Ultimate Texas Hold 'em live at Fiesta
Should be about $1,500.Quote: Paigowdan
3. Now, the Table hold minus the local casino expenses equals $181,261. Subtract an assumed $3,000 in licensing fees to the distributor, you got $178,261 to be sent up to corporate per month - from two 7' x 5' tables - after the local casino pays the bills.
Quote: PaigowdanNever turned out to be the case. If you think the house edge is a misleading measure, forget about element of risk without ROR. So look at the game's real-world drop and hold figures - the very best indicator of a game's real performance. This are very fine with UTH, and are not out of line with UTH's 2.3% ANTE; some place hold in the 20's, reflecting stronger play.
Once again, real world drop and hold figures only tell us how the game performs against real-world (terrible) players. It says nothing about how the game would perform against good players.
A hold in the 20s may reflect stronger play than a hold in the 30s, but it does not necessary reflect strong play. Remember that against a good player the house only wins about 0.5% of every dollar put at risk.
Quote:No. When Pai Gow players don't bank, they're giving up only 2.4%-2.7%, and this is not at all usury. When they do bank, player's disadvantage goes down but ROR goes up.
2.4 to 2.7% of every dollar bet. In UTH, a good player gives up 0.5% of every dollar bet. In other words, PGP without banking is FIVE TIMES AS EXPENSIVE as UTH, if UTH is played optimally. I'm not quite sure how you don't understand this very simple fact.
To put it another way, if everyone played UTH optimally, and no one banked at PGP, PGP would make 5x as much money as UTH. They are not close to being in the same ballpark. The only reason that UTH has such good real-world results is that people lose about 4x as much as they should (and even more if you consider element of risk, since they are losing more while betting less. This explains the incredibly good hold numbers -- people buy in smaller than they probably should, because they don't bet as much as they should, and in the process lose even more money. It's truly diabolical. People are tricked into thinking that they are betting less, but actually they are losing more)
Quote:
Many casinos have eliminated Pai Gow player banking because it is so seldomly requested, and because it is an anachronism that bogs the game down. Not just my opinion, but in casino operators opinions, too. But my opinion had a say, we recommended eliminating player banking in PGP as a burden or hinderance on the game, and they agreed.
Sure, and many casinos have eliminated 3:2 blackjack. The casinos will always kill any rules that are favorable to the player if they can get away with this. This is not news. People are stupid and they don't notice the difference, so they can get away with it.
Quote:Player bust-outs or "ruin" sure as hell increase table hold.
No, it doesn't. Sorry, bad math on your part here.
Quote:You lose your bankroll or session gambling allotment on the table ("ruin"), you can't say to the dealer, "I lost my money and I can't play anymore. Can I have it back?" They answer No, - and they keep it as house profit. This is how casinos work: you lose, they keep it. All player bust-outs, including BIG bust outs too, are sessions of player "ruin," and increase casino profit. Expensive games have more of these. The occasional huge win was already covered by the house edge of the game.
Bad logic and bad math on your part. Say 100 players buy in for $1000 each.
Case 1: All 100 players lose $300 each.
Case 2: 99 players bust out and 1 player wins $96,000
Case 1 has 0% bust-outs. Case 2 has 99% bust-out. In both cases the hold is 30%. The risk of ruin has no effect on the hold, as long as it is properly offset by a chance to win big.
Quote:Ingenious, isn't it? I think so. I think it is one of the best designed games out there: opportunity to win, strong action, strong table hold. It's got my action, along with a gazillion other people. And no, the game is prey for the mathematically literate: Element of risk makes it a very sexy and low HE game for the smart 4x bettor.
This is exactly what I've been saying all along. If everyone was a "smart 4x bettor" then it would be low HE for everyone, which is bad news for the casino in a slow-moving game.
Quote:I operate on the basis that this game is in a STRONG position for a long life, and I stated my reasons. If you disagree (and you had), stating that it can't support the casino houses that offer it, only time will tell.
