unJon
unJon
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 1812
August 2nd, 2020 at 10:38:21 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

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.

That does not really hold water. If the went en masse to the 3:2 table those would be full and hence “glacial.”
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 171
  • Posts: 9498
August 2nd, 2020 at 10:49:45 AM permalink
I'm not saying it's a smart thing to do, only that the forty cents vs fourteen cents isn't a true comparison because one player will see more hands. I've never played at a 6-5 table, although I drank away many hours at the Sahara $1 table before heading out for the night.
I remember one hand where a guy split 8s, and ended up with a bunch of doubles and maybe another split. He ended up with a tableful of bad hands but the dealer busted with four or five cards and the table went nuts.
unJon
unJon
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 1812
August 2nd, 2020 at 10:54:29 AM permalink
Quote: billryan

I'm not saying it's a smart thing to do, only that the forty cents vs fourteen cents isn't a true comparison because one player will see more hands. I've never played at a 6-5 table, although I drank away many hours at the Sahara $1 table before heading out for the night.
I remember one hand where a guy split 8s, and ended up with a bunch of doubles and maybe another split. He ended up with a tableful of bad hands but the dealer busted with four or five cards and the table went nuts.



Ok. I’m with you then.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
Alec
Alec
Joined: Jul 6, 2020
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 18
August 2nd, 2020 at 10:59:06 AM permalink
Quote: billryan

I'm not saying it's a smart thing to do, only that the forty cents vs fourteen cents isn't a true comparison because one player will see more hands. I've never played at a 6-5 table, although I drank away many hours at the Sahara $1 table before heading out for the night.
I remember one hand where a guy split 8s, and ended up with a bunch of doubles and maybe another split. He ended up with a tableful of bad hands but the dealer busted with four or five cards and the table went nuts.



Let's assume that the players at the 3-2 table see 100 hands per hour, and the players at the 6-5 table see 50 hands per hour.

With those assumptions, I calculate the following:

3-2: $0.14/hand x 100 hands / hour = $14 loss/hour
6-5: $0.40/hand x 50 hands / hour = $20 loss/hour

The 6-5 table is still more expensive even if they get half the hands of the 3-2 table, is it not?

This assumes that minimum bets are being made at each table ($25/hand for 3-2, $20/hand for 6-5) but that seems like a relevant assumption to make.
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 171
  • Posts: 9498
August 2nd, 2020 at 11:24:47 AM permalink
No one said the 6-5 table was the better choice, only that it wasn't as bad as your numbers indicated. Your post above reinforces that.
Sometimes the side bets differ on these tables. The Edgewater once offered Royal Match at 3-1 and 10-1 at one table with the other table 2.5-1 and 25-1 for the Royal Match. There are many players who chose the table based on side bets. At the EC, I used to see people betting $3 on the game and $25 on the Royal Match. For those players, 6-5 or 3-2 isn't a factor.
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 424
  • Posts: 24174
Thanks for this post from:
Alec
August 2nd, 2020 at 11:31:55 AM permalink
Quote: Zcore13

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



If you start talking to players,
most of them are clueless
as to what they're actually
doing. And they don't want
to know. They like being
deluded, it keeps them coming
back. I can't count the number
of slot players that have told me
they can get ahead and stay
ahead. Why, just look at all the
players around them winning.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
Alec
Alec
Joined: Jul 6, 2020
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 18
August 2nd, 2020 at 11:33:30 AM permalink
Quote: billryan

only that it wasn't as bad as your numbers indicated. Your post above reinforces that.



I will have to agree to disagree with your perspective on my numbers.

The way I see it, losing more money at a 6-5 table that has half of the action and a lower table minimum than the 3-2 table reinforces how bad of a bet the 6-5 table truly is.

  • Jump to: