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 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.
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.
Oct 19, 2009
- Threads: 250
- Posts: 12500
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.