100%+ games-why were they made originally?

Maybe the game desingers did not know to calculate odds well? Or they though that very few people will actually play perfectly?
I wonder how it is possible that lots of year ago, vegas was full of 100%+ games.

Game returns were not well understood back in the day, in fact the earliest games with a pay table like Jacks or Better had no payout for Jacks or Better just to be on the safe side. Of course this meant that players figured out they were losing too much money (the games return about 90% and that required a then-unknown optimal strategy) and didn't play them for long!

I'm not sure when the formal regulations about requiring game return to be known were introduced, but not long after 9/6 JoB and 8/5 JoB with a progressive were out in the early-mid 1980's it seems that returns were correctly estimated within 1% or so. Another 10-15 years or so and the analysis was pretty much fully accurate for almost all games. That said, there was actual data from casinos that showed the hold on machines was about 2%. Thus a casino could offer a game with a 101% return, actually make money from players playing poorly, and also use it as an advertising point to attract players with their good pay tables. If the players come through the door there's no guarantee they'll be able to get on the best machines or even able to find them, but it gets them through the door and many of them will play poorly in addition to spending money elsewhere in the casino.

Probably as time went on the casino started getting burned from good players and offering extra $ with additional promotions, or some exec got a bit scared when a full pay machine hit a lot in a short amount of time, and they pulled them.

I often wonder this myself. Why was VP designed with such a low house edge in the first place? Was the mindset amongst casino operators different than it is now? Like if VP was invented today, instead of when Axel was born, the house edge be like 60%.

Quote: RogerKint

I often wonder this myself. Why was VP designed with such a low house edge in the first place? Was the mindset amongst casino operators different than it is now? Like if VP was invented today, instead of when Axel was born, the house edge be like 60%.

It's because the house edge is cumulative. The game hits the sweet spot for addictive play, needing skill or the optimal he is never realized, providing a decision point on evey hand for control or the illusion of it, appearing to be inexpensive per individual spin, displaying many potential wins that just miss, allowing the pace of play to be set by the player, offering many small wins for a good hit rate but still having substantial jackpots, using familiar symbols and concepts ,appearing deceptively easy, little expense beyond the initial buy/lease agreement (no dealer/labor costs).

So hardly anybody just plays one hand. And every hand they do play, the he is acting on it.

I have thought about this myself.
The designers of the full pay JoB we play nowadays must have known the payout % to get so close to 100%.
Any other possibility is too unlikely.

In regards to the games that are slightly above 100% like full pay deuces: I think it had sportsman-like intentions.
If you can learn the correct strategy and minimise your mistakes then you deserve to be paid.

All this is my speculation; you would have to contact the people that made them to know for sure.

Super fast games with high variance do not need a high HE.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Super fast games with high variance do not need a high HE.

6:5 blackjack doesn't NEED to exist, but it does.

I think the movie "21"(and the book) is the cause of the 6:5. Now lot of player know basic strategy, even if not 100% correct they are close to it(like the wizard "simple strategy"). But I doubt if the casinos in Europe that have 5 euros(about 7$) 3:2 blackjack lose money, and 6:5 seems to not exist at all outside of the USA. Maybe only when we(tourists) reach the US we start playing correctly? I cannot understand that.

Also the variance in blackjack is not high as far as I know. And even than, 6:5 is bad but better than any game for low-rollers on the strip, besides craps(and some video poker). I did not play 6:5 blackjack tables(I played 2$ 6:5 blackjack machine, but it was 2$ and not 5$) because I don't want to encourage it. But I will play the much worse 3 card poker or pai gow poker... I simply hate to be short-paid.

Originally VP poker seems to have been analyzed as if the player were trying to win rather than going solely for the Ultra Hit.

All casino games tend to be subject to pariahs. Its the same thing as those scammers who would go to a ski resort but never pay the mega lift fees since they were only there to eat, drink and be merry.

Those who hover around machines or downright hog them are an annoyance and the casino

The casinos want to squeez the clientele but not enough that it feels like a squeeze.

craps originally did not have 'odds'... it was a way to compete with other casinos.

Street craps took center action thruogh other players, not the one who owned the game.

Rules change, odds change,,, players get greedy. Casino get greedy. Green eye shade types retire and MBAs take over.

Quote: RogerKint

6:5 blackjack doesn't NEED to exist, but it does.

Blackjack is nowhere near the speed of video poker.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Super fast games with high variance do not need a high HE.

Exactly. Well said.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Blackjack is nowhere near the speed of video poker.

Actually, now you have me curious....

Does a typical Vegas strip casino make more money per year off of blackjack or video poker? And is it close? I literally have no idea.

Quote: malgorium

Actually, now you have me curious....

Does a typical Vegas strip casino make more money per year off of blackjack or video poker? And is it close? I literally have no idea.

That's going to depend on game denomination, player skill, game selection (games house edge), etc.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

That's going to depend on game denomination, player skill, game selection (games house edge), etc.