On the contrary, I agree that it is in a strong position for a long life. Players will never get better.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceOnce again, real world drop and hold figures only tell us how the game performs against real-world (terrible) players. It says nothing about how the game would perform against good players.
Maybe we can run the game in some sort of House Edge Fantasy League tournament. Or live in the real world, and accept its real-world performance results and math.
Quote: AxiomofChoiceOn the contrary, I agree that it is in a strong position for a long life. Players will never get better.
At this point I'll say that the game simply works with strong players, weak players, short players, tall players, and what have you.
It works, period.
I've been recently playing UTH at my local joint...apparently they've HAD it there for about 2 years now (I guess I just never cared to investigate it)
But from the last couple months of playing it...I can tell you...players are HORRRRRRIBLE at it.
I mean, I haven't seen ONE yet who is even DECENT.
Too many will check all the way through no matter what, only to bet with a pocket pair or a flopped pair
A lot will also bet 3x instead of 4x.
I've YET to see anyone even play it WITHOUT the trips! (Even those it's the 8/7 paytable; ie: 3%)
Shoot, I've went so far as had people MAD at me for playing 4x on my cards!
All bad players mean for UTH...is it will stick around for a while ;)
Therefore, it is the BEST game ever designed. It integrates human-engineering.Quote: TIMSPEEDJust a little musings on this subject....
I've been recently playing UTH at my local joint...apparently they've HAD it there for about 2 years now (I guess I just never cared to investigate it)
But from the last couple months of playing it...I can tell you...players are HORRRRRRIBLE at it.
I mean, I haven't seen ONE yet who is even DECENT.
Too many will check all the way through no matter what, only to bet with a pocket pair or a flopped pair
A lot will also bet 3x instead of 4x.
I've YET to see anyone even play it WITHOUT the trips! (Even those it's the 8/7 paytable; ie: 3%)
Shoot, I've went so far as had people MAD at me for playing 4x on my cards!
All bad players mean for UTH...is it will stick around for a while ;)
Quote: PaigowdanMaybe we can run the game in some sort of House Edge Fantasy League tournament. Or live in the real world, and accept its real-world performance results and math.
Dan, you are rambling and making no sense.
Yes, in the real world, with its terrible players, the game does very well. I have never denied this. Indeed, I've said it several times myself.
The point that I've been making all along is that if players were educated and played well, then the game would do poorly. Nothing you have said refutes this. Looking at the current results with the way that people currently play (terribly) is not useful to determine what would happen if people played differently. I am having trouble figuring out if you really don't understand this simple concept, or if you are just trolling.
Quote:At this point I'll say that the game simply works with strong players, weak players, short players, tall players, and what have you.
It works, period.
You have no evidence to back up this ridiculous assertion. If people played better, the house's profits would plummet. This is completely obvious.
Quote: UCivanTherefore, it is the BEST game ever designed. It integrates human-engineering.
Yes, exactly. It is pure genius.
Quote: RogerKintMany people in poker rooms, especially at limit games, will call bets just to see the next card regardless of their number of outs. The average Mississippi Stud player gets stuck in this same cycle. All it takes is for a player to fold an eventual winner and they're scared to fold anything else. From the house's perspective, the bad thing about UTH is that players get to see the turn and river for free.
I understand your intuition here, but I think that is false. The fact that the player gets to see the turn and river for free is GREAT for the house. I can assure you that no one would fold AK preflop, but they will happily check it instead of betting 4x like they are supposed to. AK absolutely CRUSHES a random hand -- people leave so much money on the table when they do this, it's not funny.
In MS stud, people play surprisingly well. "Not wanting to fold anything that might win" is pretty close to correct. After 2 cards, it's correct to call with one "win" card or two "push" cards -- and people tend to do something that more or less approximates that. I'm not saying that they play perfectly, but the common mistakes (eg, just calling with a small pair instead of 3-betting on the first two cards) aren't all that expensive.
The end result is that, at the casino where I play , UTH is comped 1.5x as well as MS Stud (UTH is rated at 3x the ante + 1x the trips, and MS Stud is rated at 2x the ante) even though the HE in MS stud is double that of UTH, assuming optimal play. The reason, I'm sure, is that they make a lot more money per ante bet from UTH than they do from MS stud. That should tell you just how badly people play UTH.
