Bob Dancer hypocrisy!
On the 4/12/2012 show with Mark Gruetze (writer from a Pittsburgh newspaper), Bob mentioned during the discussion about PA's state-mandated rules that he would rather the government didn't regulate table game rules, to allow for an open market so that the casinos could offer a variety of games, and the smart gamblers could seek out and patronize the better games.
Just a few minutes later, while discussing VP and a casino which had switched to 6/5 JoB and a 94% paytable on Bonus Poker, Bob said, "that's...uh...should be against the law."
Which is it Bob? Should the government regulate gambling payouts or not?
This is mostly a joke, but I think it's interesting to see Bob's perspective on the two different situations, especially considering he is a pro VP player and BJ isn't his main game. I bit of bias, I think :).
I think this surprised the Wizard on another occasion when Dancer started shooting holes in those 10 commandments that the Wizard gives. There seemed to be no reason for it but just to be, well, Contrary.
However, we all have a sense of frustration at times. We want a free press but look askance at the quality of the tabloids. We want an educated public to "vote with their feet" if a casino adopts bad games but look askance at how the drunken idiots just don't care what the rules are and have no idea what house edge means. So we all make statements that are exaggerated in content due to our frustrations.
Quote: odiousgambitDancer would be considered "Contrary" in the neck of the woods where I grew up.
I thought the widely used idiom was "ornery."
Here's the thing. A free market approach to rules results in better rules and pay tables for higher minimums. This is a response to inflation, after all. But not everywhere. In Vegas the Strip casinos have a huge debt burden and bigger overhead than, say, Downtown and off-Strip and locals casinos. So they need to make more money per customer, which among other things means worse rules for low rollers. High rollers get a volume discount, as it were, in the form of better rules.
Quote: tringlomaneBelieve it or not, sometimes regulation can be beneficial!
Most regulation benefits one party at the expense of another, but the whole system is negative. For example It might cost party A $10 and benefit party B $5, so the regulation is beneficial for one half even though it is inefficent when you look at all the effects. Having never been to a PA casino, I would imagine one effect of the regulations would be generally higher table minimums. If I am right then the people who want to play $5 BJ and are willing to give up surrender and H17 miss out as does the casino.
Quote: bigfoot66Most regulation benefits one party at the expense of another, but the whole system is negative. For example It might cost party A $10 and benefit party B $5, so the regulation is beneficial for one half even though it is inefficent when you look at all the effects. Having never been to a PA casino, I would imagine one effect of the regulations would be generally higher table minimums. If I am right then the people who want to play $5 BJ and are willing to give up surrender and H17 miss out as does the casino.
This is true (and table minimums lower than $25 are hard to find there), but the rules are more beneficial to those that "seriously" play blackjack, which is a significant subset of this forum. I'm an exception though here, I'll play less liberal rules if I can play $5/hand or less, but I draw the line at 6:5 BJ. Screw that.
As long as a state is going to inhibit free enterprise, which PA is doing by only issuing x number of casino licenses, then it should be up to the state to make sure that the games offered are at least reasonably close to fair. Some gamblers have enough moxie to understand when they are being robbed and will stay away. But many others are too dumb to know they are severe underdogs, or, they know but just want to gamble so badly that they would make $10 bets on BJ to win $5 if that was the only game offered.
Quote: bigfoot66Having never been to a PA casino, I would imagine one effect of the regulations would be generally higher table minimums. If I am right then the people who want to play $5 BJ and are willing to give up surrender and H17 miss out as does the casino.
I would also guess that PA casinos give worse penetration overall, since they have no choice about the house edge they expose to counters. Is this true east coast people?
Quote: RaleighCrapsSorry but I disagree. Saying table minimums are higher because PA requires favorable player rules is not logical. Table minimums is all about location, location, location. And location boils down to, do you have nearby competition, and how affluent/eager is your customer base. If you are fighting with a nearby casino for customers, you will likely need to go lower. If your tables are always empty at $25, you will be forced to drop the minimum as well.
Like all areas of economics, it is complicated. The issues you addressed are very valid. My point was simply that, all other things being equal, The casino might make up for a razor thin house edge by demanding that that edge be applied to larger bets. I was basing this on the fact that penny slot machines often are much tighter than $1 slot machines so that the house can make enough money from the small bets to be profitable. I was speculating that a similar mechanism was at work here and that it would tend to lead to higher table minimums ceteris paribus.
Quote: RalieighCrapsAs long as a state is going to inhibit free enterprise, which PA is doing by only issuing x number of casino licenses, then it should be up to the state to make sure that the games offered are at least reasonably close to fair. Some gamblers have enough moxie to understand when they are being robbed and will stay away. But many others are too dumb to know they are severe underdogs, or, they know but just want to gamble so badly that they would make $10 bets on BJ to win $5 if that was the only game offered.
This is a complicated issue. I am very very hesitant to ever say that the answer to a problem caused by regulation is more regualtion, I would prefer to see the first regulations removed instead of trying to erect a perfect storm of regulations that will mimic the discipline that freedom imposes.
The one downside is that every game is a shoe or continuous shuffler, no pitch games. Penetration is about 70%, as best as I can recall.
At Meadows casino in Washington (40 minutes south of Pittsburgh) they always have at least one $5 table open. Again, no pitch games.
In my opinion, based on my experiences at these two places, if the state lifted the regulations, you would get worse rules, but there would be not change in limits.
Dan Y.
Quote: AcesAndEightsI would also guess that PA casinos give worse penetration overall, since they have no choice about the house edge they expose to counters. Is this true east coast people?
PA casinos that give worse penetration do so because they're fools. The AP/ploppy ratio in PA so trivially low that any casino that isn't maximizing their hands dealt/hour is just lighting money on fire.
On the subject of newspaper writers, their articles on gaming are almost always filled with lies they are too ignorant or lazy to even know they are being lied to. One time for example in also a local Pittsburgh newspaper, it was stated the Rivers parking garage going from free to requiring $250 coin-in for reimbursement on game days, would only cost $25 to attain, per the Rivers public relations. I sent whomever it was who wrote it an email and never heard back.
Theoretically that's true with a 10% hold. Of course, for most people it's going to differ.Quote: onenickelmiracleOne time for example in also a local Pittsburgh newspaper, it was stated the Rivers parking garage going from free to requiring $250 coin-in for reimbursement on game days, would only cost $25 to attain, per the Rivers public relations. I sent whomever it was who wrote it an email and never heard back.
Quote: teddysTheoretically that's true with a 10% hold. Of course, for most people it's going to differ.
I know that, but for most it won't be true if they budget $25 for 250 points.
Quote: ahiromuThere's a really funny episode of Family Guy where Brian, the very liberal dog, becomes a Republican because he's a contrarian. It guest starred Rush Limbaugh. If you've ever enjoyed the series, it is one of my favorite episodes and I recommend it.
That episode is protected on my DVR!
Contrarian and argumentative radio hosts make for better yet less informed radio. But I think when you're wrong you should admit it and move on.
Quote: ahiromuThere's a really funny episode of Family Guy where Brian, the very liberal dog, becomes a Republican because he's a contrarian. It guest starred Rush Limbaugh. If you've ever enjoyed the series, it is one of my favorite episodes and I recommend it.[
/q]
Russ and Bob are both in the same business, ENTERTAINMENT. Do not confuse their images with core beliefs.Shed not for her the bitter tear Nor give the heart to vain regret Tis but the casket that lies here, The gem that filled it Sparkles yet
Quote: tringlomaneIf the "free market" applied in PA, games would become significantly worse the very day the regulation was lifted. Believe it or not, sometimes regulation can be beneficial!
There's a minor fault in the logic. If the casino market is a "free market" in PA, there would be a lot more casinos in PA and there would be competition in the market. At best, PA casinos are in a state protected oligopoly, so it's wrong to say that free market doesn't work. Free market doesn't work in oligopoly.
tringlomane, this post is nothing against you. I just wanted to chime in. This is like when Yankees fans complain about the MLB revenue sharing and say that the MLB should let the market decide who makes more money than others. The premise is wrong, because if the market did decide, New York would have 3 or 4 teams, not two. MLB is a federally protected oligopoly (the only written exception in the Sherman Anti-Trust Act). Again, free market doesn't work in oligopoly.
Quote: BuzzardThe courts have totally exempted professional baseball and have provided specialized exemptions for other amateur and professional sports organizations from antitrust actions stating they are not in interstate commerce because sporting events are "entertainment, not business." Thus, the NFL, NBA, NCAA, AAU, and a variety of other associations in our multibillion-dollar sports industry are reasonably free to collude against their employees, potentially competitive organizations, or each other. These exemptions are increasingly under attack in the courts.
American lobbying at its best. Also exempted: insurance industry. Ever wonder why there are only two freaking insurance providers in the whole freaking state?
Quote: debitncreditThere's a minor fault in the logic. If the casino market is a "free market" in PA, there would be a lot more casinos in PA and there would be competition in the market. At best, PA casinos are in a state protected oligopoly, so it's wrong to say that free market doesn't work. Free market doesn't work in oligopoly.
tringlomane, this post is nothing against you. I just wanted to chime in.
It's okay, I wrote it without much detailed thought anyway. But your post made me think of the following: Aren't all states this way with regards to the creation of casinos? I know my home state of Missouri has ZERO plans to create another casino license. Hell, creating the 13th one for Cape Girardeau was probably a big enough mistake.
But what makes PA unique though is that a legislator at some point thought it was a really good idea to protect the favorable rules of blackjack through legal means. Why they decided to do that, I really don't know.
