the same number of hands played, the house makes more money. But no study can measure what the players will do given a different set of rules. Will they play less, or bet less, stay away or take up roulette instead of blackjack? Nobody knows.

Mohegan will know what its take is compared to last week, last month, or last year. But it can never know WHY. Weather. Competition. Stanley Cup Playoffs. Pileups on the highway that close the road down for three hours on a Friday night. A concert. NO concert.

No side of the argument on these changes (assuming there was any arguing about it) will be able to prove that it had any effect on the bottom line. There are too many bits in this byte.

I don't think they are any smarter about it than we are. But it's their game. They make the rules.

What might change the rules is if one of the casinos decides that they can attract more business with a "looser" game. But if that happens, it won't be for a while, until there are more casinos out there, chasing fewer and fewer gambling dollars. I'm not betting that it happens anytime soon.

Correct me if im wrong, but isn't most casinos(that do 6:5) high limit games 3:2 and will likely not change? Why would an AP care about the 6:5 games that are lower limits?

I've been seeing places with worse and worse rules; one of them I swung by recently had 6:5 CSM at 50min. It's kind of slippery sloping, and I often travel with people who play almost exclusively at red, it's a direct concern as well.

Quote: GlenG

Correct me if im wrong, but isn't most casinos(that do 6:5) high limit games 3:2 and will likely not change? Why would an AP care about the 6:5 games that are lower limits?

Well, a 1-10 spread at a $50 minimum runs out to $500, with the additional splits and doubles that a higher count predicts.

OK, so a 1-10 ramp is pretty steep.

At a $10 table I'm at $95 with a count of +5, and that's less than optimum. Nothing like a split and a couple of doubles at that level to tighten up those sphincter muscles. I'm a hobbyist. The $50 end of the pool is too deep for me.

Not to mention that playing at a $50 table or in a high-roller pit garners a lot more attention than down in steerage with the $10 peasants. $500 at any table is sure to draw notice, even moreso if you're at a table all by yourself because there are so few people around willing to play at that level.

Quote: racquet

...At a $10 table I'm at $95 with a count of +5, and that's less than optimum...

Get that max bet out at TC +4 =).

I know. I know.

< -2 out
<= +1 10
+2 20
+3 40
+4 70
+5 95

I don't see +5 often, and when I do it's only for a hand or two if I am lucky ($10 tables are always full).

My memory is wrong, I know, but there are times when I DREAD a +5 because I only remember the splits and doubles where my 11 turns into a 19 and he's got another 10 under the one he already has. With only one or two shots at the end of the shoe, it's rough.

Of course at 6:5 I either take up sports betting or move on up to the $50 table where it will be even more intimidating.

"Hum-a-na, hum-a-na hum-a-na"
-Ralph Kramden

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I still say they won't make more money. Theyll still make the exact same amount from each person, just at a faster rate. Losing $200 on 3:2 is exactly the same as losing it at 6:5.

I've seen enough people making walks over to the casino ATM's, etc. when they hit a bad streak to believe that this isn't universally true. Some people who burn through their initial buy in earlier that they'd like are going to play more.

And the ones who don't buy more aren't taking up table space, drinking more free drinks, etc...

I am at Mohegan Sun with Mrs. Chips for a few days. I stopped by the Tribal Gaming Office and they confirmed the blackjack changes mentioned in this thread are in the works, but no firm implementation date was given: “around August.” Dealers I spoke with are being trained about the changes.

I played at a $10 table for a short while using Wizard’s A/5 count. A few times the count was +5 and I was betting $50. I had two blackjacks on $50 bets which were good for +$150. Had the 6:5 payout change been in effect that would have been reduced to +$120. I colored out winning +$25 for the session. I would have lost more than $5 under 6:5 payout. (I had several blackjacks at lower bets.)

So it ends for me. I do not plan to ever play at a 6:5 table.

Just to clarify a few points regarding this post. I've visited Foxwoods once years back and have never been to Mohegan Sun(should've checked it out if I had known it was THAT close) but I know they were once considered among the largest and most elegant casinos in the country at a time when gambling was restricted to a tiny few states and selects few locations even within most of those states.

Now my question is, to put the contents of this thread in perspective for those of us living further away from CT, what are the current conditions of BJ, for low- and high-rollers, in both casinos as of today?

Also, since the previous post was written some time after the original post, I would like to just confirm that the "BJ changes" confirmed by the Tribal office are, 8D, H17 and 6:5 for all limits under a certain minimum($25 or $50)? Thanks. This information may have kept me from driving there one day in the near future only to find the games unplayable and my vacation time and road expenses wasted 🙂

^ Confirmed 8D, H17, 6:5. Effective date undecided or not given. OP had the date as June 1, I was told “around August.”

The planned opening of MGM Springfield in late August is the catalyst for change. I think blackjack playing conditions for all casinos in New England will be in a state of flux until the impact of MGM is evaluated. (Yes, that includes Oxford.)

Quote: BleedingChipsSlowly

^ Confirmed 8D, H17, 6:5. Effective date undecided or not given. OP had the date as June 1, I was told “around August.”

The planned opening of MGM Springfield in late August is the catalyst for change. I think blackjack playing conditions for all casinos in New England will be in a state of flux until the impact of MGM is evaluated. (Yes, that includes Oxford.)

Thanks for the update. I very much appreciate your info and analysis into the situation and the causes. Could you please just elaborate a bit on the exact conditions and games affected? How many tables and over what limits are going to change? What are the current Foxwoods conditions(if you're aware) and would they follow suit as well? Specifically, would it be possible to still find $15-25 level at 3:2 at an off-peak hour?

Quote: NostalgicGuy

Thanks for the update. I very much appreciate your info and analysis into the situation and the causes. Could you please just elaborate a bit on the exact conditions and games affected? How many tables and over what limits are going to change? What are the current Foxwoods conditions(if you're aware) and would they follow suit as well? Specifically, would it be possible to still find $15-25 level at 3:2 at an off-peak hour?

The person I spoke with at the Tribal Gaming Office indicated the planned changes are a work in progress, so no one has all the specific details you requested regarding future conditions. Currently all tables are 6D, S17, 3:2. $10 tables are easily found off hours, and I believe at least one $10 table is always open.

As far as I know, Foxwoods is still 8D, H17, 3:2. I have occasionally seen a $10 table open. The high limit tables near the lounge are (or were) 6D, S17, 3:2 as I recall. I haven’t played there in quite a while.

Another forum member (who’s name escapes me) said he preferred Foxwoods because the penetration was much better.

That’s all that comes to mind. There is a lot more information on this site if you care to search for it.

Was at MS yesterday. Their $10 tables are all 6:5.

Played one of their many $15 tables. Dealer said only $10 tables will be 6:5, all others will remain 3:2.

No more S17, except high limit tables.

Big crowd for the Barrett-Jackson auction.

Got to see Jackson’s own Bugatti Veyron up close. (Base model costs $1.7M)

Quote: Romes

I think there's often something that gets missed with these "low house edges", and that's being out bankrolled, or more importantly 99.54% of the players in a casino having a super high RoR. If the VAST MAJORITY of players have massive RoR's, then the casino doesn't even need a big edge to beat them (or an edge at all really), they just need to outlast them until they donate their money.

Look at it this way, though. Some fraction of gamblers gamble for a limited amount of time (maybe skiiers at Lake Tahoe casinos or simply overnight guests at the hotel/casino). Whatever the HE, there is a statistical fraction of short-term players who will walk away as winners (or with minor losses, having broken almost even or lost a fraction of the payroll.) The winners are walking away with the casinos money! The break-even or minor-loss gamblers represent inefficiencies to an empty suit - they didn't lose all of their trip bankroll!

So raising HE by switching to 6:5 is not just a matter of "how fast do players lose their trip bankroll." It means, to some empty suits, that casinos will indeed make more money.

Of course, the problem is that those occasional successful gambling sessions, where players have positive net winnings, are what keeps people gambling. If casinos bash their players with larger HE games, then gamblers will migrate to sports betting or betting on Wi-FI drone car races or player vs player games (Poker, fantasy sports) or just playing video games. The casino business model in North America will break down.