AcesAndEights
AcesAndEights
Joined: Jan 5, 2012
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 4299
October 15th, 2012 at 11:48:57 PM permalink
I had been meaning to make this post for months but never got around to it.

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 :).
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 314
  • Posts: 8801
October 16th, 2012 at 12:12:01 AM permalink
Dancer would be considered "Contrary" in the neck of the woods where I grew up. In other words, a person who always keeps arguing for the sake of arguing, to the point where you don't know where he really stands on anything!

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.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
October 16th, 2012 at 5:39:23 AM permalink
You may indeed be right... a "contrary" stance adopted because he is in reality a performer who is invited to appear on the show for his prior statements, not skills.

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.
tringlomane
tringlomane
Joined: Aug 25, 2012
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 6272
October 16th, 2012 at 6:59:38 AM permalink
Considering how PA currently has mandated Blackjack, PA is one of the best markets in the country. Good luck finding S17 in St. Louis...lol If 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!
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
October 16th, 2012 at 7:49:03 AM permalink
Quote: odiousgambit

Dancer 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.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1418
  • Posts: 24210
October 16th, 2012 at 7:53:49 AM permalink
Bob is sometimes argumentative on the radio because he feels it makes for better radio. I don't know Howard Stern personally, but I get the feeling some of the fights on his show are a bit contrived.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
bigfoot66
bigfoot66
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
  • Threads: 54
  • Posts: 1582
October 16th, 2012 at 9:23:28 AM permalink
Quote: tringlomane

Believe 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.
Vote for Nobody 2020!
tringlomane
tringlomane
Joined: Aug 25, 2012
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 6272
October 16th, 2012 at 9:31:11 AM permalink
Quote: bigfoot66

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.



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.
RaleighCraps
RaleighCraps
Joined: Feb 20, 2010
  • Threads: 79
  • Posts: 2501
October 16th, 2012 at 9:53:37 AM permalink
Sorry 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.

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.
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back ! Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
AcesAndEights
AcesAndEights
Joined: Jan 5, 2012
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 4299
October 16th, 2012 at 11:17:32 AM permalink
Quote: bigfoot66

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.


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?
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer

  • Jump to: