6:5 is the new 3:2
January 9th, 2011 at 7:42:06 PM
permalink
I was amazed at the prevalence of awful 6:5 BJ during my recent Vegas visit. It was at every single casino I saw, in one form or another. And it wasn't even restricted to single deck--I saw plenty of 6:5 double deck, and even shoe games!! ECCCCCCHHHH!!!
That got me to wondering--does the average Strip-going tourist ploppie now think that 6:5 is the norm? Do they, or will they think that that is what a blackjack is "supposed" to pay? I can only imagine the future:
Stickman: "Eleven, line away." Old-timer: "WHAT?????" Dealer: "Sir, eleven has ALWAYS been a loser on the comeout."
Player: "Why did you just take my entire stack of chips?" Dealer: "Because you got two red jacks, sir. Says so right there: PLAYER FORFEITS ALL CHIPS IF DEALT TWO RED JACKS."
Player: "I lined up three 7's. Why didn't the machine pay the jackpot?" Slot floorman: "Slot machines don't pay jackpots--you just get free doughnuts. Here you go. Congratulations!"
Dealer: "Sir, the roulette wheel has ALWAYS had eight zeros. And straight-up bets on a number pay 12 to 1, just like they always have."
That got me to wondering--does the average Strip-going tourist ploppie now think that 6:5 is the norm? Do they, or will they think that that is what a blackjack is "supposed" to pay? I can only imagine the future:
Stickman: "Eleven, line away." Old-timer: "WHAT?????" Dealer: "Sir, eleven has ALWAYS been a loser on the comeout."
Player: "Why did you just take my entire stack of chips?" Dealer: "Because you got two red jacks, sir. Says so right there: PLAYER FORFEITS ALL CHIPS IF DEALT TWO RED JACKS."
Player: "I lined up three 7's. Why didn't the machine pay the jackpot?" Slot floorman: "Slot machines don't pay jackpots--you just get free doughnuts. Here you go. Congratulations!"
Dealer: "Sir, the roulette wheel has ALWAYS had eight zeros. And straight-up bets on a number pay 12 to 1, just like they always have."
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 10th, 2011 at 8:46:45 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
January 10th, 2011 at 9:16:45 AM
permalink
I'm probably in the minority, but I don't believe that we'll ever get to the point where every game in the casino has a house edge of 10% or more. I think the sweet spot is around 5%, which is why 6:5 BJ is becoming the norm.
There are a lot of idiots who will play bad games. But if the games are too bad that they never win, they won't come back.
There are a lot of idiots who will play bad games. But if the games are too bad that they never win, they won't come back.
January 10th, 2011 at 9:34:38 AM
permalink
Okay. Nowadays its all Ticket In, Ticket Out but the imagery remains: you dribble a few quarters into the metal tray every now and then and you put up all those pictures on the wall with little old ladies getting checks for a gadzillion dollars. Then you sit back and collect your money.
You have to get them into the casino in the first place, with their money ... and you have to part them from their money too.
Brainwashed or drunken tourists don't seem to care much about house edge. Unfortunately.
You have to get them into the casino in the first place, with their money ... and you have to part them from their money too.
Brainwashed or drunken tourists don't seem to care much about house edge. Unfortunately.
January 10th, 2011 at 10:04:38 AM
permalink
Is the 6:5 mainly on the low limit games?
January 10th, 2011 at 10:39:04 AM
permalink
Quote: jrockIs the 6:5 mainly on the low limit games?
That used to be the case, but now it's more like, they raise and lower the limits on ALL the games according to what the traffic will bear. So when they jack up the minimums to $25 on a Friday night at Harrah's, the 6:5 games get jacked up right along with everything else. Usually, though, you can find a $5 minimum 6:5 game if you look around, which makes sense since a $5 6:5 game earns more money for the house than a $25 3:2 game does (horrifying, but true).
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 10th, 2011 at 10:42:57 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
January 10th, 2011 at 10:45:36 AM
permalink
Quote: IbeatyouracesAnd it doesnt matter how much you educate these players, but they will still go for the lower limit and worse odds.
That was kind of my point in asking the question in the first place. Are the flocks of sheep at the 6:5 tables there because they don't know any better, because they don't care, or because they have seen nothing but 6:5, so they think that's the norm?
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 10th, 2011 at 10:53:21 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
January 11th, 2011 at 1:22:52 AM
permalink
At Harrah's 6:5 shoe games ($10 minimum) were in the party pit. Not much of a party pit considering how the alleged dancers looked. Of course legitimate $15 and $20 minimum 3:2 shoe games were inside.
January 11th, 2011 at 1:45:12 AM
permalink
They consider themselves pretty well educated already. They look primarily at the minimum bet. They can not evaluate the dollar difference between 6:5 and 3:2 on a meaningful basis. And besides... they are often more interested in the dealers 38 than in their 21 anyway.Quote: IbeatyouracesAnd it doesnt matter how much you educate these players, but they will still go for the lower limit and worse odds.
Heck, people gather round a double zero wheel when there is a single zero wheel but steps away from them. Education?
Thats what they are going to give when they use their winnings to take some good looking young hooker up to their room. Gonna happen very next hand, soon as this nutcase talkin' 'bout 3:2 goes away.
January 11th, 2011 at 7:02:16 AM
permalink
I doubt most gamblers even understand the concept of house edge.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:00:56 AM
permalink
As a definable and selectable quantity? No. I don't think so. With the mindset that "all games are in the house's favor" and "its entertainment" the concept of a Favorite versus a Long-Shot is blurred. It all becomes a do whatever you want. Look for patterns in Four Card Video Keno but don't focus on the 8.03 percent house edge, spin after spin after spin being an insurmountable obstacle. It is simply select a machine that faces South and go for it!Quote: HKrandomI doubt most gamblers even understand the concept of house edge.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:40:05 AM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321Are the flocks of sheep at the 6:5 tables there because they don't know any better, because they don't care, or because they have seen nothing but 6:5, so they think that's the norm?
Partly because they don't know any better, but primarily because they have seen nothing but 6:5 at their price level.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
January 11th, 2011 at 10:29:57 AM
permalink
I'd much rather play $5 6:5 Blackjack for an hour than $10 3:2 Blackjack. I, like many other people, just tip the excess when I get a Blackjack. Let's say I get 2.5 an hour, I play for two hours. On a 6:5 table, I'm tipping $5 for those two hours. On a 3:2 table, I'm tipping $12.50 for those two hours. Knowing me, I'd probably keep one of the tips for myself, and just tip $10 total.
So, the cost to me is $2.50. The decrease in variance is worth it. Since I will only play for 1-2 hours on a trip max, I couldn't care less. Maybe there are others like me out there?
So, the cost to me is $2.50. The decrease in variance is worth it. Since I will only play for 1-2 hours on a trip max, I couldn't care less. Maybe there are others like me out there?
January 11th, 2011 at 10:46:37 AM
permalink
Quote: FinsRuleI'd much rather play $5 6:5 Blackjack for an hour than $10 3:2 Blackjack. I, like many other people, just tip the excess when I get a Blackjack. Let's say I get 2.5 an hour, I play for two hours. On a 6:5 table, I'm tipping $5 for those two hours. On a 3:2 table, I'm tipping $12.50 for those two hours. Knowing me, I'd probably keep one of the tips for myself, and just tip $10 total.
So, the cost to me is $2.50. The decrease in variance is worth it. Since I will only play for 1-2 hours on a trip max, I couldn't care less. Maybe there are others like me out there?
In the sense that there are quite a few people out there who, like you, for whatever reason, don't care if they're getting reamed, I'd say yes. It's the same reason that the gas station that charges $3.30 a gallon stays in business, even though the station across the street is selling it for $3.10.
Your particular reason for tolerating getting a bad deal is valid as far as it goes, but someone playing $5 6:5 is paying four times as much to the house as someone playing $10 3:2, and that would bother me even if my playing session was short--for the same entertainment, I'm coughing up much more money. (And whether you or I choose to tip with the difference isn't relevant.)
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 11th, 2011 at 11:32:25 AM
permalink
Last trip I noticed the Fermont offered only 2X odds on craps. Several casinos nearby offered better, including Main St. Station which offers 20X (with the same player card as Fremont, BTW). And yet the craps table was usually packed. I remember asking "Why are these people playing craps here at all?"
But that only reminded me of other questions I often ask myself. "Why is someone going up getting into an elevator going down?" "Why is it when the waiter shows up with the food, the guy who ordered steak indicates the chicken is for him?" "Why is that idiot in front of me not moving 3 seconds after the green light came on?"
If anyone knows, I'd appreciate an asnwer.
But that only reminded me of other questions I often ask myself. "Why is someone going up getting into an elevator going down?" "Why is it when the waiter shows up with the food, the guy who ordered steak indicates the chicken is for him?" "Why is that idiot in front of me not moving 3 seconds after the green light came on?"
If anyone knows, I'd appreciate an asnwer.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
January 11th, 2011 at 11:34:14 AM
permalink
x2 over x20.... because they only intend to play double odds on their bets anyway. x2 or x20 is all the same to me, I only over play $5 minimum with $10 odds behind anyways.
Though I'd always play in Main Street, as I love that casino's atomosphere... and beer.
Though I'd always play in Main Street, as I love that casino's atomosphere... and beer.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
January 11th, 2011 at 12:51:01 PM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321(And whether you or I choose to tip with the difference isn't relevant.)
I disagree that it isn't relevant. If I only tip whatever I get above even money when I get a blackjack, and I only tip when I get a blackjack, then it's very relevant.
Basically, I don't care if the house is paying 6:5 or 3:2, because they're going to suffer in the form of getting dealers who get less tips. Then the good dealers will go to places where they get tipped better, and the 6:5 casino will suffer in the form of bad/sloppy dealers.
Economics.
January 11th, 2011 at 1:03:20 PM
permalink
Actually, it can work both ways.
My wife will tip whenever she gets a pink chip. But she doesn't always bet odd numbers, so she doesn't always get the pink when she hits a BJ.
However, if she's at a 6:5 table, she'll be getting whites almost every time she gets a BJ. So she might tip more.
Then again, she odes play those sucker bets, so maybe she'll keep them to bet the side bets, and won't be tipping as much.
Now that I think about it, for these reasons, she may actually perfer 6:5!
On a side note, when were were in CT recently, we went to Foxwoods first for a few hours. She his a slot hand-pay and tipped $30 - because it was Christmas Eve. When we got to Mohegan Sun, she asked the desk clerk about a room upgrade. We got it, and she tipped the desk clerk $5.
Sometimes I have no idea what the heck she is thinking...
My wife will tip whenever she gets a pink chip. But she doesn't always bet odd numbers, so she doesn't always get the pink when she hits a BJ.
However, if she's at a 6:5 table, she'll be getting whites almost every time she gets a BJ. So she might tip more.
Then again, she odes play those sucker bets, so maybe she'll keep them to bet the side bets, and won't be tipping as much.
Now that I think about it, for these reasons, she may actually perfer 6:5!
On a side note, when were were in CT recently, we went to Foxwoods first for a few hours. She his a slot hand-pay and tipped $30 - because it was Christmas Eve. When we got to Mohegan Sun, she asked the desk clerk about a room upgrade. We got it, and she tipped the desk clerk $5.
Sometimes I have no idea what the heck she is thinking...
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
January 11th, 2011 at 1:22:19 PM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear
On a side note, when were were in CT recently, we went to Foxwoods first for a few hours. She his a slot hand-pay and tipped $30 - because it was Christmas Eve. When we got to Mohegan Sun, she asked the desk clerk about a room upgrade. We got it, and she tipped the desk clerk $5.
Congrats to your wife on both the hand-pay and on her success in pulling off the "$20 trick" with a $5 bill;-)
Quote: DJTeddyBear
Sometimes I have no idea what the heck she is thinking...
This implies that you *do* sometimes know what she is thinking. I am envious of that condition, since I can't figure my girlfriend out at all...
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
January 11th, 2011 at 1:43:06 PM
permalink
Except she asked, and got the upgrade, before showing any cash.Quote: rdw4potusCongrats to your wife on both the hand-pay and on her success in pulling off the "$20 trick" with a $5 bill;-)
Hmmm.... Let me rephrase....Quote: rdw4potusThis implies that you *do* sometimes know what she is thinking. I am envious of that condition, since I can't figure my girlfriend out at all...
I have no idea what the heck she is thinking...
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
January 11th, 2011 at 1:57:33 PM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321Your particular reason for tolerating getting a bad deal is valid as far as it goes, but someone playing $5 6:5 is paying four times as much to the house as someone playing $10 3:2
If he plays basic strategy. Do these people? Well, they probably wouldn't be playing at 6:5 tables if they knew enough to remember even simplified strategy is.
For most players the strategy is "hit up to 9, double down on 10-11, stand on hard 17", on 12-16 they follow their gut or at best know to stand against 2-6, but turn it into a mess against 7-A. Practically always they'll stand on 16 vs 7, for instance. There is no strategy for soft hands, no splitting strategy other than split all aces (not always even all 8s), and even all of that gets deviated from based on how the player feels.
With a house edge of 2-3% at a BJ table, playing at a 6:5 21 table only adds 1.4% to this edge. And 3.5%*$5 is slightly, but less than 2%*$10. So, for their money, they might actually be losing less at a 6:5 table, plus they have less variance. Since they have already written their bankroll off as entertainment fare, low variance allows them to last longer and get less adrenaline over risking money.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
January 11th, 2011 at 2:17:40 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitx2 over x20.... because they only intend to play double odds on their bets anyway. x2 or x20 is all the same to me, I only over play $5 minimum with $10 odds behind anyways.
Fair enough. But if you do well and want to increase your odss bet, you won't be able to at the Fremont. Keeping your options open is not the worst of things to do.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
January 11th, 2011 at 4:11:13 PM
permalink
Quote: FinsRuleI disagree that it isn't relevant. If I only tip whatever I get above even money when I get a blackjack, and I only tip when I get a blackjack, then it's very relevant.
Basically, I don't care if the house is paying 6:5 or 3:2, because they're going to suffer in the form of getting dealers who get less tips. Then the good dealers will go to places where they get tipped better, and the 6:5 casino will suffer in the form of bad/sloppy dealers.
Economics.
I was kind of afraid that I would be misinterpreted.
The point was that you spend four times as much for your entertainment betting $5 at 6:5 than you do betting $10 at 3:2. So you incur a loss of that much greater magnitude (or win that much less often) at 6:5, so you are less likely to tip for that reason: people tip more when they win than when they lose. However, if you tip the excess from blackjacks no matter what, bully for you. But the amount you tip isn't, strictly speaking, a function of the game's rules; it's a function of how much you choose to tip in a given situation. I would expect tips to be lower at 6:5 simply because the house administers a much more thorough thrashing at 6:5 than 3:2.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 11th, 2011 at 4:17:15 PM
permalink
Quote: P90If he plays basic strategy. Do these people? Well, they probably wouldn't be playing at 6:5 tables if they knew enough to remember even simplified strategy is.
For most players the strategy is "hit up to 9, double down on 10-11, stand on hard 17", on 12-16 they follow their gut or at best know to stand against 2-6, but turn it into a mess against 7-A. Practically always they'll stand on 16 vs 7, for instance. There is no strategy for soft hands, no splitting strategy other than split all aces (not always even all 8s), and even all of that gets deviated from based on how the player feels.
With a house edge of 2-3% at a BJ table, playing at a 6:5 21 table only adds 1.4% to this edge. And 3.5%*$5 is slightly, but less than 2%*$10. So, for their money, they might actually be losing less at a 6:5 table, plus they have less variance. Since they have already written their bankroll off as entertainment fare, low variance allows them to last longer and get less adrenaline over risking money.
You're misinterpreting the effect of variance. Sure, 6:5 has lower variance, but the sole component of that difference in variance is the lower payout on blackjacks. That moves the highest point of the bell curve to the left. So you lose some part of your wins (that are now smaller, or turn into losses, because of the loss of that 0.3 unit), including the largest ones--that's where the variance is "cut off". In other words, the variance is decreased solely by reducing the outliers at the right side of the bell curve--the largest wins are now that much smaller.
Obviously, I see your basic point that playing $5 crap BJ might be less expensive than playing $10 decent BJ if a player garbages up Basic Strategy so badly that he's fighting a huge HE even in the decent game. But I make the assumption that anyone smarter than a walnut can learn Basic Strategy, so my comparisons are based on that.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 11th, 2011 at 5:08:49 PM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321You're misinterpreting the effect of variance. Sure, 6:5 has lower variance, but the sole component of that difference in variance is the lower payout on blackjacks.
The lower variance here is in absolute units, i.e. in dollars. At lower stakes, the player gets lower bankroll swings, even though due to the rules ends up losing less.
Quote: mkl654321Obviously, I see your basic point that playing $5 crap BJ might be less expensive than playing $10 decent BJ if a player garbages up Basic Strategy so badly that he's fighting a huge HE even in the decent game. But I make the assumption that anyone smarter than a walnut can learn Basic Strategy, so my comparisons are based on that.
Can. But do they even try? The typical minimum-stakes gambler in Vegas, at least when the stakes in question is $5, isn't a gambler at all, he's a casual tourist that has come to see NV and sees casinos, blackjack and hookers as an essential part of the experience. From his point of view, a lower-stake table means lower admission price for the same entertainment.
Don't remember the source, but IIRC the typical house edge in BJ for an unskilled player is 2-3%. At this rate, their poor play harms them even more than the outrageous rules. Though in my opinion, the 6:5 game shouldn't even be called blackjack, just a 21 variant. While I'd still urge such players to go to a 3:2 table or another casino altogether, so as not to reward the practice of ruining a good game to faster screw people who are already screwing themselves over pretty good, such a rule won't necessarily save them money unless they also bother to learn and follow even a simplified strategy.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
January 11th, 2011 at 7:22:57 PM
permalink
Quote: P90Can. But do they even try? The typical minimum-stakes gambler in Vegas, at least when the stakes in question is $5, isn't a gambler at all, he's a casual tourist that has come to see NV and sees casinos, blackjack and hookers as an essential part of the experience. From his point of view, a lower-stake table means lower admission price for the same entertainment.
What's happening here is that you're focusing on the fact that 6:5 games are usually offered at the lowest limits, and conversely, if you want to find 3:2, you often have to move up an increment in stakes. The issue has to be looked at in the light of "ceteris paribus"--all other things being equal. Ceteris paribus, a 3:2 game is better than a 6:5 game. Ceteris paribus, it's better to play $5/hand than $10/hand. Ceteris paribus, it's better to play basic strategy than to play like the average tourist.
So given that all three of these things are under the player's control, there's no surprise that there's such a huge gap between the HAs for 3:2/BS and 6:5/TS (Tourist Strategy). And given that there's still a house advantage under optimal rules and conditions (ignoring those very few games that are essentially even off the top), it's best to play the lowest stakes available. But my point was that you will do MUCH better playing 3:2 at $10/hand than you will do playing 6:5 at $5/hand. The benefit of the halved stakes is dwarfed by the harm of playing 6:5.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 11th, 2011 at 8:06:34 PM
permalink
You forgot the 25% vig on all bets at the Sportsbook!
"Bite my Glorious Golden Ass!" - Bender Bending Rodriguez
January 11th, 2011 at 8:07:25 PM
permalink
Yes, of course, anyone who knows how to play will do way better at 3:2. In no way am I defending 6:5. Just mentioning that when people who know nothing about the game choose to play at 6:5 with half the stake, they aren't necessarily making the wrong choice for themselves, presuming that the bulk of their utility comes from "Wow, I'm on the Strip and I'm playing blackjack!". Any player who bothered to learn even a little will be better served by higher stakes and proper rules, but "don't play 6:5" is one of the first things you learn.
In the $15 6:5 vs $20 3:2 scenario, though, or even $15 vs $25, mentioned previously in the thread, even tourist strategy players are better off with the latter, as short BJ payout cuts into the least skill-dependent part of their expected return.
In the $15 6:5 vs $20 3:2 scenario, though, or even $15 vs $25, mentioned previously in the thread, even tourist strategy players are better off with the latter, as short BJ payout cuts into the least skill-dependent part of their expected return.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
January 11th, 2011 at 8:35:53 PM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321The point was that you spend four times as much for your entertainment betting $5 at 6:5 than you do betting $10 at 3:2.
That ratio only holds for proper basic strategy players, though. I have numbers from the Internet where correct basic strategy should yield 0.2%, but the actual win% is more than 1.3% based on over a year of live play. Since a given player's suboptimality will affect both games equally (there's no strategy before blackjack), the ratio drops as players get worse. That's not to say that it may not still be better to play $10 3:2 vs. $5 6:5, but it really does depend on how well you play.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
January 12th, 2011 at 7:38:31 AM
permalink
So I think its several elements here.
The mere existence of these 6:5 games.
The casinos promotion of them in large marquee letters.
The casinos extending the 6:5 games beyond the introduction levels.
Such extension of 6:5 really bordering on supplanting the 3:2 games which now exist as a rare curiosity and often at only higher levels of play or in the more rarified atmosphere of high limit rooms.
The differing effects of 6:5 based on ability to play as related to knowledge, dedication and intoxication levels, since it is clear that the oft-mentioned fanny-packed tourists are often exploring games with which they are not overly familiar and casinos that they've not been to before.
The fact that even somewhat knowledgeable players tend to be accepting of what is offered, such as playing at a double zero wheel when a single zero wheel is also available only a few steps away, only adds to the amount of additional loss over the theoretical expectations imposed by Basic Strategy.
So is this situation as deplorable as is often described? I don't know. There seems to be almost as must vitriol spewed about it as there is about Resort Fees. No one really likes those darned resort fees but there are some economic reasons for their existence. No one really likes 6:5 but there are indeed some economic factors on the side of the casino. Sure, one can point to a few casinos that still either have 3:2 or nothing. Some casinos seem able to survive at 3:2 even if they are grind joints where dealers must deal at a fast clip.
Deplorable? Unavoidable? Inevitable?
I don't know. I'd like to think that an honest game is still possible. You say it is blackjack and you offer it under terms and conditions that are historically what blackjack was offered at. However casinos claim financial inability to offer it as BlackJack and to adhere to 3:2 payouts.
Will a decade from now 3:2 be an unrecalled distant memory such as a craps game with quarters or a five cent beer? Beats me.
The mere existence of these 6:5 games.
The casinos promotion of them in large marquee letters.
The casinos extending the 6:5 games beyond the introduction levels.
Such extension of 6:5 really bordering on supplanting the 3:2 games which now exist as a rare curiosity and often at only higher levels of play or in the more rarified atmosphere of high limit rooms.
The differing effects of 6:5 based on ability to play as related to knowledge, dedication and intoxication levels, since it is clear that the oft-mentioned fanny-packed tourists are often exploring games with which they are not overly familiar and casinos that they've not been to before.
The fact that even somewhat knowledgeable players tend to be accepting of what is offered, such as playing at a double zero wheel when a single zero wheel is also available only a few steps away, only adds to the amount of additional loss over the theoretical expectations imposed by Basic Strategy.
So is this situation as deplorable as is often described? I don't know. There seems to be almost as must vitriol spewed about it as there is about Resort Fees. No one really likes those darned resort fees but there are some economic reasons for their existence. No one really likes 6:5 but there are indeed some economic factors on the side of the casino. Sure, one can point to a few casinos that still either have 3:2 or nothing. Some casinos seem able to survive at 3:2 even if they are grind joints where dealers must deal at a fast clip.
Deplorable? Unavoidable? Inevitable?
I don't know. I'd like to think that an honest game is still possible. You say it is blackjack and you offer it under terms and conditions that are historically what blackjack was offered at. However casinos claim financial inability to offer it as BlackJack and to adhere to 3:2 payouts.
Will a decade from now 3:2 be an unrecalled distant memory such as a craps game with quarters or a five cent beer? Beats me.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:25:27 AM
permalink
I understand I am about to type blasphemy, but does it REALLY matter?
I absolutely agree that the math proves a 6:5 game is worse for the player than a 3:2 game. A 2x (2,12) field bet is much worse than a 2x (2), 3x(12) field, etc. AND, if you were to make enough bets to see a few hundred black jacks and few hundred 12s rolled when you are betting the Field, it would make a difference to your bottom line ($100 to a $5 player). However, I bet the vast majority of players aren't fortunate enough to see a hundred black jacks a year. they just don't play that much. So even though they are playing at a game that has a higher HE their win/loss amount is unaffected unless they actually get blackjacks or 12s. We can calculate that their play is costing them $0.xx more per bet made, but that is not necessarily what the true outcome will be for them.
Sure they are increasing the likely hood that they will lose more by playing a game at a greater disadvantage, but ultimately it may not matter at all, depending on how the cards or dice fall.
I know the only way I win at BJ is to bet another player that I can play for 2 hours and not see a single blackjack. So I can play an even money black jack game and get the same result. Same holds for the player who always stands on 16. Sure he is making the wrong play and it should cost him money, but if the dealer busts every hand he stands on 16, he has made the correct call to maximize his wins for that session. You can argue it is bad play and it will cost him money over time, but he's got a pocketful of chips that he would not have had otherwise.
Is the goal about playing the perfect strategies on the lowest HE games you can find, or is the goal to walk out with more money than you had when you walked in?
I absolutely agree that the math proves a 6:5 game is worse for the player than a 3:2 game. A 2x (2,12) field bet is much worse than a 2x (2), 3x(12) field, etc. AND, if you were to make enough bets to see a few hundred black jacks and few hundred 12s rolled when you are betting the Field, it would make a difference to your bottom line ($100 to a $5 player). However, I bet the vast majority of players aren't fortunate enough to see a hundred black jacks a year. they just don't play that much. So even though they are playing at a game that has a higher HE their win/loss amount is unaffected unless they actually get blackjacks or 12s. We can calculate that their play is costing them $0.xx more per bet made, but that is not necessarily what the true outcome will be for them.
Sure they are increasing the likely hood that they will lose more by playing a game at a greater disadvantage, but ultimately it may not matter at all, depending on how the cards or dice fall.
I know the only way I win at BJ is to bet another player that I can play for 2 hours and not see a single blackjack. So I can play an even money black jack game and get the same result. Same holds for the player who always stands on 16. Sure he is making the wrong play and it should cost him money, but if the dealer busts every hand he stands on 16, he has made the correct call to maximize his wins for that session. You can argue it is bad play and it will cost him money over time, but he's got a pocketful of chips that he would not have had otherwise.
Is the goal about playing the perfect strategies on the lowest HE games you can find, or is the goal to walk out with more money than you had when you walked in?
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
January 12th, 2011 at 9:56:20 AM
permalink
Quote: RaleighCrapsIs the goal about playing the perfect strategies on the lowest HE games you can find, or is the goal to walk out with more money than you had when you walked in?
Those goals are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they are dependent. If you do the former, you have a better chance of acheiving the latter.
I've seen the argument all the time--no matter what you do, you might win and you might lose, so it doesn't matter how or where you play. If you say that a player won't be affected by a 6:5 or 1:1 BJ game unless he gets blackjacks, well--yeah, but he eventually WILL get dealt blackjacks, and lose money on each one. This adds up, and the important thing to realize is that IT ADDS UP REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE GETS ANY BLACKJACKS AT ALL.
The decision to gamble at a particular game or time or place, or with a given strategy, should be considered in terms of EV ONLY, since you don't know what the result will be (and yes, there are non-monetary components of EV). So looking at the result to validate or invalidate that decision after the fact is worse than pointless. If I play an hour of 6:5 and I win $300, I still cost myself money by playing 6:5.
No matter where and how you gamble, there are always choices available, between good and bad games, between playing well and playing badly, between betting within your bankroll and overbetting. The better choices will outperform the worse choices, even if TODAY, you win money playing the worse choices.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 12th, 2011 at 10:31:22 AM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321If you say that a player won't be affected by a 6:5 or 1:1 BJ game unless he gets blackjacks, well--yeah, but he eventually WILL get dealt blackjacks, and lose money on each one. This adds up, and the important thing to realize is that IT ADDS UP REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE GETS ANY BLACKJACKS AT ALL.
Please explain how if I play Blackjack for 4 hours and I don't get a blackjack, that I lost more money than if I got one.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:49:20 AM
permalink
Quote: FinsRulePlease explain how if I play Blackjack for 4 hours and I don't get a blackjack, that I lost more money than if I got one.
You lost more money by playing 6:5 or 1:1 instead of 3:2. You lost that money when you made the bets. The actual outcome is irrelevant.
If you bet $100 on the Pass Line in craps, for example, you lose $1.41 at that instant, regardless of how the bet turns out.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 12th, 2011 at 11:39:25 AM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321You lost more money by playing 6:5 or 1:1 instead of 3:2. You lost that money when you made the bets. The actual outcome is irrelevant.
If you bet $100 on the Pass Line in craps, for example, you lose $1.41 at that instant, regardless of how the bet turns out.
I lost THEORETICAL money. But REAL money totally depends on the outcome. And the HE of the bet is not a factor in the outcome. If I got no black jacks, playing 1:1 , 6:5 , 3:2, or 10:1 BJ would not have mattered. How can you say otherwise, with a straight face?
They do not take 1.41 from my $100 PL bet. Over infinity that would be the expected outcome, but for that one bet, I either win $100 or I lose $100. It is a 0% or 200% proposition. All the HE does is affect your likely outcome of the bet.
Now, if they charged me a commish based on the HE of the bet when they paid off winning bets, then I would totally agree with you. Then the bet that you are making does have an impact on the real money.
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
January 12th, 2011 at 11:46:50 AM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321You lost more money by playing 6:5 or 1:1 instead of 3:2. You lost that money when you made the bets. The actual outcome is irrelevant.
If you bet $100 on the Pass Line in craps, for example, you lose $1.41 at that instant, regardless of how the bet turns out.
That's the dumbest thing I have ever read on this site. And I have read a lot of dumb things. If I make a $100 pass line bet, I have a 0% chance of losing $1.41.
I'm not going to bother arguing. All I know is that if I decide to play 1 - $100,000 craps roll, and then never play craps again, apparently I lost $1,410, even if I just won $100,000. Does the government look at it that way? I wouldn't have to pay taxes, because I lost.
Oh, and if I play the lottery for $1, and win $300,000,000, I actually lost 45 cents, so I don't have to pay taxes on that either. Don't bother responding, it's just going to say "There are no sessions. Life is a session" Spare me.
January 12th, 2011 at 12:58:07 PM
permalink
So I take it you'll make the 00 bet at my casino on my $1,000,000 minimum roulette table that pays 37:1 on a single number?Quote: mkl654321
The decision to gamble at a particular game or time or place, or with a given strategy, should be considered in terms of EV ONLY, since you don't know what the result will be (and yes, there are non-monetary components of EV).
Variance is part of it also.
The tradeoffs between E.V. and variance is a big theme on the board. How much weight you give to either one of them depends largely on personal preference. But E.V. is more important in the long run.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
January 12th, 2011 at 2:10:19 PM
permalink
I'm a firm believer of making sure you have all the knowledge possible, and making the decision that bests suits you. To take the 6:5 vs 3:2 analogy, sure a $1 slot with a 96% return beats a .01 slot with only a 87% return, but if the bet sizes are $1 versus $0.25, then the penny slot person loses "less" per spin, even though the return is worse. Most 6:5 tables are $5, while the higher limits have the better rules. It all boils down to if you, as a gambler, are comfortable with the potential variance/bankroll requirements for short term play at the table.
