Alec
Alec
Joined: Jul 6, 2020
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 18
Thanks for this post from:
ChumpChange
August 1st, 2020 at 11:05:26 PM permalink
I went to the Grand Victoria Casino in Elgin, IL to play blackjack.

As I walked around the gaming floor, I couldn't help but notice that:

* Almost every blackjack table paying 6 to 5 was completely full. The minimums at all of these tables were all $20.
* Only about half of the seats were taken at the blackjack tables paying 3 to 2. The minimums at all of these tables were all $25.

Per Stanford Wong's BJ21 newsletter, Grand Victoria Casino's house edge on blackjack paying 3-2 with their rules is 0.56%.

Assuming that the house edge is approximately 2% on the 6 to 5 blackjack games, I calculated the following figures:

I calculated that a player making the minimum bet and using basic strategy can expect to lose:

*** $0.14/hand at the 3 to 2 table ($25/hand * 0.56% house advantage)
*** $0.40/hand at the 6 to 5 table ($20/hand * 2% house advantage)

Over just 100 hands of play, that amounts to $26 in additional losses playing at the 6 to 5 table versus playing at the 3 to 2 table.

My question is, are blackjack players in general this unaware of differences between 3-2 and 6-5? Or are they just not interested in finding out the difference between the two games?
BedWetterBetter
BedWetterBetter
Joined: Oct 20, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 590
Thanks for this post from:
Alec
August 1st, 2020 at 11:10:19 PM permalink
Quote: Alec



My question is, are blackjack players in general this unaware of differences between 3-2 and 6-5? Or are they just not interested in finding out the difference between the two games?



They're probably the same type of people that see a $5 progressive side bet and say "It's only $5 and I can win ALL that money, why not go for it?!?!?"
Alec
Alec
Joined: Jul 6, 2020
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 18
August 1st, 2020 at 11:13:41 PM permalink
Quote: BedWetterBetter

They're probably the same type of people that see a $5 progressive side bet and say "It's only $5 and I can win ALL that money, why not go for it?!?!?"



Absolutely.

This specific casino doesn't have a progressive side bet for blackjack, but they do have the "21+3" side bet on all of the blackjack tables.

I would say that over half of the players at the 3 to 2 tables were playing the side bets.

I cannot speak for the players at the 6 to 5 tables since I don't play there, but if I were to guess, I would think that an even greater percentage of players were making the side bets at those tables.
Zcore13
Zcore13
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
  • Threads: 39
  • Posts: 3527
Thanks for this post from:
Alec
August 2nd, 2020 at 1:14:07 AM permalink
Quote: Alec

I went to the Grand Victoria Casino in Elgin, IL to play blackjack.

As I walked around the gaming floor, I couldn't help but notice that:

* Almost every blackjack table paying 6 to 5 was completely full. The minimums at all of these tables were all $20.
* Only about half of the seats were taken at the blackjack tables paying 3 to 2. The minimums at all of these tables were all $25.

Per Stanford Wong's BJ21 newsletter, Grand Victoria Casino's house edge on blackjack paying 3-2 with their rules is 0.56%.

Assuming that the house edge is approximately 2% on the 6 to 5 blackjack games, I calculated the following figures:

I calculated that a player making the minimum bet and using basic strategy can expect to lose:

*** $0.14/hand at the 3 to 2 table ($25/hand * 0.56% house advantage)
*** $0.40/hand at the 6 to 5 table ($20/hand * 2% house advantage)

Over just 100 hands of play, that amounts to $26 in additional losses playing at the 6 to 5 table versus playing at the 3 to 2 table.

My question is, are blackjack players in general this unaware of differences between 3-2 and 6-5? Or are they just not interested in finding out the difference between the two games?



They don't care. They are there for entertainment, to drink, to hang with friends. Most have no interest in the odds or optimal play.


ZCore13
I am an employee of a Casino. Former Table Games Director,, current Pit Supervisor. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
ChumpChange
ChumpChange
Joined: Jun 15, 2018
  • Threads: 24
  • Posts: 1052
August 2nd, 2020 at 1:28:17 AM permalink
What's the HA if the $25 tables paid 6:5 and the $50 tables paid 3:2?
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 178
  • Posts: 10201
Thanks for this post from:
Alec
August 2nd, 2020 at 7:02:35 AM permalink
Quote: Alec

My question is, are blackjack players in general this unaware of differences between 3-2 and 6-5? Or are they just not interested in finding out the difference between the two games?

Most players don't know and/or don't care. They are more interested in the table minimum.

See also: Triple Zero Roulette.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁 Note that the same could be said for Religion. I.E. Religion is nothing more than organized superstition. 🤗
billryan
billryan 
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 168
  • Posts: 9280
August 2nd, 2020 at 7:53:27 AM permalink
Play at a full table tends to get glacial like. While they lose more per hand, they will play many less hands per hour so the their hourly loss isn't as bad as it sounds.
Player 1 at the full table- 45 hands per hour
Player 2 at half-full table- 80 hands an hour

The full table will have more downtime, with more frequent shuffles and more time devoted to paying off sidebets.
The original Sahara used to have a $1 game where 3/4ths of your BJ paid even money. It was always packed, and often with newbies who were clueless. Some hours, I doubt they got 40 hands in, but the cocktail waitress's paid attention to the table because everyone was drinking and tipping.
racquet
racquet
Joined: Dec 31, 2014
  • Threads: 45
  • Posts: 336
Thanks for this post from:
Alec
August 2nd, 2020 at 8:43:06 AM permalink
What's worse is the player at your $20 6:5 table that regularly plays $25 or more, when he could move over to the $25 table and get 3:2 on all his blackjacks. I've seen it often that a lower-limit table paying 6:5 has several players playing at or above the minimum of the 3:2 table right next to where they are sitting.

Idiots.
Alec
Alec
Joined: Jul 6, 2020
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 18
August 2nd, 2020 at 9:40:31 AM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

Most players don't know and/or don't care. They are more interested in the table minimum.



You make a good point about the table minimums.

Most people probably see the lower dollar value and go for it without thinking of the true cost of play.

I wonder if this the reason that the house sets the table minimums this way.
Alec
Alec
Joined: Jul 6, 2020
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 18
August 2nd, 2020 at 9:43:57 AM permalink
Quote: billryan

Play at a full table tends to get glacial like. While they lose more per hand, they will play many less hands per hour so the their hourly loss isn't as bad as it sounds.
Player 1 at the full table- 45 hands per hour
Player 2 at half-full table- 80 hands an hour



I should add that the Illinois Gaming Board has capped all blackjack tables to 3 players per table max. since reopening post-covid.

With that in mind, I would guess that even the full tables are seeing more than 45 hands per hour.

  • Jump to: