a new blackjack variant has only a HE of 0.33%

If a new blackjack variant has only a HE of 0.33%, do you think it would survive in the market?

This is a continuation discussion from

One for the Money-opening

The last comment was
"With this game, casinos make money on side bets and player errors. I will recommend Galaxy's (Paigowdan's company) Lucky Ladies (HE = 26+%) The HE is computed with optimal play strategy. If the optimal play strategy for this variant is too convoluted for any human beings to follow, this game still has a chance."

BTW, Blackjack Switch has lower than 0.60% HE.

UCivan,

I think Player will like it and play it, but I don't see the Casino will want to try it out.

Quote: UCivan

If a new blackjack variant has only a HE of 0.33%, do you think it would survive in the market?

This is a continuation discussion from

One for the Money-opening

The last comment was
"With this game, casinos make money on side bets and player errors. I will recommend Galaxy's (Paigowdan's company) Lucky Ladies (HE = 26+%) The HE is computed with optimal play strategy. If the optimal play strategy for this variant is too convoluted for any human beings to follow, this game still has a chance."

Lucky Ladies is a hugely successful game with a HE of essentially 24.999999999%, to illustrate a point: In Nevada, no game can be approved with a HE of 25% or more.
But more importantly, it shows that a fun and straightforward game gets action in spite of a high house edge, and a boring, uninspiring game gets NO action, even with a 0.01% HE. However, if a game has a player positive HE, it is just an ATM machine.

Quote: UCivan

BTW, Blackjack Switch has lower than 0.60% HE.

And it has a deceptively tricky strategy, as do many games, and as such will get a higher table hold than its nominal HE would suggest. Any game that fails to hold adequately simple fails, and is removed. For a straightforward BJ game with a clearer strategy to have a 0.33% HE, especially if it's countable, is risking a poor hold and its removal, if installed.

Where is 24.99999%? Let's play beyond Nevada.

From VOO:

Lucky Ladies — Summary
Decks Table A Table B Table C
1 38.16% 36.05% 29.89%
2 30.05% 24.94% 25.51%
3 27.37% 21.28% 24.07%
4 26.04% 19.46% 23.35%
5 25.24% 18.37% 22.92%
6 24.71% 17.64% 22.64%
7 24.33% 17.12% 22.43%
8 24.05% 16.73% 22.28%

Quote: UCivan

Where is 24.99999%? Let's play beyond Nevada.

From VOO:

Lucky Ladies — Summary
Decks Table A Table B Table C
1 38.16% 36.05% 29.89%
2 30.05% 24.94% 25.51%
3 27.37% 21.28% 24.07%
4 26.04% 19.46% 23.35%
5 25.24% 18.37% 22.92%
6 24.71% 17.64% 22.64%
7 24.33% 17.12% 22.43%
8 24.05% 16.73% 22.28%

Seems immaterial. It's like drowning in 10 ft deep lake vs a 15 ft deep lake.

Quote: CrystalMath

Seems immaterial. It's like drowning in 10 ft deep lake vs a 15 ft deep lake.

Point of view. A lot of players like the dip.

Remember, we're the One-Percenters here, and we obsess about every fraction of a decimal point of a numeric....

I think it's good marketing if you have the "best game in the house", especially if most players also make the sidebets. I'm sure the casino would prefer $25 bets at .3% rather than run a carnival game where everyone bets $1. However the game with such a low HE has to be relatively immune from counters or other attack, and if it has a complicated strategy (such as Switch) then the practical HE might be higher.

The other thing, which people seem to ignore, is that players would have more time/enjoyment/value for their money: on one side this might mean a table stays full with the same people all evening (some poker games suffer that way if it's running well) - on the other the game would prove popular and be a useful loss-leader to bring people back again.

There was once a trial at a bingo hall where all paper games were 0%HE. The hall made money on the other games, fruit machines and cafe. It didn't stay but in Scotland there was a time when many big clubs made the Main Session no par fee (0%HE) (they may still do, I haven't played for ages).

Quote: charliepatrick

I think it's good marketing if you have the "best game in the house", especially if most players also make the sidebets. I'm sure the casino would prefer $25 bets at .3% rather than run a carnival game where everyone bets $1. However the game with such a low HE has to be relatively immune from counters or other attack, and if it has a complicated strategy (such as Switch) then the practical HE might be higher.

True, but any BJ game coming out of a shoe is pretty much countable; if we look at the attitude on this around here, it is the sport to do.
Again, casinos have to make a certain amount of hold, so if it doesn't make the casino any real money - and this will be known very quickly - its marketability is dead. Sadly, to get a game out, you need the casino operator's full cooperation, no matter how good it looks to a player, especially an AP.

Quote: charliepatrick

The other thing, which people seem to ignore, is that players would have more time/enjoyment/value for their money: on one side this might mean a table stays full with the same people all evening (some poker games suffer that way if it's running well) - on the other the game would prove popular and be a useful loss-leader to bring people back again.

With exceptions when it comes to table games, Casino's generally don't to look to have loss leaders as much as having profit centers. If a game isn't holding, it is a risk. They won't say, "well...look at the people it brings in!" they will say "AAAUUGG! it's HEMORRHAGING!" We get the calls, trust me. We can't tell them to look on the bright side as a loss leader. They say "Fix it now, - before it's out the door." They look to other things as loss leaders, or more controlled loss leaders, like promos.