Blackjack side bet pandemic

Recently at my casino, they installed yet another in a long line of BJ side bets on their BJ tables.
This ain't all that easy to do for a casino house:
a) Dealers had to retrain,
b) players had to be explained the new bet,
c) dealers had to get the new bet "into their hands," etc.

And side bets generally slow the game down and introduce both player confusion and dealer errors.

One employee decided to invent a new game, as mentioned - called "JUST FREAKIN' BLACKJACK!" - More hands per hour, less confusion, less dealer errors....MORE BLACKJACK!
Another employee invented a new side bet called "PULL MY D}CK" - player busts three hands in a row, and in frustration may yank the dealer....but the minimum bet is $25.
All not bad ideas...

What's your take on BJ side bets?

I think any BJ with a dick pull is a little confusing. I'll just take the straight BJ.

Amen!
Thing is, all the side bets have now gotten to be a bit too much.

Some side bets don't bother me. Its the ones that slow the game to a crawl that bug me. Spanish21's match the dealer is one of them. The match the up card is fine. When they added the hole card that it just takes too long.

Quote: Paigowdan

player busts three hands in a row, and in frustration may yank the dealer....but the minimum bet is $25.

What's your take on BJ side bets?

I'll refrain from answering the poll because I'm biased - my most successful product is a blackjack side bet. However, your "bust-3-hands" example would not be approvable as the payback to the player is 0%, less than the required 75% in Nevada. Plus, the player can bust any three hands at will just by hitting. Something like this might work if you could assess that the player were playing a reasonably appropriate strategy, but you'd either need an e-table or card-recognition software for that, both of which are very expensive. Also, I'm not sure the pit would look favorably on a side bet that changed their staff rotations. You'd have twice as many dealers in the break room all looking at each other saying "You got yanked too? Yeah. Then who's dealing on table 4?"

All joking aside, I think that a good side bet (note the qualifier "good") is likely to become an important facet to saving blackjack games from going all the way to 6-5 and other tighter rules. As players get better in the aggregate, the revenue per table drops. In this economy, that's really a bad idea. Keeping win numbers up can be done in a few ways, with side bets being up near the top. But let me turn it around on you: which would you rather see?
a) A 0.7% blackjack game with a 5% side bet, or
b) A 1.3% blackjack game with no side bet?

I can do pros/cons on both, but what are your thoughts?

Slowing the game is one of the things I managed to avoid in my Hit It Again Roulette side bet. Too bat that idea had too many other problems. Hopefully, my Poker For Roulette side bet doesn't slow things down much.

As I mentioned in that other thread, I've kinda quit BJ not so much because of the side bets, (or their proliferation of them), but that if you're not betting it, those that do bet it, seem to take be unable to not point out when you would have won.


I do not play side bets, so, even though I think there are too many of them, I have not voted.

Quote: MathExtremist

a) A 0.7% blackjack game with a 5% side bet, or
b) A 1.3% blackjack game with no side bet?

Well, since I don't play side bets, I'd go for A - just as long as the other players woulld shut the f--- up when I would have won a side bet!

I enjoy sidebets in general. I don't play them often, but I like watching others play them - it's always fun to watch a big win paid out. But I've always been confused about the BJ sidebets. They're all the same thing, but they all coexist. I don't really care if I'm watching for 4 aces, 4 queens, a 4 card straight flush, a 4 card total under 10, double blackjacks, or a spontaneously ignited dealer's upcard. Rare is rare, and I don't see how there is a need for more than one of these games.

I feel the same about the PGP sidegames and the Emperor's Lucky Challenging Fortune sidebet of doom.

Hey, what is so wrong with that side bet?
Just think of all the dealers in the break room telling each other about this gorgeous young chick that intentionally busted hand after hand. They would no longer have to tell each other the one about getting toked a black.

Quote: MathExtremist

All joking aside, I think that a good side bet (note the qualifier "good") is likely to become an important facet to saving blackjack games from going all the way to 6-5 and other tighter rules. As players get better in the aggregate, the revenue per table drops. In this economy, that's really a bad idea. Keeping win numbers up can be done in a few ways, with side bets being up near the top. But let me turn it around on you: which would you rather see?
a) A 0.7% blackjack game with a 5% side bet, or
b) A 1.3% blackjack game with no side bet?

I can do pros/cons on both, but what are your thoughts?

I admit it - side bets ARE absolutely a necessary evil. As we have seen with Borgata, very strong players + big action = VERY thin table hold. In a way, side bet suckers subsidize the action for the BJ purist. No doubt about it, I'd rather play 0.7% HE than 1.3% on the straight game.

But not all side bets are created equal.
The Push Your Luck tie bet was easy enough to deal and implement, as it is take-and-pay as you go; the Bust It! side bet requires an additional dealer round of take-and-pay (must be done separately, as a separate full-table action BEFORE any take-and-pay on the main bets.)
Already dealers are not listening to management and surveillance's "table speed audit reports" on their reviews [never took 'em seriously anyway], signing their review sheets "Richard M. Nixon" in a scribble, and telling management (on audit pace reports) that it hurts their already-severly-strained credibility.

The inventor of the Bust it! side bet personally demo-ed the product (actually, not a bad side bet at all, but sloooow), trying to convince dealers that the full extra round of take-and-pay for EVERY round of Blackjack dealt "won't significant decrease audit pace speed." Howls abounded, with dealers muttering things in Korean. Just no way it was believed, because it is just not true.

A good game idea takes into account real table procedures.

My last time at the Sycuan casino I noticed a blackjack side bet I hadn't seen before. I sat down to play to get the gist of it. I asked the dealer "What is this bet?" She said in a low voice, "It is just another sucker side bet." I admired her honesty.

I want to play as many hands per hour as possible and wish I could readily find tables with no side bet. Other players just don't like the distraction.

How about it casino managers? Can you give us a few tables with no side bets, preferably in a non smoking area? After reading this thread I think I know the answer but it doesn't hurt to ask.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I think any BJ with a dick pull is a little confusing. I'll just take the straight BJ.

Was this tongue-in-cheek? Outside of the gambling world, a "BJ" is not a card game.

I think with the normal bets I've seen (Match the dealer or lucky ladies), there are enough staff who have dealt the games that they don't slow down the game that often when I play BJ. However, I think like Dan's stated, more and more side bets keep popping up, and that's where things keep slowing down. Pretty soon, the table will look like a sunflower. The center will be for the actual blackjack bet, but it will be surrounded by 18 side bets that are possible.

-B

Quote: Wizard

My last time at the Sycuan casino I noticed a blackjack side bet I hadn't seen before. I sat down to play to get the gist of it. I asked the dealer "What is this bet?" She said in a low voice, "It is just another sucker side bet." I admired her honesty.

In a similar situation, I was playing at the poolside pit at the Golden Nugget, and the dealer would only refer to insurance as "the sucker bet." So whenever he had an Ace, he would say "sucker bet, anyone?" None of the supervisors seemed to mind.

Quote: toastcmu

The center will be for the actual blackjack bet, but it will be surrounded by 18 side bets that are possible.

Each requiring procedure manuals and revisions, differing interpretations by different floors, endless meetings, none of them scheduled at convenient times ... yet the casino thinks its a good idea and will not listen to the customers.

Quote: dlevinelaw

he would say "sucker bet, anyone?" None of the supervisors seemed to mind.

The main thing is that the customers liked it. A bit of humor and a bit of refreshing honesty go a long way in Las Vegas. Far further than elsewhere.

Sometimes a dealer will tell a guy, the side bet is for suckers but its only a dollar so go for it!

Sometimes a Stick Chick will say "sucker bets" instead of center bets. Often no one notices but sometimes they just laugh ... and make the bets anyway!

I once heard a stickman announce "Anybody want the Junk In The Middle?"

Quote: Wizard

She said in a low voice, "It is just another sucker side bet." I admired her honesty.

I once went to an empty table for a game I didn't recognize. I asked how to play. The dealer said "You put your money down, and the casino takes it away."

If you're a player, then I think I would appreciate the lower hands per hour by having the side bet present. It's a distraction to the straight up game that doesn't bother me.

I'll play Blackjack Streak if it's available, and I'll also play the bonus bet in Switch as well. Both have HA < five percent and bring a level of interest in the game. For Streak, I use the streak as a form of pressing my bet, which is what I would do anyway after winning 3 hands in a row (instead I get paid for the streak).

Quote: Paigowdan

A good game idea takes into account real table procedures.

And an unprepared game developer ignores them. It's amazing how many new games I see that have reasonable math but totally unworkable procedures. It doesn't matter how good the game is if you can only deal 20 hands/hour.

As mentioned before by other members, I appreciate side bets because they subsidize our better games. Someone said something about a BJ game that has a HA .4 (with side bets) or 1.4% - well any BJ game paying over 1% is bound to only pay 6:5... and I don't care how nice the rest of the rules are I'm never playing that again. My most hated side bet is the pair plus on 3CP - its HA is ridiculous and you get so much shit for not betting it. It's the reason I don't play 3CP anymore.

deleted

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Slowing the game is one of the things I managed to avoid in my Hit It Again Roulette side bet. Too bat that idea had too many other problems. Hopefully, my Poker For Roulette side bet doesn't slow things down much.

Nice plug! :)

You're first noticing?

Hell, if I had a nickel for every link I've made on losely related threads.....

Well, I'd have a pocketfull of nickels. I only do the plug if it fits into what I'm writing....