UCivan
UCivan
Joined: Sep 3, 2011
  • Threads: 79
  • Posts: 830
July 4th, 2013 at 7:29:02 AM permalink
Quote: UCivan

Does Lucky Stiff let them make more tips? In tribal casinos, dealers and their comradeship are very powerful.

Here is my 2 cents. Players tip when they are lucky, not when they feel they themselves are skillful. Side bets like Lucky Lucky, Royal Match require no skills, so most players that win would reward dealers with tips. It seems to me Lucky Stiff may not earn dealer any tips. First of all, getting the initial "Lucky Stiff" is not real lucky, then hitting good cards by the players is considered to be players own efforts. Again, no tips. I don't think dealers were on your side even though they "said" to like the game - no one liked to say anything negative. No money no honey.
21Revolution
21Revolution
Joined: Dec 27, 2012
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 71
July 7th, 2013 at 6:34:31 PM permalink
Quote: Paradigm

The table drop and level of player participation in the side bet were well within the property's expectations, but the hold was not.



Is there a way to determine why the hold is not as good as Blackjack w/out side bets or alternative Blackjack games with side bets? I don't really understand the concept of "hold" so I would be curious to see if you have thoughts why it wasn't achieving.
tringlomane
tringlomane
Joined: Aug 25, 2012
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 6229
July 7th, 2013 at 8:25:43 PM permalink
Quote: 21Revolution

Is there a way to determine why the hold is not as good as Blackjack w/out side bets or alternative Blackjack games with side bets? I don't really understand the concept of "hold" so I would be curious to see if you have thoughts why it wasn't achieving.



The concept of hold is an odd one for sure. It is basically a mix of house edge and time at the table because casinos cannot record every single wager. Higher house edge = generally more hold. Staying longer at the table = generally more hold.

Hold is defined as: Total Table Win/Total Table Buy-ins

Simple Examples:

You are a $25 flat-bet blackjack player with a 1% house edge. You buy-in for $300 and play for 3 hours (200 hands). Your expected loss would be 200 x $25 x 0.01 = $50. So the expected hold from your play would be $50/$300 = 16.67%. If your actual result was that you won $40, then the actual hold would be -$40/$300 = -13.33%. If you would have lost your entire buy-in and left the table, then the hold would be $300/$300 = 100%

You are a $5 ante UTH player that gives up 5% ante to the house due to you checking preflop a little too much. You buy in for $200 and play for 4 hours (150 hands). Your expected loss would be $5 x 150 x 0.05 = $37.5. So the expected hold from your play would be $37.5/$200 = 18.75%.

For blackjack (depending on casino/region), the target for hold may vary anywhere from the low to high teens.

In this particular case, one possible problem was that the edge of the side bet wasn't quite enough to overcome the extra time it took to resolve it. However, I strongly think it easily could be a case of bad variance. If you look at various state gaming statistics (Missouri is a nice, internet friendly example), particular table games easily swing +/- 5% in any given month in overall casino hold.
Paradigm
Paradigm
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2225
July 7th, 2013 at 9:08:24 PM permalink
Quote: 21Revolution

Is there a way to determine why the hold is not as good as Blackjack w/out side bets or alternative Blackjack games with side bets? I don't really understand the concept of "hold" so I would be curious to see if you have thoughts why it wasn't achieving.


Unfortunately I can't go into specifics on hold numbers, etc. as the casino's numbers are very sensitive information.

We are confident based on what was observed that the participation rate was great. The hold issue will take care of itself as the 4% House Edge combined with the participation rate Lucky Stiff was achieving will result in significant increase in the table win.

While the table "Hold" is a staple of a casino evaluating current and new table games, what they really care about is how much did the table win. You can tell from Tring's analysis above, there are many factors that affect the hold percentage......but there is only one answer when it comes to the question "Did this table win more per open hour than that table".

Bottom line is that while Lucky Stiff was popular and the drop on the table as well as the participation in the side bet were good, the win for the trial was not good due to some bad variance.....the players just got lucky either at the main BJ bet or at the Lucky Stiff side bet, the mix of where the loss is mostly to blame is a tough one to figure out without spending lots of time and frankly doesn't really matter provided the math is correct. In the long term, the math will drive the win results.

