Tables minimums raised and lowered
Quote: CapnDaveAfter a few hours, the pit boss looked at the 2 of us sitting at a mostly empty table, said, "This is silly...", and lowered the minimum back down to the level we were playing at.
Its good to see the casino executives being flexible and acknowledging the reality of the situation. They made a valiant effort to get the higher rollers, it didn't work. Why should they deny passersby who might enjoy a spot at your table? The casino tried its best. It failed. There is a point at which discouraging low-limit passersby in the vain hope of snagging a higher limit bettor just does not make sense.
I don't begrudge the casino for having made the effort but it is refreshing to see that they are not stubborn about it.
Quote: dmA player with 18 has a losing hand, on average, even on S17. This in reply to the criticism of hitting soft 18.
Only with a 9,10, or A up. Against every other card 18 has a positive expectation. If that is what you meant to say, I apologize.
My earlier post (bottom of page 5) was based on dm's comment that 18 was a losing hand "on average". I looked at the average EV over all dealer cards, and the 18 looks like a winner overall.Quote: teddysOnly with a 9,10, or A up. Against every other card 18 has a positive expectation. If that is what you meant to say, I apologize.Quote: dmA player with 18 has a losing hand, on average, even on S17. This in reply to the criticism of hitting soft 18.
Edit: Ooops! My mistake. I misread some numbers. Guess I don't know the answer.
Quote: dmI hate to admit that I looked at the average also after being challenged on the statement, and it appears to be a winner. I have seen more than once the statement I made and it seemed to come from reliable sources with precise figures. One thing that I don't understand is that EV against dealer 9 is higher than against 10, and 10 higher than ACE. Wizard?
It's all recursive combinations. You have to think what the dealer would most likely have. With a 9 up, his most likely hand is a 19--winner. He could also have an 18 (push) or a 20 (winner). Everything else is either a loss or he'll have to draw. He could also get a 9-2 for an eleven and draw to beat you.
If he has a ten, the most likely hand is a 20 - winner. But he can't draw to an eleven, and any other down card besides a 8-9-10-A will give him a stiff hand and he will likely bust. I think the ace is higher value to you because if the dealer doesn't have blackjack, then your chances to win are greatly increased.
Quote: teddysIt's all recursive combinations. You have to think what the dealer would most likely have. With a 9 up, his most likely hand is a 19--winner. He could also have an 18 (push) or a 20 (winner). Everything else is either a loss or he'll have to draw. He could also get a 9-2 for an eleven and draw to beat you.
If he has a ten, the most likely hand is a 20 - winner. But he can't draw to an eleven, and any other down card besides a 8-9-10-A will give him a stiff hand and he will likely bust. I think the ace is higher because if the dealer doesn't have blackjack, then your chances to win are greatly increased.
***********************************
But with a 9 then 8: dealer loses, 10 pushes, ACE wins.
then 9: dealer pushes, 10 wins, ACE wins.
I'm not sure what you mean by Ace higher.
So, WIZARD what is the AVERAGE dealer ending total with S17, H17? Better be less than 18!
Quote: dmQuote: teddysIt's all recursive combinations. You have to think what the dealer would most likely have. With a 9 up, his most likely hand is a 19--winner. He could also have an 18 (push) or a 20 (winner). Everything else is either a loss or he'll have to draw. He could also get a 9-2 for an eleven and draw to beat you.
If he has a ten, the most likely hand is a 20 - winner. But he can't draw to an eleven, and any other down card besides a 8-9-10-A will give him a stiff hand and he will likely bust. I think the ace is higher because if the dealer doesn't have blackjack, then your chances to win are greatly increased.
***********************************
But with a 9 then 8: dealer loses, 10 pushes, ACE wins.
then 9: dealer pushes, 10 wins, ACE wins.
I'm not sure what you mean by Ace higher.
So, WIZARD what is the AVERAGE dealer ending total with S17, H17? Better be less than 18!
For six decks H17 = 18.88
For six decks S17 = 18.84
Source.
The chart also shows you that the 21 total is what makes the 18 less advantageous against the 9 than the 10. It's because 11 and the subsequent draw to 21 is not possible with the 10. Everything else is a wash. The A up is better for the player because once you get past the initial hurdle of dealer BJ (30% chance), the chance that he will have a 8 or 9 under there to beat you is small. Anything else and you push or he has to draw to a soft hand, depending on the S/H17 rules.
Quote: dmSo, if the dealer averages more than 18, than you proved my original statement - 18 is a loser on average.
Yep, it would seem that way. However, that's only HARD 18 that is a net loser. If we put soft 18 (which we were talking about in the first place anyway) and hard 18 together, 18 is a net winner.
I looked at the WoO table for "Player's Expected Return by Standing" for a player total of 18. I took the average of the ER vs. all the dealer cards, weighting the return vs. 10 by a factor of 4. That gave me a positive number, so I interpreted that as meaning that, on average, standing on 18 has a positive expected return. It doesn't seem to matter whether it is a hard or soft 18. I know I could get an even higher expected return by hitting a soft 18 in some cases, but it appears that the expected return is positive for all 18s; i.e., positive for a hard 18 that I stand on.
