Why are table game returns generally much higher than slots?
the returns on slots usually avg less. (in Maryland, the minimum is 87% and the avg has to be a minimum of 89%.)
yes, there are exceptions to these 2 observations but i'm talking in general here.
i would have figured the opposite.
i would have guessed table game would offer sub-90% return to offset the cost of paying the dealers/pit bosses.
and slots would generally be 95%+ because of the lower man power needed.
So why are the returns on tables games usually greater than slots?
She only got up to 10 deals per shoe, I would have preferred a 6 deck shoe.
50 out of how many ?Quote: ChumpChangeJust saw someone lose 50 hands in a half hour playing 2 handed 2 deck blackjack. There was no upside. #YouTube #ElCortez
She only got up to 10 deals per shoe, I would have preferred a 6 deck shoe.
Generally speaking, the higher the variance the higher the juice.Quote: 100xOddsTable games usually have at least a 95% return (ie: double zero Roulette) and the main bets in Blackjack (3:2 version)/Craps are 99%+.
the returns on slots usually avg less. (in Maryland, the minimum is 87% and the avg has to be a minimum of 89%.)
yes, there are exceptions to these 2 observations but i'm talking in general here.
i would have figured the opposite.
i would have guessed table game would offer sub-90% return to offset the cost of paying the dealers/pit bosses.
and slots would generally be 95%+ because of the lower man power needed.
So why are the returns on tables games usually greater than slots?
whats the reasoning behind that?Quote: Ace2Generally speaking, the higher the variance the higher the juice.
Casinos need not offer machines that are nearly fair. In contrast, comparatively sterile table games must provide a rough facsimile of fairness. Egregiously larcenous table games would rapidly alienate players who like to believe that they may win.
I assume it’s because the house edge is less “visible” in a high variance game. You can beat it or lose horribly. However, if there was a 15% edge on an essentially even money, low variance game like baccarat or blackjack, you would always lose and stop playingQuote: 100xOddswhats the reasoning behind that?
Assuming she played proper basic strategy (0.5% house edge), that result is about 3.7 deviations south of expectations. Very bad luck, but not extremely remote, especially for a regular playerQuote: ChumpChangeI think it was 70 winning hands vs 130 losing hands, or $3500 won vs $6500 lost, or 70% payback (-$3K out of $10K bet). Rough guess... If you're not gonna win more than one hand in a row, don't run a progression.
great explanation. thx.Quote: pwcrabbSlot machine games have many non-pecuniary attractions such as musical tones, dancing multicolored graphics, solitude, and conceptual themes derived from familiar popular culture. These attractions serve the psychological needs of machine players and compensate for the diminution in Expected Value.
In short, emotion-centered people have different value sets than those of analysis-centered people who may actually care about the math.
Casinos need not offer machines that are nearly fair. In contrast, comparatively sterile table games must provide a rough facsimile of fairness. Egregiously larcenous table games would rapidly alienate players who like to believe that they may win.
wait.. then why is vp usually 97%+?
(vp is considered a slot)
hm.. variance on video poker is alot higher than the main bets on most table games (JoB = 20, ddb = 45, tdb = 90, multistrike = 300).Quote: Ace2I assume it’s because the house edge is less “visible” in a high variance game. You can beat it or lose horribly.
However, if there was a 15% edge on an essentially even money, low variance game like baccarat or blackjack, you would always lose and stop playing
yet their return is as high as most table games.
Quote: 100xOddsgreat explanation. thx.
wait.. then why is vp usually 97%+?
(vp is considered a slot)
hm.. variance on video poker is alot higher than the main bets on most table games (JoB = 20, ddb = 45, tdb = 90, multistrike = 300).
yet their return is as high as most table games.
Coin in per hour. Experienced players can do many more hands per hour to offset the lower hold %. Non experienced players make more mistakes and play slower. That offsets it also.
I'm curious if casinos make more money from the experienced players who play fast vs the recreational player who plays much slower. Assuming of course same game being played.
It’s not an absolute rule, it’s a generalization. The other general factor seems to be skill level. It seems that the higher the skill level, like VP, the lower the edge. Possibly because you need to play properly in order to realize the lower edgeQuote: 100xOddsgreat explanation. thx.
wait.. then why is vp usually 97%+?
(vp is considered a slot)
hm.. variance on video poker is alot higher than the main bets on most table games (JoB = 20, ddb = 45, tdb = 90, multistrike = 300).
yet their return is as high as most table games.
Frankly, I think your original premise is flawed. Or at least the numbers you’re using.Quote: 100xOddsWhy are the returns on tables games usually greater than slots?
While slots often have mandated minimums, with some as low as 75%, no casino would set their machines that low or they wouldn’t have customers.
I think they are generally set to pay out in the 95% area, which makes them similar to tables. Hell, video poker is 97% or better. Hell, often you see signs saying the slots are paying 98% or more.
Quote: DJTeddyBear
I think they are generally set to pay out in the 95% area, which makes them similar to tables.
Not even close for AVERAGE on reel slots. 85-91% varying by region/casino would be typical. American casino guide or state gaming websites have some reference points, which include vp blended with slots.
Quote: DJTeddyBearFrankly, I think your original premise is flawed. Or at least the numbers you’re using.
While slots often have mandated minimums, with some as low as 75%, no casino would set their machines that low or they wouldn’t have customers.
I think they are generally set to pay out in the 95% area, which makes them similar to tables. Hell, video poker is 97% or better. Hell, often you see signs saying the slots are paying 98% or more.
Penny slots, which can cost $3 or more per spin rarely pay over 90%. As for your last sentence, I believe it is wrong. What you see is signs saying this slot paid out over 98%, not they will pay out 98%. They are like the signs in a deli advertising that someone hit a lotto jackpot there. They are highlighting a past result. Video poker machines advertise this game pays out 98%, but I've never seen a slot that does.
Quote: 100xOddsSo why are the returns on tables games usually greater than slots?
I can think of two reasons off the top of my head.
First, going by a strictly cost-based reasoning: upkeep. I would assume it costs a lot more to maintain a slot machine than, say, a roulette wheel - and there are far more slot machines than roulette wheels in pretty much every casino.
Second, one of the basic rules of business is, make as much money as possible. The casinos have to balance how much money they can make against how often they will be played both when setting the return on a slot/VP machine and installing a craps or roulette table. Losing too much is quite noticeable on table games, but with slots, there are so many ways to win, along with the lure of a large jackpot, that the overall house edge usually isn't noticeable, so the returns can be reduced.
Quote: ChumpChangeDid Vegas go to 6:5 BJ just to thwart card counters, or was it just some dumb idea that spread like coronavirus?
It had the benefit to thwart card counters, but I don't think that was the reason for it. I think it was just greed. Same logic that lead to reducing pay tables on video poker, JoB going from 9/6 to 8/5. GREED!
Remember the closing scene from the movie "Casino", where they describe the change in Vegas casinos, from mob run, to corporation in the 1980's. That part is very true. And as part of that in the 1990's and 2000's young guys with business degrees began to make their way up the corporate ladder, to where they ran casinos instead of the way it was for decades, casino people that knew the business.
These business degree guys go by the spreadsheet. A cut here, a snip there. Save a buck here. Replace butter with margarine. lol. Anything and everything to save or make an extra buck. I believe 6:5 blackjack was just part of that.
Quote: DJTeddyBearFrankly, I think your original premise is flawed. Or at least the numbers you’re using.
While slots often have mandated minimums, with some as low as 75%, no casino would set their machines that low or they wouldn’t have customers.
I think they are generally set to pay out in the 95% area, which makes them similar to tables. Hell, video poker is 97% or better. Hell, often you see signs saying the slots are paying 98% or more.
Almost all video slots are set below 90% now. Caesar's / Harrah's have many at 85%
Actually, he is correct, there's banks of slot machines that advertise UP TO 98%(There may only be one set to 98% on that bank). It's kind of rare nowadays to find machines set to 98%. It's been a while, but The Freemont may still advertise and have them available.Quote: billryanPenny slots, which can cost $3 or more per spin rarely pay over 90%. As for your last sentence, I believe it is wrong. What you see is signs saying this slot paid out over 98%, not they will pay out 98%. They are like the signs in a deli advertising that someone hit a lotto jackpot there. They are highlighting a past result. Video poker machines advertise this game pays out 98%, but I've never seen a slot that does.
Oftentimes, the new machines come with multiple payback settings to choose from. I haven't noticed a 98% setting on any that I remember. Drich would someone to ask what the average high setting is, from what I noticed 95-96% is usually the highest.
Quote: DRichAlmost all video slots are set below 90% now. Caesar's / Harrah's have many at 85%
Disgraceful. Might as well play at the AIRPORT slot concession or at The Venetitian.
Slos usually return good money to the casino, even if HALF of them ae being blaaked out due to Covid.
Quote: ChumpChangeJust saw someone lose 50 hands in a half hour playing 2 handed 2 deck blackjack. There was no upside. #YouTube #ElCortez
She only got up to 10 deals per shoe, I would have preferred a 6 deck shoe.
ChumpChange,
If she was playing two hands heads up against the dealer and getting 10 rounds per shoe, then that is better than 75% pen: 3 hands per round times 2.7 card per hand is 81 cards per shoe, or 81/104 = 77.8+% pen.
Dog Hand
Quote: DogHandChumpChange,
If she was playing two hands heads up against the dealer and getting 10 rounds per shoe, then that is better than 75% pen: 3 hands per round times 2.7 card per hand is 81 cards per shoe, or 81/104 = 77.8+% pen.
Dog Hand
75% is not "normal" for that game at that property based on my rather extensive play there. It is dealer dependent despite that they use a notch. For anyone wondering how THAT works, it is about how they hold they cards, (tightly vs loosely) when inserting the cut card among other things. They also don't necessarily put the cut card in right at the notch. Some use it as more of a guide. Just a a little leeway can make a difference, but generally based on my experience, we are talking 60-67% range, with about 62% being the most common I get....again based on my experience.
Now I know EC allows that female to record some blackjack play for her YouTube videos. Perhaps they are a little on the generous side with her. Not sure why or what's in it for them.
I don't know how you expect to have a longer streak on a positive shoe with such a short shoe. With a 6 deck shoe, 83% pen, and 8.1 cards per deal, I'd get 32 deals per shuffle up heads up on 2 spots.
Anyway, don't you have to bet double the table minimum at both spots if you play 2 spots? Does that mean you have to bet triple the table minimum per spot if you play 3 spots?
Quote: ChumpChangeSo you're expecting 8 deals per shoe?
Me personally? Well I don't play 2 hands. So heads up I would get 11-12. If I was playing with one other player playing 1 hand, we are talking 8. I wouldn't play with any more than 1 other player (1 additional hand) playing 62ish % penetration. For more than 1 other player Pen is going to have to be 67-70 % for me.
If you are playing 60-62% Penetration with 2 or 3 other players (or additional hands), you get less rounds per shoe which is obvious, but the reason that matters so much is you get fewer rounds towards the end of the shoe, which is when you have a better chance of a count worthy of max bet. In short, you get fewer max bet opportunities and that is a big deal.
Really, the easiest way to see this and understand is to play around a bit with software. Change the penetration levels and the number of players and you will see what seems like a relatively small change has a pretty big effect on true count frequencies (especially those Max Bet opportunities) and directly related, your win expectancy in general.
I think a doctoral dissertation could be written about it, and still only be speculative.
My short answer is there are two reasons why people gamble:
1. They enjoy the adrenalin rush of a big win.
2. They enjoy the escape from reality.
Those who gamble for reason #1 tend to play table games, #2 tend to play slots. Those in camp #2 want to zone out and leave the real world far behind, as the song goes. This group, I think, doesn't care so much if they win or lose. They are in search more more for the game that delivers their fix.
Meanwhile, camp #1 wants to win. This probably explains why they like side bets, which offer the chance of a quick hit. It isn't so much they care about the net result of a session, but want excitement along the way of some big scores. These gamblers are more likely to gravitate to games that offer better odds.
You might ask which camp would I put video poker players in. I think they can be in either camp.
Please bear in mind I am just a math guy and don't know what I'm talking about when it veers off into psychology.
Quote: ChumpChangeI'm so annoyed at my gambling software. What's an alternative software to look at what you're talking about?
I don't know what software you are using but I highly recommend qfit products.
Demo version turns 5's into 6's unless I have $95 in real money to stop busting on 16's, and it expires in 2 weeks.
I played 300 hands in 2 hours and won $7.50 in play money after being down, well, it forgot what my low bankroll was but it was in the bottom 10% for a time.
It says I should be up $1.60/hand (on $32 average bets, $30 base bets?), or up $480 on 300 hands. I was down $300+ and won it back.
My errors were 8 of them costing $24.22, seems I make some repeat errors, or misclick a hit instead of a stand, I wish the buttons were bigger and not so close together.
I never saw the count indicator budge, maybe it doesn't in the game I'm playing.
I've got the Pit Boss & Surveillance HEAT graphs up and they're around 20% in the green, but the longer I play the more they inch up. I suppose if I'm there 6 hours it might get up to 40% in the yellow, idk.
So total bet was just shy of $9600 with an average bet of $32, a high bet of $60, a BR average of $968, and a BR high of $1285, and a BR start of $1000.
Total: I was up $7.50 at 1 hour, and again at 2 hours.
So I'm supposed to win 1 base bet unit every 20 hands? I'm lucky if I can lose 15 hands then win 15 hands back in an hour.
"My thesis is that variance is the product customers are purchasing by playing a casino game. The only difference between two casino games is the amount of variance they offer and the wrapper that variance comes in. "
One consequence is that people will pay more (higher house edge) for more variance.
so whats the variance of a slot game ($1 denom) that will either pay $0 or $10k and have a return of 85%?Quote: teliotFrom my book, "Contemporary Casino Table Game Design," page 22, my first principle of table game design:
"My thesis is that variance is the product customers are purchasing by playing a casino game. The only difference between two casino games is the amount of variance they offer and the wrapper that variance comes in. "
One consequence is that people will pay more (higher house edge) for more variance.
Table limits of $5-$195 and $10-$500.
I'm so sick of looking at these Minnesota casino notes.
SD is 92.2. Variance 8,499Quote: 100xOddsso whats the variance of a slot game ($1 denom) that will either pay $0 or $10k and have a return of 85%?
Started another session and went from $1,000 to $10K in 130 hands with the same strategy. It's nice when the software is handing me wins for once instead of endless losses designed to make me quit forever. However, the Pit Boss & Surveillance HEAT meters are in the yellow at 60%. At 65% they send their suits to look at me disgustingly? Average bet was $230 this session, was $150 last session, I started out with a $90 bet.
Total bets in the 2nd session: $28,880, up $10,205, top bet was $600, up about 35 hands.
