Empty the Rack Blackjack
Happy to introduce my newest and first BJ side wager release, "Empty The Rack Blackjack".
This BJ side wager pays according to the following pay table (Player hands apply ti the player's initial 2 cards dealt):
Suited BJ vs Suited BJ .......... 40 to 1
BJ vs BJ ...................................... 15 to 1
Player 20 vs Dealer BJ ......... 11 to 1
Player BJ ...................................... 4 to 1
Player 10 & 11 or 88/AA ...... 3 to 1
Player 20 (including A/9) ...... 1 to 1
25.4% hit rate
HA:
8 Deck = 7.2213%
6 Deck = 7.3170%
AP analysis has been conducted by Charles M.
Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts good, bad or ugly, as always.
Quote: mrsuit31Hi All,
Happy to introduce my newest and first BJ side wager release, "Empty The Rack Blackjack".
This BJ side wager pays according to the following pay table (Player hands apply ti the player's initial 2 cards dealt):
Suited BJ vs Suited BJ .......... 40 to 1
BJ vs BJ ...................................... 15 to 1
Player 20 vs Dealer BJ ......... 11 to 1
Player BJ ...................................... 4 to 1
Player 10 & 11 or 88/AA ...... 3 to 1
Player 20 (including A/9) ...... 1 to 1
25.4% hit rate
HA:
8 Deck = 7.2213%
6 Deck = 7.3170%
AP analysis has been conducted by Charles M.
Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts good, bad or ugly, as always.
Honestly it looks like just another boring blackjack sidebet. Likely to not do well.
Thank you for taking the time to respond nonetheless!
Quote: sabreCounters will love it
Not as much as you would think according to Charles's report.
Quote: mrsuit31Player 10 & 11 or 88/AA ...... 3 to 1
I'm a little confused by this payout. Is it the wager pays 3:1 if the player gets a dealt 10 OR 11, or gets a pair of 8s, 9s, 10s, Js, Qs, Ks, or As?
Quote: GialmereI'm a little confused by this payout. Is it the wager pays 3:1 if the player gets a dealt 10 OR 11, or gets a pair of 8s, 9s, 10s, Js, Qs, Ks, or As?
Sorry about the ambiguity.
This is a more clear table for that payout:
Suited BJ vs Suited BJ ................. 40 to 1
BJ vs BJ ........................................ 15 to 1
Player 20 vs Dealer BJ .................. 11 to 1
Player BJ ....................................... 4 to 1
Player 10 & 11 or pair 8s & As........ 3 to 1
Player 20 (including A/9) .................. 1 to 1
The 3 to 1 pays on player hard 10 or 11 and a player pair of 8s or As (no other pairs).
The wager is designed to increase volatility, while also creating a little insurance or windfall feelings on the hands that A) the player is supposed to win (e.g. 20s and BJs) and B) the hands where players add to/increase the main BJ wager on the split hands (8s & As) and double hands (hard 10 & 11s).
Also to clarify, the top pay does not have to be the same suited BJ. For example, player suited spade BJ vs Dealer suited Heart BJ qualifies for the top pay. Of course a same suited BJ vs BJ can be added or even a perfect match BJ vs BJ for a progressive or very large top pay. That said, I wanted to keep the pay tables somewhat minimal.
Quote: billryanI don't play side bets but see enough action that I can see it working. Payoffs should be fairly frequent and people like that.
Thank you Billy.
Quote: mrsuit31Sorry about the ambiguity.
This is a more clear table for that payout:
Suited BJ vs Suited BJ ................. 40 to 1
BJ vs BJ ........................................ 15 to 1
Player 20 vs Dealer BJ .................. 11 to 1
Player BJ ....................................... 4 to 1
Player 10 & 11 or pair 8s & As........ 3 to 1
Player 20 (including A/9) .................. 1 to 1
The 3 to 1 pays on player hard 10 or 11 and a player pair of 8s or As (no other pairs).
The wager is designed to increase volatility, while also creating a little insurance or windfall feelings on the hands that A) the player is supposed to win (e.g. 20s and BJs) and B) the hands where players add to/increase the main BJ wager on the split hands (8s & As) and double hands (hard 10 & 11s).
Also to clarify, the top pay does not have to be the same suited BJ. For example, player suited spade BJ vs Dealer suited Heart BJ qualifies for the top pay. Of course a same suited BJ vs BJ can be added or even a perfect match BJ vs BJ for a progressive or very large top pay. That said, I wanted to keep the pay tables somewhat minimal.
mrsuit31,
Must the "10" be hard? So A-9 does NOT count as 10 for purposes of this sidebet?
Dog Hand
Quote: DogHandmrsuit31,
Must the "10" be hard? So A-9 does NOT count as 10 for purposes of this sidebet?
Dog Hand
Yes, A/9 (soft 20) falls under the “Player 20.... 1 to 1” pay.
Quote: DogHandmrsuit31,
Must the "10" be hard? So A-9 does NOT count as 10 for purposes of this sidebet?
Dog Hand
Good question. If the intent is to always pay the higher win, should be ok, but if 3:1 specifically excludes A-9, I can see some arguments at the table developing, and some mispays.
I like the bet overall, and it's likely I'd play it if I were otherwise at the table.
Quote: beachbumbabsGood question. If the intent is to always pay the higher win, should be ok, but if 3:1 specifically excludes A-9, I can see some arguments at the table developing, and some mispays.
I like the bet overall, and it's likely I'd play it if I were otherwise at the table.
That is why I included the parenthetical on the “player 20” pay line. That said, that would be an easy change to the math before launch if needed.
I’ll find out the influence in the edge for that change in the meantime...
Thanks Babs!
Quote: mrsuit31Hi All,
Happy to introduce my newest and first BJ side wager release, "Empty The Rack Blackjack".
This BJ side wager pays according to the following pay table (Player hands apply ti the player's initial 2 cards dealt):
Suited BJ vs Suited BJ .......... 40 to 1
BJ vs BJ ...................................... 15 to 1
Player 20 vs Dealer BJ ......... 11 to 1
Player BJ ...................................... 4 to 1
Player 10 & 11 or 88/AA ...... 3 to 1
Player 20 (including A/9) ...... 1 to 1
25.4% hit rate
HA:
8 Deck = 7.2213%
6 Deck = 7.3170%
AP analysis has been conducted by Charles M.
Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts good, bad or ugly, as always.
This looks like a Side-bet that combineds: My TWO Blackjack Side-bets (Ten-20®) with (Perfect-11®).
BTW. My Latest Blackjack Side-bet is Call (Double-Barrel® Bonus-Blackjack™) whitch is offing this TWO Side-bets on a Blackjack-game, and will be at the ICE-London Show 2010, in ABBIATI's Booth S7-230. http://bit.ly/2YQalmc
You can find Both Side-Bets at WizardofOdds Wedsite:
1. Ten-20®. LAST UPDATED: APRIL 16, 2019. Ten20WoO.com
2. Perfect-11® (Side-bet for Open-21®) LAST UPDATED: MARCH 6, 2017. Open21WoO.com
Quote: mrsuit31Sorry about the ambiguity.
This is a more clear table for that payout:
Suited BJ vs Suited BJ ................. 40 to 1
BJ vs BJ ........................................ 15 to 1
Player 20 vs Dealer BJ .................. 11 to 1
Player BJ ....................................... 4 to 1
Player 10 & 11 or pair 8s & As........ 3 to 1
Player 20 (including A/9) .................. 1 to 1
The 3 to 1 pays on player hard 10 or 11 and a player pair of 8s or As (no other pairs).
The wager is designed to increase volatility, while also creating a little insurance or windfall feelings on the hands that A) the player is supposed to win (e.g. 20s and BJs) and B) the hands where players add to/increase the main BJ wager on the split hands (8s & As) and double hands (hard 10 & 11s).
Also to clarify, the top pay does not have to be the same suited BJ. For example, player suited spade BJ vs Dealer suited Heart BJ qualifies for the top pay. Of course a same suited BJ vs BJ can be added or even a perfect match BJ vs BJ for a progressive or very large top pay. That said, I wanted to keep the pay tables somewhat minimal.
This is the bj progressive they use at Foxwoods which is similar to your side bet but I prefer Foxwoods version.
https://resortsac.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/BlackjackMatchprogressiveguidelines.pdf
Theirs also includes the must hit by $200 which goes off satisfyingly often
Quote: GBAMThis is the bj progressive they use at Foxwoods which is similar to your side bet but I prefer Foxwoods version.
https://resortsac.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/BlackjackMatchprogressiveguidelines.pdf
Theirs also includes the must hit by $200 which goes off satisfyingly often
Correct, I had forgotten about their progressive when I wrote that post. My wager will not be a progressive nor will it change from its current form (of course not including minor tweets to the pays if needed).
Quote: DRichI agree with Babs. If the A/9 paying 3:1 doesn't hurt the math much I would consider changing it.
I am having that calculation done to see what effect it has. If nothing crazy, I will likely do so.
Appreciate the feedback.
Quote: mrsuit31Correct, I had forgotten about their progressive when I wrote that post. My wager will not be a progressive nor will it change from its current form (of course not including minor tweets to the pays if needed).
Not trying to put down your work, and knowing absolutely nothing about the house edge of the progressive Foxwoods uses, how can there be such a large discrepancy between your bet and the progressive for the same hand, suited BJ vs Suited BJ, yours pays $200 for a $5 bet and Progressive version pays $1500 for a $5 bet
Quote: GBAMNot trying to put down your work, and knowing absolutely nothing about the house edge of the progressive Foxwoods uses, how can there be such a large discrepancy between your bet and the progressive for the same hand, suited BJ vs Suited BJ, yours pays $200 for a $5 bet and Progressive version pays $1500 for a $5 bet
The hit rate and returns in my wager are massively different than that wager. The only thing that wager pays is a player Ace or combinations of BJs. I have a very large amount of return built into the lower end, higher hit rate payouts, like the splits (8s or As) and doubles (10 or 11). This also helps the counting vulnerability by trying to minimize it as much as possible.
With very low hit rate wagers, you can have astronomically high payouts on those low probability events. When you start raising the hit rate by adding numerous lower end payouts, you start having to significantly decrease the higher end pays as they are responsible for such a small amount of return on the overall wager.
I hope that helps answer the question in a quick nutshell.
And please don’t worry about putting down my work, I post here for the feedback and have been for many years now. I want to hear the skepticism. I can handle it :)
Quote: GBAMNot trying to put down your work, and knowing absolutely nothing about the house edge of the progressive Foxwoods uses, how can there be such a large discrepancy between your bet and the progressive for the same hand, suited BJ vs Suited BJ, yours pays $200 for a $5 bet and Progressive version pays $1500 for a $5 bet
Because he is paying more for the lower hands. If I remember correctly the odds of two suited BJ's is about 7750:1 (six decks). he could pay more for it if he lowered the other paytable items.
Quote: mrsuit31The hit rate and returns in my wager are massively different than that wager. The only thing that wager pays is a player Ace or combinations of BJs. I have a very large amount of return built into the lower end, higher hit rate payouts, like the splits (8s or As) and doubles (10 or 11). This also helps the counting vulnerability by trying to minimize it as much as possible.
With very low hit rate wagers, you can have astronomically high payouts on those low probability events. When you start raising the hit rate by adding numerous lower end payouts, you start having to significantly decrease the higher end pays as they are responsible for such a small amount of return on the overall wager.
I hope that helps answer the question in a quick nutshell.
And please don’t worry about putting down my work, I post here for the feedback and have been for many years now. I want to hear the skepticism. I can handle it :)
Thank you for taking the time to reply. Always happy to learn a bit about how the other side of the table works
Quote: GBAMThank you for taking the time to reply. Always happy to learn a bit about how the other side of the table works
My pleasure.
I’ve come a long way over the years from starting in this business developing my first game at 22 and learning what a house edge was from google (before I even know who the Wiz was or existed).
If you track back through some of my early posts from when I joined on here, it is very clear how close to nothing I actually knew.
It’s been a rather interesting journey. One full of both very good and very bad experiences.
I'd get rid of the entire 10 or 11 or 88 or AA line. As other's pointed out, it creates confusion with the A9. And then the bet only pays on any 20 or 21. Much simpler. And that could be the name: Dealt 20 or 21.
But more important, that line creates a constant reminder of hands that are always doubled or split. And, since a player with one of those hands who is making your bet would have won, they are now funded to make that double or split. I mean, regardless of the math, the casino really doesn't want to encourage a player to make a bet that is in their favor. I'm pretty sure that was what killed ShuffleMaster's House Money game.
Still, "Empty the Rack Blackjack" is catchy. You have to admit it.
Quote: GialmereI was wondering about the name as well although I now see that it refers to if the cards are running hot players can greatly enhance their winnings. My confusion with it is that since it contains the word "blackjack" it suggests alterations to the main game. "Zombie Blackjack", for example, is not so named because of a side bet.
Still, "Empty the Rack Blackjack" is catchy. You have to admit it.
I chose it because it is Catchy and does correspond to the wager as I see it (of course that is just my opinion). Branding is the Key these days..... The "empty the rack" is the name for the reason Gialmere described. It is supposed to imply that when you are hot, like you said, catching doubles, splits, 20s or BJs, the volatility is significant increased and it feels as if the player is receiving a windfall. It is also designed to give you security in those good hands where you get shafted like the BJ vs BJ and the 20 Vs BJ. How pissed off do you get when you hit a big hand like that then either push or lose the base game. I specially get extra pissed off when I lose with a dealt 20 to a BJ. That said, Dave is not the first to make the assertion regarding the lack of a huge payout. Also, by doing so, the game becomes significantly more countable, including with the other suggestions made by Dave.
I appreciate the feedback from you both (Gialmere and Dave)!
Keep it coming!
Quote: beachbumbabsDJTB might be right about why House Money died, idk. But my opinion is, what killed it was you got to cap your base bet with the winnings. I think that freaked out security and they vetoed it.
I am not concerned. This is a completely separate independent side wager with a 5+, 7+ or 9+ HA (or more). That said, my concerns, or lack thereof, are irrelevant to an operator's in the grand scheme.
Way to many issues with bet capping and cheating with the mechanism built into house money IMHO. You are literally allowing them to cap their bets mid hand. Good luck on having surveillance make sure they don't have other chips palmed when doing so...
That’s what insurance is for.Quote: mrsuit31... I specially get extra pissed off when I lose with a dealt 20 to a BJ. ...
Quote: DJTeddyBearFYI. I’m Dave.
The one and only. Sorry, I'll go back to DJ, that was habit....
Although I do like the rummy side bet
My favorite is in between
But I would play this I think.
I like games like in between and rummy where you still have a live side bet after you get your first card no matter what. In between you are live on almost all hands right up until the dealer gets their card.
Quote: GWAEI am the sucker that likes side bets. I get disappointment when there is a side bet that has 1 payout where it is either 9 to 1 or nothing.
Although I do like the rummy side bet
My favorite is in between
But I would play this I think.
I like games like in between and rummy where you still have a live side bet after you get your first card no matter what. In between you are live on almost all hands right up until the dealer gets their card.
I appreciate that GWAE.
Hopefully you’ll have an opportunity to make the decision in real time at some point soon...
I would also remove the 1 to 1 pay. People don't make side bets to win even money, they want to "empty the rack."
Quote: WizardI'm sure Charles warned you it would be very vulnerable to card counters, thus I would put it on CSM games only. I would change the name to just "Empty the Rack." I know it rhymes with "blackjack," but I'm big on keeping names short.
I would also remove the 1 to 1 pay. People don't make side bets to win even money, they want to "empty the rack."
My observations differ. About half the " winning " hands in video poker pay even money and it hasn't hurt that game. Many people who " win" 6 coins on a slot spin that cost them 15 coins seem happy. I think frequent small wins will satisfy the herd more than an occasional big one. The trick is getting the mix right. Maybe tweak a 4-1 payout to 3.5-1 and add the difference to the highest payout.
Quote: billryanMy observations differ. About half the " winning " hands in video poker pay even money and it hasn't hurt that game. Many people who " win" 6 coins on a slot spin that cost them 15 coins seem happy. I think frequent small wins will satisfy the herd more than an occasional big one. The trick is getting the mix right. Maybe tweak a 4-1 payout to 3.5-1 and add the difference to the highest payout.
I can mess with the payouts a bit. I had mentioned in a previous post that I can add top end pays in a few way, but that will also increase the countability (I will still likely have a few options that do have a higher end pays at the top).
Quote: mrsuit31Hi All,
Happy to introduce my newest and first BJ side wager release, "Empty The Rack Blackjack".
This BJ side wager pays according to the following pay table (Player hands apply ti the player's initial 2 cards dealt):
Suited BJ vs Suited BJ .......... 40 to 1
BJ vs BJ ...................................... 15 to 1
Player 20 vs Dealer BJ ......... 11 to 1
Player BJ ...................................... 4 to 1
Player 10 & 11 or 88/AA ...... 3 to 1
Player 20 (including A/9) ...... 1 to 1
25.4% hit rate
HA:
8 Deck = 7.2213%
6 Deck = 7.3170%
The resistance to card counting is due to the fact that these combinations
Player 10 & 11 or 88/AA ...... 3 to 1
represent a significant fraction of the sidebet equity and almost all of that equity originates from cards that are 2-9. Especially given that there is a >7% HA to overcome.
The wager has player equity of 0.927. The cards 2-9 influence approximately 0.3 of that equity and the cards A,T influence 0.627.
Quote: gordonm888The resistance to card counting is due to the fact that these combinations
Player 10 & 11 or 88/AA ...... 3 to 1
represent a significant fraction of the sidebet equity and almost all of that equity originates from cards that are 2-9. Especially given that there is a >7% HA to overcome.
Thank you for confirming this Gordon, I apparently did a bad job at explaining that in an earlier post I believe.
As I tried to explain, that is why so much return is built into those pay events and the 20 is 1-1. Those were specific counter measure to try and reduce as much as possible.
One additional side note, in order to piggyback the main game and side wager, two separate counts are required, which further prevents any serious AP potential (notwithstanding any other measure like slightly increased deck cut off or the usual max bet on such a wager).
Another counter-point if asked about vulnerability... It would require it's own specialized count to make ~$12-$15/hour, as shown by Charles. This would require to also play the blackjack hand, which at a standard .5% HE game, 80 hands per hour, $5 bet, and playing PERFECT BASIC STRATEGY would cost the player ~$2/hour. Now take in to account that even wannabe card counters don't play "perfect" basic strategy and any normal joe who even tries to count this side bet will probably be hemorrhaging at least 33% of their profits to the main game, let alone being under funded, etc, etc. Basically even though this side bet can be targeted with a specialized count, it is FAR from vulnerable, in my opinion. It would take a large maximum bet, above average hands per hour, and someone whom is both bankrolled and good enough in blackjack to actually beat it long term. Anyone that good won't be targeting your side bet, they'll be targeting the main game, or something much more advanced.
So while I agree with the MATH of the vulnerability, I actually do not see this as a very vulnerable side bet. Even in my red chip starting days I wouldn't be able to attack this without my teammate running the side count for it while I did the main game count for the blackjack, it wouldn't have been worth our time otherwise (to make a whole $25/hr each) =D. So math wise, technically vulnerable. Reality wise, not so much in my opinion as far as discussed with the guidelines above.
I am sending Charles report over to Wiz in a moment for further review and comment.
Quote: gordonm888The resistance to card counting is due to the fact that these combinations
Player 10 & 11 or 88/AA ...... 3 to 1
represent a significant fraction of the sidebet equity and almost all of that equity originates from cards that are 2-9. Especially given that there is a >7% HA to overcome.
The wager has player equity of 0.927. The cards 2-9 influence approximately 0.3 of that equity and the cards A,T influence 0.627.
Hi Gordonm888 and Romes,
This is exactly what I was thinking, when I invented my 2 Blackjack Side-bets (Ten-20® Bonus-Blackjack™) and (Perfect-11® Bonus-Blackjack™).
BTW.
Math for (Ten-20® Bonus-Blackjack™) was Stephen How in Apr/2014.
Report with Vulnerability Analysis: http://bit.ly/36IfGP8
Math for (Perfect-11® Bonus-Blackjack™) was Charles Mousseau in Jun/2016.
Report with Vulnerability Analysis: http://bit.ly/38T0Wiv
You can also find Both Side-Bets at WizardofOdds Wedsite:
1. Ten-20®. LAST UPDATED: APRIL 16, 2019. Ten20WoO.com
2. Perfect-11® (Side-bet for Open-21®) LAST UPDATED: MARCH 6, 2017. Open21WoO.com
just with regards to the vulnerability, it's certainly got non-zero vulnerability, but nothing that using a lower paytable and a thicker cut off can't fix.
Paytable #3 (30-12-9-4-3-1) is beatable about 0.426 units per 100 at 5/6 and .253 units per 100 at 6.5/8; on a $25 max this corresponds to what, $10.50 and $6.75 per 100? Basically, it's about as vulnerable as a standard blackjack game (0.33 - 0.66 units per 100) and on par with other sidebets (Pot of Gold on Free Bet and Lucky Lucky come to mind).
I did mention that it is going to be almost impossible to eliminate while it so obviously keys on tens and aces without doing a Lucky Ladies and nuking the house edge, but it's hard to justify with a low top end payout.
Most casinos will jump to do this, and in reality lose money as 99.9% of the people at the table are not counting blackjack or the side bet. So by protecting the house from the $25 max side bet they shoot themselves in the foot with all the lost EV from the 99.9% of players. Casinos should be cutting the shoes as deep as possible and they would absolutely see the hold go up.Quote: CharlesMousseau...and a thicker cut off can't fix...
Quote: Romes<somehow a double post? plz delete>
You deleted the wrong post
Quote: RomesMost casinos will jump to do this, and in reality lose money as 99.9% of the people at the table are not counting blackjack or the side bet. So by protecting the house from the $25 max side bet they shoot themselves in the foot with all the lost EV from the 99.9% of players. Casinos should be cutting the shoes as deep as possible and they would absolutely see the hold go up.
In my professional experience, I disagree. I think if word got out that a house was dealing 5.5/6 on any beatable blackjack game, they would receive significantly more AP action than other places. Whether they'd lose more to APs on a low limit table than by renting a CSM, that's hard to say. But in the era of CSMs and automatic shufflers (swap out tower of cards, get new tower of cards, put that in shoe), no, I don't think your statement is accurate.
Quote: ParadigmRomes...this is a super valuable post! Along with Gordon's equity explanation, it provides a realistic outlook for the vulnerability. The math can say one thing, but the volatility of the side bet along and the resulting practicalities of bankroll size required to exploit the math vulnerability are not normally discussed. So thank you for sharing a real street perspective.
I mean, you know there are some places that lose their s$!# over any vulnerability.. I was part of a team of low-variance cash-cow counters at a local game that was AT BEST like $20 per hour and one day I was picking a teammate up at a casino 5 miles outside of town where they made him wait outside in 40 below weather. PS my American friends, 40 below is the exact same in Canada and the US. So that was $20 CAD an hour though. They banned him for life and wouldn't let him wait inside. His phone was about to die and I remember my last words, "go inside and punch a security guard in the nose, they'll have to keep you inside, it's better than dying."
So yeah, some casinos are paranoid f!#/ing stains about counting -- every $50 and $100 max table in all of Calgary has a CSM on it as of today, lol -- but from my point of view, I use "how vulnerable is regular blackjack, which you have 20 tables of" as a metric of how much of an AP honey pot you're drawing. That standard $25 max on the sidebet does a WHOLE LOT to curb the vulnerability of blackjack side bets.
Baccarat bets, with it's 7.75 / 8 pen and the ability of a team to play every sidebet spot with no waiting bet, that's another issue :P but blackjack sides *again, in my professional opinion* are judged to separate standards.
Quote: CharlesMousseauHey all,
just with regards to the vulnerability, it's certainly got non-zero vulnerability, but nothing that using a lower paytable and a thicker cut off can't fix.
Paytable #3 (30-12-9-4-3-1) is beatable about 0.426 units per 100 at 5/6 and .253 units per 100 at 6.5/8; on a $25 max this corresponds to what, $10.50 and $6.75 per 100? Basically, it's about as vulnerable as a standard blackjack game (0.33 - 0.66 units per 100) and on par with other sidebets (Pot of Gold on Free Bet and Lucky Lucky come to mind).
I did mention that it is going to be almost impossible to eliminate while it so obviously keys on tens and aces without doing a Lucky Ladies and nuking the house edge, but it's hard to justify with a low top end payout.
Thank you for these responses Charles.
Quote: CharlesMousseauI mean, you know there are some places that lose their s!#/ over any vulnerability.. I was part of a team of low-variance cash-cow counters at a local game that was AT BEST like $20 per hour and one day I was picking a teammate up at a casino 5 miles outside of town where they made him wait outside in 40 below weather. PS my American friends, 40 below is the exact same in Canada and the US. So that was $20 CAD an hour though. They banned him for life and wouldn't let him wait inside. His phone was about to die and I remember my last words, "go inside and punch a security guard in the nose, they'll have to keep you inside, it's better than dying."
So yeah, some casinos are paranoid f#/!ing stains about counting -- every $50 and $100 max table in all of Calgary has a CSM on it as of today, lol -- but from my point of view, I use "how vulnerable is regular blackjack, which you have 20 tables of" as a metric of how much of an AP honey pot you're drawing. That standard $25 max on the sidebet does a WHOLE LOT to curb the vulnerability of blackjack side bets.
Baccarat bets, with it's 7.75 / 8 pen and the ability of a team to play every sidebet spot with no waiting bet, that's another issue :P but blackjack sides *again, in my professional opinion* are judged to separate standards.
See you in a few days after you get off suspension for your f word transgression.
I get a kick out of guys that try and play on both sides of the fence😂
