dm
dm
Joined: Apr 29, 2010
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 699
February 2nd, 2011 at 8:52:24 AM permalink
Quote: P90

Better ask: why not?
Side bets are usually used in low-edge, high-variance games, where player's bankroll can end up being padded almost as easily as blown. A side bet serves to let the player donate his money to the casino faster, while offering palatable rules for the main game. And as for players losing too much, they lose or win on the main game - the side bet is just on the side. It can gradually suck the money out without giving the feeling of loss, much like insects that anesthetize the bite point.



So they are totally unaware of the dwindling of their chip stack? Not me.
Mosca
Mosca
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
  • Threads: 181
  • Posts: 3835
February 2nd, 2011 at 9:32:36 AM permalink
Quote: NicksGamingStuff

The worst one is the Fortune Bonus on Pai Gow Poker, everyone plays that religiously, sometimes $5-$10 or more to get the envy bonus, I will toss a buck here and there for fun, more often than not I never get anything on it, exactly how the casino makes their money off of it, the additional Progressive is also an incentive that many people love to play!



Mohegan Pocono has a new progressive bonus at 3 Card; A-K-Q of spades pays the bonus, any other royal pays $500 for 1, straight flush pays $70 for 1, 3 of a kind pays 50 for 1. There were also envy bonuses; $100 for the spade royal, $50 for the other royals.

There are 22,100 3 Card hands. The day I was there, the bonus meter was at $1400ish. I think that is the worst side bet I've ever seen.
NO KILL I
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
February 2nd, 2011 at 2:49:15 PM permalink
I know the math, and I play the side bets heavily on PGP, and bet crap checks and hardways when at a crap game.
I play to have fun and bet what I want when I want to, without worrying about it. Indeed, the times I really struck it big - way over the top - is when I took home thousands from hitting the crappy progressive bets on PGP: $7 on PG insurance on 9-high Pai Gow = $700, $2,300 on the Pair Plus on Three Card poker, etc. When I bet my usual $25 main bet, I'd win $23.25 (or $25 on EZ Pai gow), or 6:5 on odds on a 6 or 8 point.
When I gamble, I gamble to have fun and hope to win.
If I choose to look at the math, I don't gamble at all.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
appistappis
appistappis
Joined: Mar 27, 2010
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 105
February 2nd, 2011 at 2:53:25 PM permalink
a good general rule to remember......the more you can win in one bet (roll,spin,hand) the higher the HA will be.
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
February 2nd, 2011 at 2:56:04 PM permalink
Quote: gambler

I actually think that a lot of players don't understand what the house advantage is for a lot of these side bets.
The average Joe wants to have a good time, and will copy what other more "experienced" players are doing just to fit in.


True. And for the side bets the "understanding" when they start to play may be quite correct but by the time that cocktail waitress has come around a few times, the attitude may morph into a greater emphasis on the have a good time.

I think it might be akin to those Casino Fun Book Coupons that are adverized as being 500 dollars in value but the averag visitor to the casino probably never utilizes more than fifty dollars worth of coupons or some such figure. So there is a Declared Value to the coupon book and a Realistic Value. Perhaps its pretty much the same thing with this House Edge stuff. There is a mathematically derived and proper House Edge ... and then reality sets in across a mix of players and a few mixed drinks and some girlfriends that have to be impressed and an attractive dealer in a low cut blouse, not to mention some players who don't even know the basic rules much less the footnotes to the rules. With all that, I think you get a far different House Edge for some players.
P90
P90
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
February 2nd, 2011 at 2:59:03 PM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan

When I gamble, I gamble to have fun and hope to win.
If I choose to look at the math, I don't gamble at all.


There is always poker, and there is counting at Blackjack.

Although the latter is unreliable. For instance, despite using a relatively sophisticated four-parameter count and following it rather religiously, I figure I only managed roughly even (and it could have been worse) - but I can at least play knowing my expectation is positive. A lot of players lose with a positive expectation, but a lot more win with negative expectation [mostly because a lot more players have negative expectation]. In low-edge games, your chances of getting ahead are still very strong.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
February 2nd, 2011 at 2:59:20 PM permalink
Quote: dm

So they are totally unaware of the dwindling of their chip stack? Not me.


A player might be aware of a dwindling chip stack but not necessarily be alert to the fact that he is losing it on the "side bet". Its sort of a mental "fling" and carries an attitude wherein the dwindling chip stack is blamed on the main game.
sunrise089
sunrise089
Joined: Jul 12, 2010
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 209
February 2nd, 2011 at 3:11:59 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

For the same reason they have a "resort fee" and airlines now charge for bags. People accept it more than if you change the main rules. So instead of addding the third zero they put in abuse people enjoy--"lucky ladies bet? Thank you sir, may I have another?" I say let them keep doing it that way, the fool and his money were lucky enough to get together in the first place.