Now you say that on average the dealer ends up with more than 18. What am I missing here?
Apparently there is also a huge backlog with dealer licenses being processed as well, as there are only 12-16 tables out of the 85 tables staffed and open, and only 16 out of the 27 poker room tables, even 3 weeks later. The poker room is not even open 24 hrs yet. The conspiracy theorists say the casino is deliberately holding back the tables instead. Unfortunately, neither side has commented on either issue, so who knows what the real hold up on opening the 85 tables are. I'm slated to go check it out in the middle of next month, and hopefully things will have stabilized by then.
-B
Earlier this year at Bally's LV, the pit boss came over to a $5 Let It Ride table and raised the limit to $25 at 3 in the morning. There were only three of us at the table. Once the hooting and hollering subsided, he confessed that it was done to force closure of the pit - basically consolidating the action to the other available pits. This led to some other discussions regarding floor management, and the dealer told us (and please someone let me know if this was true or not) that some casinos have the right to adjust limits in such a way to force inactivity if traffic is less than anticipated. If a table remains inactive for a certain period of time (she said 20 minutes) that they can close it down and send the dealer home early without pay for the remainder of their shift. It sounded pretty brutal to me.
So could they raise the limits with the goal of forcing people to leave the game? You betcha. There is usually an unwritten rule (in Nevada) that if a table minimum is raised, players who are at that table can continue to bet at the former, lower minimum until they leave. This isn't always observed, though. In slime pits like Atlantic City, the east coast mentality allows them to raise the limit fivefold and chase you away IMMEDIATELY if you don't want to bet the new, higher minimum. I would hazard a guess that the farther east you go, the more this happens.
It all comes down to customer relations. In places like AC, there's a endless stream of customers, and the societal values honor rudeness and peremptory behavior, so they won't CARE if they enrage their customers or not--they're supposed to be grateful they were allowed to leave the game under their own power. In Vegas, what usually happens is that the pit stays open as long as there are players, and if there's one game left going, the floorman MIGHT ask everybody to move to an adjacent pit, but that is rare.
Sometimes limits will be raised to exclude other players when one person wants to play alone and his action merits persuasive measures to make others leave, sometimes the shift manager simply wants to send people home since there is so little action to keep a pit boss, floor person, dealer and pit-clerk on duty.
I've only seen them raise table limits one time, when they raised a $5 blackjack table to $10. It didn't matter to me because I had been playing $10 a hand anyway, but it did chase at least one other player off (and he asked to be grandfathered in at the lower limit and was told no.) I did also see them lower the limits on craps one Friday from $10 to $5, evidently because they just weren't getting very many players with the $10 limit.
Quote: mkl654321
It all comes down to customer relations. In places like AC, there's a endless stream of customers, and the societal values honor rudeness and peremptory behavior, so they won't CARE if they enrage their customers or not--they're supposed to be grateful they were allowed to leave the game under their own power. In Vegas, what usually happens is that the pit stays open as long as there are players, and if there's one game left going, the floorman MIGHT ask everybody to move to an adjacent pit, but that is rare.
While I have been at tables that have been increased, I personally have never had it in AC when they did it just to close the table. I don't know why they wouldn't just say "Ladies and gentlemen, we have to close this table in 15 minutes...I'm sorry about that, but things are winding down." I have had that happen and I've never been offended. They open more tables when things get busy, we have to assume they need to close them at other times. I don't find it insulting and have played in AC for many years and have never been treated rudely. I had to go to Mohegan Sun to be blown off by a supervisor.
Also they can do whatever they want but they can't murder their employees, and stopping a hand in the middle for no reason would probably be grounds for your claim of foul to be upheld by the NGC (in Nevada or the CCC in NJ), giving you a win.
Quote: benbakdoffDoes anyone remember when the casinos in AC closed for the night? Not sure of the exact time but they would close at either 4AM or 6AM and reopen at 10AM. This was in the very early years.
I know this occurred, but I wasn't old enough to play then. Maybe because I started gambling at 18 when I'd go on cruises, I was used to the casino closing and therefore being kicked off a table, and that's why I don't find it as upsetting or offensive as others.
By the same token, if a table is going to stay open and demand is slow, minimums will be dropped as the night goes on and the crowds thin out. Not unusual to see a $10 or $15 minimum drop to $5 around 3 am if things are quiet.
Quote: benbakdoffDoes anyone remember when the casinos in AC closed for the night? Not sure of the exact time but they would close at either 4AM or 6AM and reopen at 10AM. This was in the very early years.
"1992: A sweeping regulatory reform bill signed by Gov. Jim Florio allows 24-hour casino gambling. Previously, casinos had to close at 4 a.m. on weekdays and 6 a.m. on weekends, reopening at 10 a.m."--atlantic city press
Table minimums affect who plays and how much money is made. Two five dollar players are worth less to the casino than one ten dollar player. An empty seat at a higher limit table may get a higher limit player. An empty seat at a five dollar table will probably only get a five dollar player.
Many players prefer a less than full table so raising the limits makes it more inviting to those with the money.