In other words, if I play UTH with $100 ante, I am losing $2.30 / hand and I get rated at $300/hand.
If I play MS Stud with $100 antes, I am losing $4.90 / hand (about? from memory...) and I'm rated at $200/hand.
In practice I won't play MS Stud that big, because the swings are too much and, more importantly, the casino has max payouts which increase their house edge on big bets.
Quote:Another good thing about MS is I don't have to explain to annoying people inquiring why I don't play some wack ass side bet.
I just say "I hate side bets". Everyone tells me that "that's where you make your money", and I just shrug and continue to not play it.
The funny thing is, the way that most people play UTH (giving up a 10% HE), the trips bet really IS a better game (at 3.5% HE) than the main game for them. So they are not really wrong. It also explains why the house rates the ante bets at 3x but the trips at 1x... most people really are losing 3x as much on the main game as they do on the trips.
I don't think that there is any game in the casino which people play as poorly. Even the bad blackjack players are not that bad.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceDan, you are rambling and making no sense.
No.
I'm absolutely very clear on this: Ulimate Texas Hold 'em is a casino hit, it will be around for the long haul, - and it doesn't matter WHO the hell plays it in any scenario in the real world.
A very clear, sensible, and obvious contention, and one you still cannot falsify outside of your "what IF" claims - which are unproven, and will remain so.
Quote: AxiomofChoiceThe point that I've been making all along is that if players were educated and played well, then the game would do poorly.
No.
The game is very fine - indeed absolutely excellent. No one or no team yet has been able to dent it. If it were anywhere NEAR as vulnerable as you claim, Steve How of Discount gambling AP net might have mentioned it, as well as our own forum memeber Eliot Jacobson of AP HEAT.net THEY do not think it is defeatable, - and THEIR opinion counts! And NO AP team has ever busted it, even if they tried; and indeed, no casino operator has complained about the game's hold no matter who plays it. So....
I feel this is all:
- absolutely true;
- totally undeniable, and;
- quite obvious when it is pointed out.
There is NO indication that the game is defeatable, or has too weak of a house edge for the players' favor - otherwise, I assume, it would have already been noted by these mathematical gaming experts on these sites. Maybe Stacey F. "Math Extremist," or Eliot Jacobson or Mike Shackelford or Steve How can back either you or me up on this. Contact their sites. I say the game is both very fine and very solid.
And one of Shufflemaster's finest table game products.
Quote: AxiomofChoiceNothing you have said refutes this.
Everything I noted absolutely substantiates this, including the links to the math and performance of its real world results, the utter lack of arguments on the game's vulernabilities by ALL gaming math experts, - and the arguments as to why it is a exceedingly fine performing table game. The game has my immense respect, along with everyone else in the gaming industry, including the math expertys here. How exactly can you say otherwise???
Quote: AxiomofChoiceLooking at the current results with the way that people currently play (terribly) is not useful to determine what would happen if people played differently.
Yes it is. It performs exceedly well under all playing conditions at countless real-world casinos across the United States, including areas with strong players who could not "AP" or "game" the product at all, and I assume where it was hit by Ap teams. I mean, if it were "hittable" by AP teams, - that would have happened by now to great fanfare.
UTH provides tremendous action and success to both players and to the casino operators, and is pretty much one of the most successful new game of the past ten years, even including his "Crazy 4 Poker" and "Four card poker" suite, with only EZ Baccarat being up there in this league. Shit, I wish I had invented this beast, and I am openly jealous of Roger Snow. I salute him. A winner if I ever saw one.
Quote: AxiomofChoiceI am having trouble figuring out if you really don't understand this simple concept, or if you are just trolling.
Because I'm not buying your arguments that the game is either defeatable, or has too low of a House Edge in its design against ANY players. I mean, if it were, can you explain as to why it was not "hit" by AP players, and to why NO gaming experts - aside from you - make this claim?
Quote: AxiomofChoiceYou have no evidence to back up this ridiculous assertion.
Yes I do, on several fronts:
1. No teams ever hit this "Vulnerable" game that you say can be brought down - not by AP play - but by simply solid play alone.
2. No discussion on this "UTH is vulnerable' topic by ANY gaming math expert anywhere'
3. and with real performance numbers from:
a) New Jersey Gaming;
b) Missouri Gambling Commission;
c) Nevada Gaming Commission;
and countless other gaming commissions who track numbers that reveal table game performance.
Now, YOU claim that the game would fail with expert players. It would not fail "in a Fantasy Gaming League scenario."
I think Axiom's assertion is ridiculous, and one with absolutely zero real-world proof or even math paper proof from a gaming math guru. Get some real-world proof that UTH would fail, and present it here, - because it ain't happening in real casino life. Enough said on that.
Quote: AxionofchoiceIf people played better, the house's profits would plummet. This is completely obvious.
It what you were saying were true, it would have had a black eye somewhere by now. It hasn't.
Quote: PaigowdanNo.
I'm absolutely very clear on this: Ulimate Texas Hold 'em is a casino hit, it will be around for the long haul, - and it doesn't matter WHO the hell plays it in any scenario in the real world.
Ridiculous. You have absolutely nothing on which to base this preposterous claim.
Quote:A very clear, sensible, and obvious contention, and one you still cannot falsify outside of your "what IF" claims - which are unproven, and will remain so.
My statement are proven by simple arithmetic. If players go from playing with a 10+% HE to a 2.3% HE then the house's profits will fall by a factor of 4 or 5. Again, this is just simple arithmetic. It is certainly true, even if you can't understand the grade-school mathematics behind it.
Quote:The game is very fine - indeed absolutely excellent.
Agreed.
Quote:No one or no team yet has been able to dent it. If it were anywhere NEAR as vulnerable as you claim, Steve How of Discount gambling AP net might have mentioned it, as well as our own forum memeber Eliot Jacobson of AP HEAT.net THEY do not think it is defeatable, - and THEIR opinion counts! And NO AP team has ever busted it, even if they tried; and indeed, no casino operator has complained about the game's hold no matter who plays it. So....
What are you rambling on about now? I never claimed that it was beatable by APs. What are you replying to, exactly? Honestly, Dan, your posts make no sense. Long, rambling, incoherent.
Although, coincidentally, I do know a couple of APs who made 100s of thousands of dollars preying on weak dealers who couldn't read hands. Mispays are great in terms of EV. Nothing like having a $500 ante and blind out there with a $2000 in play bets, only to have the dealer pay you on a loser! A $5500 swing... those minimum wage employees can be expensive, I guess. Unfortunately I haven't been lucky enough to come across this.
That's not really a weakness of the game, though.
Quote:I feel this is all:
- absolutely true;
- totally undeniable, and;
- quite obvious when it is pointed out.
It doesn't surprise me that you believe this.
Quote:There is NO indication that the game is defeatable, or has too weak of a house edge for the players' favor - otherwise, I assume, it would have already been noted by these mathematical gaming experts on these sites. Maybe Stacey F. "Math Extremist," or Eliot Jacobson or Mike Shackelford or Steve How can back either you or me up on this. Contact their sites. I say the game is both very fine and very solid.
And one of Shufflemaster's finest table game products.
I never said that it wasn't a fine game. The math just shows that the house doesn't make very much money against good players. Luckily, there are more than enough bad players to make up for this.
Quote:Everything I noted absolutely substantiates this, including the links to the math and performance of its real world results, the utter lack of arguments on the game's vulernabilities by ALL gaming math experts, - and the arguments as to why it is a exceedingly fine performing table game. The game has my immense respect, along with everyone else in the gaming industry, including the math expertys here. How exactly can you say otherwise???
I find it absolutely shocking that you don't understand the difference between real-world results against terrible players and theoretical results against good players. You don't really need to be a math expert to grasp this concept (although I am). You just need to be someone who is capable of logical though.
Quote:Yes it is. It performs exceedly well under all playing conditions at countless real-world casinos across the United States, including areas with strong players who could not "AP" or "game" the product at all, and I assume where it was hit by Ap teams. I mean, if it were "hittable" by AP teams, - that would have happened by now to great fanfare.
Who are you quoting when you say "hittable"? You seem to be replying to something that is a figment of your imagination.
Quote:UTH provides tremendous action and success to both players and to the casino operators, and is pretty much one of the most successful new game of the past ten years, even including his "Crazy 4 Poker" and "Four card poker" suite, with only EZ Baccarat being up there in this league. Shit, I wish I had invented this beast
Yeah, but, why go through the trouble of inventing a new game when you can just make a slight, irrelevant modification to an existing one and call yourself a game inventor?
Quote:Because I'm not buying your arguments that the game is either defeatable,
What argument? I never said it was "defeatable". Again, this is just a figment of your imagination.
Quote:or has too low of a House Edge in its design against ANY players. I mean, if it were, can you explain as to why it was not "hit" by AP players
APs "hit" games where they can get edges. I never said players had an edge. I just said that if players played well, the house's profits would plummet. Not all the way past 0 into the negatives; just not enough to keep the light on.
Quote:It what you were saying were true, it would have had a black eye somewhere by now. It hasn't.
No, it wouldn't. I also said that players played terribly, so the house continues to make tons of money.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceSure, and many casinos have eliminated 3:2 blackjack. The casinos will always kill any rules that are favorable to the player if they can get away with this.
They have also killed rules that are favorable to the house.
Regarding the UTH debate going on here, I'm not sure I can necessarily pick a side. The saying "casinos could not offer UTH if players played optimally" is mostly tautologically true, since virtually no casino game could be offered if someday players played optimal strategy. Roulette, that's about it. Craps and blackjack would both be dead in the water, even at 6:5 1D.
Quote: CRMousseauQuote: AxiomOfChoiceSure, and many casinos have eliminated 3:2 blackjack. The casinos will always kill any rules that are favorable to the player if they can get away with this.
They have also killed rules that are favorable to the house.
Regarding the UTH debate going on here, I'm not sure I can necessarily pick a side. The saying "casinos could not offer UTH if players played optimally" is mostly tautologically true, since virtually no casino game could be offered if someday players played optimal strategy. Roulette, that's about it. Craps and blackjack would both be dead in the water, even at 6:5 1D.
So Pick the side of the real world, - where the tire hits the road, on real casino ground. The game HOLDS, and cannot "not hold,' my position. Teams regardless.
Charles - can you write a small analysis??!!
A what if - with a touch of math?
I am very much looking forward to testing out my new gaming engine with a whole bunch of "cost of mistakes" analysis, like Miplet's. I think it would be very intriguing to put it mildly.
Quote: CRMousseauQuote: AxiomOfChoiceSure, and many casinos have eliminated 3:2 blackjack. The casinos will always kill any rules that are favorable to the player if they can get away with this.
They have also killed rules that are favorable to the house.
Regarding the UTH debate going on here, I'm not sure I can necessarily pick a side. The saying "casinos could not offer UTH if players played optimally" is mostly tautologically true, since virtually no casino game could be offered if someday players played optimal strategy. Roulette, that's about it. Craps and blackjack would both be dead in the water, even at 6:5 1D.
I will probably regret asking, but can you name an example of rules killed that were favorable to the house ?
I sure can not .
Quote: PaigowdanYes. Axiom posted a post of just my quote alone, above. And I stand by it. It is how that game performs.
Yes, I accidentally hit enter, which posted it, before I had typed my reply. I've fixed it with an edit. New laptop; new keyboard; not quite used to it yet. My fault; I apologize.
Quote: BuzzardQuote: CRMousseauQuote: AxiomOfChoiceSure, and many casinos have eliminated 3:2 blackjack. The casinos will always kill any rules that are favorable to the player if they can get away with this.
They have also killed rules that are favorable to the house.
I will probably regret asking, but can you name an example of rules killed that were favorable to the house ?
I sure can not .
Besides the big removal of bad blackjack rules in the 70s, many casinos have removed the Big 6 and Big 8 from their craps tables.
Shoulda saved that for Wiz Trivia 2013, huh? :/
EDIT: Casinos have also switched to favorable rule sets in carnival games. I've also known of casinos that have gone from 6 decks to 5 decks in blackjack games and variants (slightly improving the player return) in order to offer a different or more attractive paytable for a sidebet.
Quote: IbeatyouracesExactly what MGM Detroit did going from 8 to 6 deck bj while dramatically raising the HE on the Perfect Pairs.
Right. Even if the motivation is to increase the bottom line -- I'm guessing casinos only remove Big 6 and 8 for similar reasons -- it still shows that casinos WILL lower the house edge if they think it will make them more money.
Quote:Regarding good or bad players at UTH. It really doesn't matter as most people stay and lose it all.
It matters if you consider the opportunity cost that a full table represents. I've talked with a pit boss who (playing Devil's Advocate) gave a compelling argument for a casino to have a policy of 86ing perfect basic strategy players. The theoretically optimal casino strategy is to win at the highest rate that will still give the player a feeling they got a good gamble for their money.
Carnivals games are introduced with a pay table that almost always get changed to favor the house ig game gets popular.
I am willing to admit when I am wrong, but not convinced yet. In 1962 table games were 70% and slots 30% of revenues.
Those stats are reversed today. Slot have gone to multi-screens, bonuses etc. Plus TITO really cut expenses.
Table games have gone to 6/5, csm, etc.
Quote: IbeatyouracesSure, its widely known that casinos want you in and out as fast as possible while seperating you from your cash as quickly as possible. I see it every day and for 8-16 hours a day.
Well, shoot, you must be a dealer or a floorman, too!
I only saw it for eight hours a day for seven years, as a dice dealer. Dealt Pai Gow Poker, too, including one very fine game.
Then I retired.
Got to admit, they were very nice about it. I worked for a classy house.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI understand your intuition here, but I think that is false. The fact that the player gets to see the turn and river for free is GREAT for the house. I can assure you that no one would fold AK preflop, but they will happily check it instead of betting 4x like they are supposed to. AK absolutely CRUSHES a random hand -- people leave so much money on the table when they do this, it's not funny.
In MS stud, people play surprisingly well. "Not wanting to fold anything that might win" is pretty close to correct. After 2 cards, it's correct to call with one "win" card or two "push" cards -- and people tend to do something that more or less approximates that. I'm not saying that they play perfectly, but the common mistakes (eg, just calling with a small pair instead of 3-betting on the first two cards) aren't all that expensive.
The end result is that, at the casino where I play , UTH is comped 1.5x as well as MS Stud (UTH is rated at 3x the ante + 1x the trips, and MS Stud is rated at 2x the ante) even though the HE in MS stud is double that of UTH, assuming optimal play. The reason, I'm sure, is that they make a lot more money per ante bet from UTH than they do from MS stud. That should tell you just how badly people play UTH.
In other words, if I play UTH with $100 ante, I am losing $2.30 / hand and I get rated at $300/hand.
If I play MS Stud with $100 antes, I am losing $4.90 / hand (about? from memory...) and I'm rated at $200/hand.
In practice I won't play MS Stud that big, because the swings are too much and, more importantly, the casino has max payouts which increase their house edge on big bets.
Great. Thanks for completely ruining my shameless plug for Mississippi Stud ;)
All I wanted for Christmas is for every Blackjack table to be replaced with Mississippi Stud (and maybe UTH if there's room) as soon as possible.
Quote: RogerKintGreat. Thanks for completely ruining my shameless plug for Mississippi Stud ;)
All I wanted for Christmas is for every Blackjack table to be replaced with Mississippi Stud (and maybe UTH if there's room) as soon as possible.
lol. Don't get me wrong, I love the game, and the casino makes good money off of it. It's just not the goldmine for them that UTH is. UTH is just perfectly, diabolically designed to prey on the fallacies of the mathematically illiterate. It is a thing of beauty.
Why 4x bet your AK when you can just check? It's "cheaper", and if the hand wins, you still win the hand! Besides, you "don't have anything yet". Truly, it is a work of genius.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceBesides, you "don't have anything yet".
You can thank that school of thought from the 60+ set that play 2/4, 3/6, or 4/8 limit hold 'em. They don't raise AK either. Hell, not even KK sometimes. And they usually don't raise AA because they are playing in the morning "Aces cracked" promo. :D
Quote: IbeatyouracesExactly what MGM Detroit did going from 8 to 6 deck bj while dramatically raising the HE on the Perfect Pairs.
Regarding good or bad players at UTH. It really doesn't matter as most people stay and lose it all.
Quote: BuzzardCharles, still waiting for a few examples. I agree it's good business to offer a more favorable game if it will increase revenues. Just can't remember seeing it done !
....UTH....2008...what this thread is about.
Quote: Paigowdan....UTH....2008...what this thread is about.
I was not trying to hijack this thread. Willing to admit my experience is limited to Colorado. That's why I asked for any examples.
Just trying to be real. Switch had to go with 6/5 BJ to get Free Bet into Casino Royale. Stacey Perry had to give in on her pay table
in AC. Not a reflection on corporate greed, more like a comment on how casino's so often alter the original pay table.
AND if the hand loses. "See, I knew it!!! I always wait for the flop..."Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWhy 4x bet your AK when you can just check? It's "cheaper", and if the hand wins, you still win the hand! Besides, you "don't have anything yet". Truly, it is a work of genius.
Quote: UCivanAND if the hand loses. "See, I knew it!!! I always wait for the flop..."
Cuirous how they don't, "Know it," when the hand wins and the best EV would have been to go 4x pre-flop!
Makes the assumption players know what the HE is. Usually not true.
Quote: UCivanBecause EV is in the math world, not the real world. EV is the result of billions and billions of hands. EV is more meaning to casinos where the dealer deals billions of hands. EV is less meaning for to players who at most only play several thousand hands (24 hrs / day x 60 min / hour x 1 hand / min= 1440 hands / day). In many cases, the EV effect does not show in real plays. Following the same logic, the House Edge is more significant to casinos, less to players.
That must be why everyone always wins at casinos, right?
Quote: BuzzardCharles, still waiting for a few examples. I agree it's good business to offer a more favorable game if it will increase revenues. Just can't remember seeing it done !
The removal of the Big 6 and the Big 8 wagers, and casinos going to less decks on blackjack games were the two I had in mind.
Craps players, jump right in.
As for 6 or 8 decks, it is usually someone deciding too much time is wasted on shuffling. Yes, the casinos do know the HE is lower for less decks. That's why the limits are higher for double deck and sometimes they might S17. So the HE is lowered if limits are raised, I will concede that.
Can you think of any table game or side where once a paytable was established, it was later improved upon? I sure can't.
I think that the problem here is that players know that less decks is better for them (it seems to be somewhat common knowledge) so they make that rule better as a way to advertise, and they totally screw you on other rules. I wish that "6:5 is a ripoff" would become just as well-known as "single deck is good". People seem not to get this, though. I do appreciate how half of the Wizard's simple strategy card is taken up by the warning not to play 6:5.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYou mean like when they advertise SINGLE DECK in big letters (sometimes with a sign on a post above the table) and then in small print on the table "blackjacks pay 6:5"?
I think that the problem here is that players know that less decks is better for them (it seems to be somewhat common knowledge) so they make that rule better as a way to advertise, and they totally screw you on other rules. I wish that "6:5 is a ripoff" would become just as well-known as "single deck is good". People seem not to get this, though. I do appreciate how half of the Wizard's simple strategy card is taken up by the warning not to play 6:5.
OMG I been playing 6 to 5. I mean both numbers are bigger than 3 to 2 !
The New Jersey Gaming Commission thinks this is such a bad bet that they have prohibited Atlantic City casinos from offering it, so you will not find that wager on the felts in that town.