I think the above is too cynical of a take on things. Hotel "resort fees" are shady, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to add the fee to the base rate if you're walking in or purchasing directly from the hotel. The fees though, IMHO, are more about being competitive via deceit in online booking systems. If someone does an Expedia search and sorts by price the $10/night moved from the base rate to the resort fee lets resort X get noticed easier. It doesn't actually raise the cost of the room, though it does make the shopper think the travel is cheaper than it will really be.

Side bets and airline bag fees are not the same thing. They're actually un-bundling services, at some base fixed cost, in order to allow more consumer choice, which results in lower costs to those who care about costs, without sacrificing service.

In the airline example rather than charging every passenger a share of the bagging transportation costs, you shift the costs onto those actually sending luggage. If I'm a cheap passenger I pack light and carry on and enjoy a lower fare. If I want to bring lots of luggage I still can, I just pay for the added privilege.

In a casino, a certain house edge needs to exist in order for a table to be operated. We've all heard that craps or 3:2 blackjack would never be allowed to be added to a casino floor if they were invented today. Instead new table games have house edges closer to ~5%. Obviously casinos can't change player preferences overnight and force all pass line betters in craps to suddenly start betting on red/black at roulette, but they can try to push players towards center bets at craps or switch some blackjack tables to 6:5. Or, in a nice win/win move, they can offer side bets that give those players who want a low bet limit and a chance of a high payoff but who don't care about house edge as much a new gambling option. That brings in additional money, which makes the table profitable enough to leave the base game rules alone.

I'm not saying there is no element of psychology here. It may very well be that people are more resistant to a price increase than a surcharge, but in general as long as there isn't a huge fixed cost which gets passed along, consumer should applaud additional choices that allow savvy individuals to pass on costs to those who don't dislike bearing them as much.
dudestupid
dudestupid
Joined: Sep 11, 2010
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 151
February 2nd, 2011 at 4:51:33 PM permalink
Quote: sunrise089

Or, in a nice win/win move, they can offer side bets that give those players who want a low bet limit and a chance of a high payoff but who don't care about house edge as much a new gambling option. That brings in additional money, which makes the table profitable enough to leave the base game rules alone.

I'm not saying there is no element of psychology here. It may very well be that people are more resistant to a price increase than a surcharge, but in general as long as there isn't a huge fixed cost which gets passed along, consumer should applaud additional choices that allow savvy individuals to pass on costs to those who don't dislike bearing them as much.



It's a good point. I was playing downtown once at a table with excellent BJ rules and 2 decks. Everybody else at the table was making the side bet except me. All of them (including the dealer) would chide me when I missed a winning hand. At the time, I thought it was ridiculous to sit down at a low house-edge table and fritter your money away a buck at a time. But in retrospect, all those side-betters were keeping that table financially viable.

I did think it was funny how the pit boss was keeping an eye on me, suspecting me for counting because I was playing basic strategy and not making the side bet.
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
February 2nd, 2011 at 7:24:32 PM permalink
There are two reasons for the fact that side bets are usually crappy:

1. Any bet with the potential to pay off big almost always carries a high house edge. This is a lingering artifact from the days when casinos were mostly small, independent operations, and the management was primarily people with no necks who grunted a lot. The specter of a high payoff made multiple times possibly draining the casino's available cash haunted casino manglement. To compensate for this dire threat, the no-necks made sure that all such bets had an insanely high house edge, to ensure that the house would be well ahead when the big payoff finally occured (the Riverside in Reno, for example, was killed by two people hitting max-payoff keno tickets in the same week, so the danger was at least somewhat real). Of course, this logic fails when you consider less drastic payoffs such as the yo-eleven in craps--couldn't it pay 16 to 1 and still have a high house edge, and wouldn't word spread among prop bettors if one casino did that? But many, many of the current practices in casinos are from force of habit or "custom" rather than logic.

2. Sometimes the increment on a payoff pretty much forces the house to charge a high vig, or no vig at all. If you had a roulette wheel with only ten numbers (I believe there is a French game that is like that--"boule" or something?), then if you wanted to pay less than true odds on a single number, you'd have to pay 8-1 (or less) rather than 9-1, resulting in an 11% HE. Similarly, it would be pretty hard to construct a decent payoff for, say, hard ten, which with 8 losers and 1 winner, has to pay 7-1 or worse to make a profit for the house.

Reason 2A: The house can get away with it. People drool at the prospect of a 500-1 payoff even if the true odds are 675-1. Even if they are aware of the discrepancy (and very few are), in most people's minds, both 675-1 and 500-1 are "big", so they don't differentiate between the two.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw

  • Jump to: