Completely full tables paying 6 to 5 but open seats for 3 to 2 tables

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?

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?!?!?"

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.

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

What's the HA if the $25 tables paid 6:5 and the $50 tables paid 3:2?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.