Right, that's why I'm asking, for the typical Vegas strip casino overall. Just all blackjack money vs. video poker money, in an average year. Which one's higher, and is it close?

I'd have no idea. Someone here will probably have a link to some sort of statistics.

Quote: malgorium

Actually, now you have me curious....

Does a typical Vegas strip casino make more money per year off of blackjack or video poker? And is it close? I literally have no idea.

They probably lump VP and slots together. I assume BJ over just VP.

The ammount of VP machines is not so high on the strip, in the casinos I visited(mostly south-strip). And even than, lots of machines are terrible odds but very low minimum-some even 5c or 1c . Mostly only good machines are high-limit.
On blackjack, most of the strip low minimums(but still 5$) are terrible 6:5 with 6 decks, and lot of players bet more than 5$.
I think it is the reason. On Palms which I have visited and they have tons of VP and very few blackjack(and most of them are 3:2), I am sure they get more money from the VP.

Quote: AxelWolf

They probably lump VP and slots together. I assume BJ over just VP.

Yep, and I would assume BJ over slots.

Last 12 months:
BJ win for major strip casinos: $801M
Slot win for major strip casinos: $2,722M ($2.722B)

So if VP accounts for 30% or more of the total slot win on the strip, then it would outdo BJ. I highly, highly doubt that it does. I would be surprised if it was more than 5% of the total slot win.

Quote: lavifighter

I think the movie "21"(and the book) is the cause of the 6:5. Now lot of player know basic strategy, even if not 100% correct they are close to it(like the wizard "simple strategy"). But I doubt if the casinos in Europe that have 5 euros(about 7$) 3:2 blackjack lose money, and 6:5 seems to not exist at all outside of the USA. Maybe only when we(tourists) reach the US we start playing correctly? I cannot understand that....

I'm sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with just about everything in this statement.

The movie "21" was one of the best things to happen for casinos and blackjack. Everyone and their mom thought they could learn to count cards. Notice the movie talks about "the law of large numbers," hinting at the long run... but it never discusses Risk of Ruin, Bankroll Management, and especially the biggest thing... VARIANCE. The movie made it look like the only time you lose is when you're in a bad mood or something to that effect.

After that movie COUNTLESS people went out with their $200 and tried to count cards, only to lose and claim it doesn't work, etc, etc, because they didn't really understand how to beat the game. It's a lot more than just +1 and -1. The movie 21 gave a big boost to the blackjack community and players essentially donating their money to the casinos.

They also don't even get in to basic strategy. They mention it once or twice, but how many people do you think actually look it up, memorize it 100%, know the differences for H17 games vs S17 games, etc. I'll tell you even the dedicated people that take the time to come on this forum to learn QUITE OFTEN don't know basic strategy 100%.

In 10 years of counting, I've probably seen a HANDFUL (at most) of other players that actually played 100% correct basic strategy.

The movie 21 was one of the best things to happen to blackjack.

Quote: Romes

I'm sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with just about everything in this statement.

The movie "21" was one of the best things to happen for casinos and blackjack. Everyone and their mom thought they could learn to count cards. Notice the movie talks about "the law of large numbers," hinting at the long run... but it never discusses Risk of Ruin, Bankroll Management, and especially the biggest thing... VARIANCE. The movie made it look like the only time you lose is when you're in a bad mood or something to that effect.

After that movie COUNTLESS people went out with their $200 and tried to count cards, only to lose and claim it doesn't work, etc, etc, because they didn't really understand how to beat the game. It's a lot more than just +1 and -1. The movie 21 gave a big boost to the blackjack community and players essentially donating their money to the casinos.

They also don't even get in to basic strategy. They mention it once or twice, but how many people do you think actually look it up, memorize it 100%, know the differences for H17 games vs S17 games, etc. I'll tell you even the dedicated people that take the time to come on this forum to learn QUITE OFTEN don't know basic strategy 100%.

In 10 years of counting, I've probably seen a HANDFUL (at most) of other players that actually played 100% correct basic strategy.

The movie 21 was one of the best things to happen to blackjack.

Edward Thorp=best thing to happen to BJ. Guys like Dan, Eliot and darkside=the worst thing.

But then we have people who continue to write their books, tell their stories, go on TV, Radio shows etc and tell their winning stories that make the casinos react.

Quote: AxelWolf

Edward Thorp=best thing to happen to BJ. Guys like Dan, Eliot and darkside=the worst thing.

But then we have people who continue to write their books, tell their stories, go on TV, Radio shows etc and tell their winning stories that make the casinos react.

The books, stories, TV/Radio shows are what keep the games alive. They create the interest, and from that only 1% (or less) of the interested people actually dedicate themselves and learn enough to actually beat the games.

Casinos don't knee jerk to these stories. They knee jerk to the Dark Siders you speak of above that run TO the casinos and say "See! See! Omg these guys are killing you guys for BILLIONS per year! You'd better pay me even MORE money to help 'protect' your casino!"