Salary expense is probably the last thing the casino really cares about. An unstaffed table has no potential, an empty table has potential.
That's okay... I often disagree with myself too.Quote: WestTexasGamblerI disagree with you FleaStiff.
High salaries are of greater concern than minimum wage salaries. Oh its not a total lack of concern for salaries of course, but I just don't think the casino cares too much about bringing someone in at the minimum wage with no benefits the way most dealers are situated. Some are on the Temp Board.. often for years. No benefits, no obligation to keep them for a full eight hours. Even if they do have benefits and have some sort of longevity its still a situation of low wage to staff a table and see if anyone shows up to play.
The ebb and flow of casino crowds can cause sudden popularity of various games but if the table is not manned there is little hope for any sort of income to the casino. Raising the limits usually causes anger and grumbling and a few huffs and puffs... but along comes another sucker eventually to play at the higher limits and most of the lower limit people come back anyway. If they grumble and don't tip for awhile the casino doesn't much care.
Quote: benbakdoffDoes anyone remember when the casinos in AC closed for the night? Not sure of the exact time but they would close at either 4AM or 6AM and reopen at 10AM. This was in the very early years.
They closed for a few hours in order to collect and count the money.
The biggest problem with closing was it created a big traffic jam when everyone left in the morning.
Quote: FatGeezusThey closed for a few hours in order to collect and count the money.
The biggest problem with closing was it created a big traffic jam when everyone left in the morning.
Per the woman in "Gambling Wizards" it was a weird scene in the morning during the 6 or so weeks of "counter heaven" way back. She said you needed to be able to sprint to the tables as the APs ran in when they opened and sat all day long. Oh, well, at least with the casino closing they actually got to sleep.
Quote: AZDuffmanPer the woman in "Gambling Wizards" it was a weird scene in the morning during the 6 or so weeks of "counter heaven" way back. She said you needed to be able to sprint to the tables as the APs ran in when they opened and sat all day long. Oh, well, at least with the casino closing they actually got to sleep.
I was right there in the middle of it and you're dead on about sprinting to the tables. Four deck shoes, 80% penetration and early surrender were definitely worth sprinting for. You wouldn't believe where some of those people slept.
Just how much of an edge was such a game? Were the players really making that much money at it?Quote: benbakdoffFour deck shoes, 80% penetration and early surrender were definitely worth sprinting for. You wouldn't believe where some of those people slept.
Quote: FleaStiffJust how much of an edge was such a game? Were the players really making that much money at it?
An article in Casino Detroit Magazine gives a player advantage of .623% for early surrender and also says that just playing basic strategy has a .25% advantage. Yes, a lot of money was made.
Having seen what they've been doing to blackjack over the last few years, it's been my impression that Harrahs/Caesars really doesn't want blackjack players all that much -- and this seems just another step to move completely into carnival games.
We left and went to play at the Bellagio -- which has a much better game anyway...
Quote: deanandmariaHere's an odd wrinkle to this topic.
Earlier this year at Bally's LV, the pit boss came over to a $5 Let It Ride table and raised the limit to $25 at 3 in the morning. There were only three of us at the table. Once the hooting and hollering subsided, he confessed that it was done to force closure of the pit - basically consolidating the action to the other available pits. This led to some other discussions regarding floor management, and the dealer told us (and please someone let me know if this was true or not) that some casinos have the right to adjust limits in such a way to force inactivity if traffic is less than anticipated. If a table remains inactive for a certain period of time (she said 20 minutes) that they can close it down and send the dealer home early without pay for the remainder of their shift. It sounded pretty brutal to me.
Sometimes the player gets a 20 minute notice, sometimes the dealer does.
Quote: bilcgoWhere I work, increasing table minimums is definitely motivated by floor management. Everyone staffs fewer dealers on graveyard than on swing, so a significant number of tables have to be closed by the end of swing shift. Rather than ask players to move (something our managers consider doing only as a last resort), the supervisors start increasing minimums on the tables they want to close, which has the effect over time of consolidating play at the fewer tables with the lower minimums. This not only frees them to send dealers home early (btw, these are dealers who have VOLUNTEERED to be sent home early, so it isn't brutal at all), it also frees them to send supervisors home early, if they can close a whole section of 4-6 tables. Saves the casino $$, and gives the supervisors and dealers who signed up an early out.
By the same token, if a table is going to stay open and demand is slow, minimums will be dropped as the night goes on and the crowds thin out. Not unusual to see a $10 or $15 minimum drop to $5 around 3 am if things are quiet.
Oh, minimums go down? When?
Quote: toastcmuAtlantic City will not grandfather bets. They give you 20 mins notice that the minimum is changing, and then expect you to play the minimum once it changes. Typically table limits are raised between 12p-2p and again between 5p-7p on the weekends, starting Fridays.
The first, last, and only time that I played at the Revel I played BJ. $5 table. I think it was something like 9am on a Sunday. Pit boss gave us 10 mins advance notice and then upped the game. No grandfathering. Oh, Revel--what a wonderful failure.
Quote: ChumpChangeSometimes the player gets a 20 minute notice, sometimes the dealer does.
and some places it's only for the next X shoes (black jack)