I am very confident that Lucky Stiff will be back in play at another property before the year is out and given time (and a little less bad variance to start the trial) will prove to be a bet that adds to the net win of the BJ table it is placed on in a significant way.
McDemon
McDemon
Joined: May 20, 2013
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 167
July 8th, 2013 at 3:52:07 AM permalink
Quote: Paradigm

Unfortunately I can't go into specifics on hold numbers, etc. as the casino's numbers are very sensitive information.

We are confident based on what was observed that the participation rate was great. The hold issue will take care of itself as the 4% House Edge combined with the participation rate Lucky Stiff was achieving will result in significant increase in the table win.

While the table "Hold" is a staple of a casino evaluating current and new table games, what they really care about is how much did the table win. You can tell from Tring's analysis above, there are many factors that affect the hold percentage......but there is only one answer when it comes to the question "Did this table win more per open hour than that table".

Bottom line is that while Lucky Stiff was popular and the drop on the table as well as the participation in the side bet were good, the win for the trial was not good due to some bad variance.....the players just got lucky either at the main BJ bet or at the Lucky Stiff side bet, the mix of where the loss is mostly to blame is a tough one to figure out without spending lots of time and frankly doesn't really matter provided the math is correct. In the long term, the math will drive the win results.

I am very confident that Lucky Stiff will be back in play at another property before the year is out and given time (and a little less bad variance to start the trial) will prove to be a bet that adds to the net win of the BJ table it is placed on in a significant way.



Just shows how amateurish casino bosses can be..if they are doing money on a 4% House edge, they should be grateful, the players like to win and will be back for more, they should think of their losses as marketing, its not like the casino is never opening again.
Controversial sometimes, brutally honest..Always
21Revolution
21Revolution
Joined: Dec 27, 2012
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 71
July 8th, 2013 at 4:41:36 AM permalink
Thanks tringlomane, this is a very good explanation.
Paradigm
Paradigm
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2225
July 8th, 2013 at 9:32:00 AM permalink
Quote: McDemon

Just shows how amateurish casino bosses can be..if they are doing money on a 4% House edge, they should be grateful, the players like to win and will be back for more, they should think of their losses as marketing, its not like the casino is never opening again.


I want to reiterate, Lucky and I are thankful that management put Lucky Stiff on their floor.

It is easy to take shots at management from "this side of the fence", but as some have said in the thread before, we don't have access to all the information that goes into a decision. This trial was a step in the process and much was learned from the way players & dealers reacted to Lucky Stiff.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 122
  • Posts: 12619
July 8th, 2013 at 9:45:16 AM permalink
Quote: Paradigm

I want to reiterate, Lucky and I are thankful that management put Lucky Stiff on their floor.

It is easy to take shots at management from "this side of the fence", but as some have said in the thread before, we don't have access to all the information that goes into a decision. This trial was a step in the process and much was learned from the way players & dealers reacted to Lucky Stiff.



I also want to say that I am personally impressed with the class and dignity with which you have handled the pulling of the game. Should I ever come to a casino that has that game, I will give it a little action for that reason alone.
Vultures can't be choosers.
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
July 8th, 2013 at 9:45:33 AM permalink
No, we don't know what they know or think.
The bad thing about a field trial or game intro for a BJ side bet is that it is often gets collateral damage when a table dumps, or when a team hits a table: the new side bet gets blamed, or at least is not absolved.

I've seen new side bets do well on CSM type BJ tables, as it receives protection from the CSM set up: No counters, lots of tourists, lots of side bet play - makes it look good!
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
McDemon
McDemon
Joined: May 20, 2013
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 167
July 8th, 2013 at 9:49:27 AM permalink
Quote: Paradigm

I want to reiterate, Lucky and I are thankful that management put Lucky Stiff on their floor.

It is easy to take shots at management from "this side of the fence", but as some have said in the thread before, we don't have access to all the information that goes into a decision. This trial was a step in the process and much was learned from the way players & dealers reacted to Lucky Stiff.



Did they give a reason, I mean without feedback, a failed trial is no use to anybody.
Controversial sometimes, brutally honest..Always

  • Jump to: