Betting Limits
Anyone else notice this? For an extremely high house edge bet such as the Fortune bet, it really makes me wonder.
I suppose this is more of a rant than anything, but I just find it strange...
Quote: teddysYes, it is strange and the casino should take all the action they can get on those high house edge wagers. I think they are afraid of a really big aggregate payout, say, on Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em, when a royal hits the board and everyone has $100 up. ($30,000 payout.)
Most casinos aren't scared of that, since they set the aggregate table maximums so low that a high wager will never get paid out at the true odds. The thing they are scared of is steady stream of wins to a high bettor. A table fill of black chips will attract the attention of higher managers, and a couple of those in one day will be enough to make a superstitious TG Manager want to drop the maximum.
Quote: TiltpoulMost casinos aren't scared of that, since they set the aggregate table maximums so low that a high wager will never get paid out at the true odds. The thing they are scared of is steady stream of wins to a high bettor. A table fill of black chips will attract the attention of higher managers, and a couple of those in one day will be enough to make a superstitious TG Manager want to drop the maximum.
It's so silly, though, as no one will ever overcome the (huge) house edge on these bets, and it turns off certain players in the process. Even when players hit big rewards, that also adds to their long-term gambling history many times turning them into bigger losers. Just seems silly or lazy if they're doing so to avoid dealing with, say, management or training issues...
Quote: TheBigPaybakIt's so silly, though, as no one will ever overcome the (huge) house edge on these bets, and it turns off certain players in the process. Even when players hit big rewards, that also adds to their long-term gambling history many times turning them into bigger losers. Just seems silly or lazy if they're doing so to avoid dealing with, say, management or training issues...
Of course it is. And at the largest of casinos, it tends not to be an issue. You'll see a lot of casinos offer super high minimums on games. For example, Mississippi Stud usually has a $500 max at the big casinos. However, you go to a smaller casino and the max is $10. Some casinos set the MIN at $10.
At any rate, it may not just be a superstitious manager. Some casino managers panic on the big paydays. In the long run, it will all balance out, but the short-term can take a huge loss. Certain casinos have a hard time dealing with those swings.
I would never play at table max ($50) on Ultimate Texas. If I hit the Royal, I'll only get like half of what I should. I would think any smart player would also avoid this. I'm willing to bet there's a few big players in the area that jet off to Vegas once a month or so, and won't play here because of the table limits issue.
Quote: TiltpoulOf course it is. And at the largest of casinos, it tends not to be an issue. You'll see a lot of casinos offer super high minimums on games. For example, Mississippi Stud usually has a $500 max at the big casinos. However, you go to a smaller casino and the max is $10. Some casinos set the MIN at $10.
At any rate, it may not just be a superstitious manager. Some casino managers panic on the big paydays. In the long run, it will all balance out, but the short-term can take a huge loss. Certain casinos have a hard time dealing with those swings.
Harrahs in St louis had a $5 max on Mississippi stud,so it was $5 min and $5 max.Now it is $10. They have been sold to Penn so maybe it will go up to a whopping $25.
Then we have Greektown with their pathetic $25 max on Ultimate Texas holdem.The list could go on and on.
I get the reason for the mind-set. Especially if they have a very small base of high rollers. If one of them has a good night and you can only hope a few others will play that month to make up for that loss, they are trying to limit their risk. It goes against what the business is, though. They are offering games with an edge in their favor and should not be afraid of any wager. If they are at that point where they have no edge for a losing day/month, they need to figure out where they are spending too money and start cutting.
Quote: FleaStiffSeveral Strip casinos declined his action but a Hawaiian gentlemen prevailed upon Binions to allow him to make a 66K outside bet at roulette. He bet Even and won another 66K.
I heard about something similar at one of the London casinos. Roulette table offered £200 max on single number bets straight up. Asian gentleman sitting at the table starts asking the pit crew hushed questions. Management comes onto the floor, then the owner of the casino shows up, and the owner announces that the table max is being raised for the next spin only. The wheel is spun and the ball thrown in and the Asian gentleman pushes £2000 onto the 11 just before "No more bets" is called. The owner announces that the bet is accepted and that the table limit has been raised for the current spin. 11 hits and the entire staff stares dumbfounded at the owner, their bonuses for the next few months having vanished in an instant.
Should've raised the limit for the rest of the night to get more exposure to his bankroll, IMO. He might have pressed.
Yes, and more of an announcement for that spin. Might as well milk it for whatever it is worth as free advertising.Quote: heatherShould've raised the limit for the rest of the night to get more exposure to his bankroll, IMO. He might have pressed.
In the Binions incident of 66K wagered, the risk was only 33K over existing table maximum and the publicity over such an event is priceless... I'd love to see a study of "average bets on the previous roll" to "average bets on the subsequent roll" to see how much the normal players dipped into their bankroll for that and subsequent rolls. Remember the green eye shade types only see twenty-six cents for each of those Red chips that we see.