In a very short session, I will play 6:5, purely for entertainment - I did at Bill's last year, and it did cost me about $6 in BJ. However, I did get the experience of having a dealer there tell someone who was all over the map doubling small hands, hitting pat hands, standing on stiff hands, etc. "Maybe you should learn how to play blackjack first, instead of wasting your money" She left right after that comment. :)
-B
In a very short session, I will play 6:5, purely for entertainment - I did at Bill's last year, and it did cost me about $6 in BJ. However, I did get the experience of having a dealer there tell someone who was all over the map doubling small hands, hitting pat hands, standing on stiff hands, etc. "Maybe you should learn how to play blackjack first, instead of wasting your money" She left right after that comment. :)
-B
January 12th, 2011 at 9:03:54 PM
permalink
Quote: FinsRuleThat's the dumbest thing I have ever read on this site. And I have read a lot of dumb things. If I make a $100 pass line bet, I have a 0% chance of losing $1.41.
I'm not going to bother arguing. All I know is that if I decide to play 1 - $100,000 craps roll, and then never play craps again, apparently I lost $1,410, even if I just won $100,000. Does the government look at it that way? I wouldn't have to pay taxes, because I lost.
Oh, and if I play the lottery for $1, and win $300,000,000, I actually lost 45 cents, so I don't have to pay taxes on that either. Don't bother responding, it's just going to say "There are no sessions. Life is a session" Spare me.
You show a basic misunderstanding of probability and expected value. You are far from alone. Because looking at a wager in terms of expected value is counterintuitive, many people simply don't even try to understand it.
Let me restate the situation to see if you understand it this way: At the moment you make the bet, you have a 49.3% chance of ending up with $200, and a 50.7% chance of winding up with nothing (numbers rounded). Mathematically, this is the EXACT SAME THING as now having $98.59 ($100-$1.41).
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 12th, 2011 at 9:10:25 PM
permalink
Quote: RaleighCrapsI lost THEORETICAL money. But REAL money totally depends on the outcome. And the HE of the bet is not a factor in the outcome. If I got no black jacks, playing 1:1 , 6:5 , 3:2, or 10:1 BJ would not have mattered. How can you say otherwise, with a straight face?
They do not take 1.41 from my $100 PL bet. Over infinity that would be the expected outcome, but for that one bet, I either win $100 or I lose $100. It is a 0% or 200% proposition. All the HE does is affect your likely outcome of the bet.
Now, if they charged me a commish based on the HE of the bet when they paid off winning bets, then I would totally agree with you. Then the bet that you are making does have an impact on the real money.
At the point of decision--when you decide to make the bet--"theoretical" IS real. I realize that you are one of many, many people who have a hard time wrapping your mind around this concept, because it seems counterintuitive---your result ON ANY ONE OUTCOME will never equate to the "theo". But why should it? Bet $1 on the flip of a coin and your theo is $0, but your result will never BE +$0; it will be either +$1 or -$1. But, so what? It's an error to expect a SINGLE result to match the theoretical result.
Casinos base player ratings on "theoretical" results, NOT actual results, so what does that tell you? That the "theoretical" is, in fact, very real, and is actually more significant than the actual result.
See the Wiz's signature line. The way to assess a bet is not by its result, but by how good of a bet (+EV) it was.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 12th, 2011 at 9:12:17 PM
permalink
Proctor Hoc Ergo Post Hoc?
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
January 12th, 2011 at 9:15:52 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitProctor Hoc Ergo Post Hoc?
You mean "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"--"after this, therefore because of this", the fallacy that can be refuted by "correlation does not equal causation"?
And if so, what was your point, may I ask?
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 12th, 2011 at 9:22:04 PM
permalink
No, I really did mean - Proctor Hoc Ergo Post Hoc. I was being obtuse. Or cryptic.
In this case the fallacy that the expected value (proctor hoc) actually translates into the actual value (post hoc). I'll let the audience decide whose make the logical fallacy.
In this case the fallacy that the expected value (proctor hoc) actually translates into the actual value (post hoc). I'll let the audience decide whose make the logical fallacy.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
January 12th, 2011 at 9:30:51 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitNo, I really did mean - Proctor Hoc Ergo Post Hoc. I was being obtuse. Or cryptic.
In this case the fallacy that the expected value (proctor hoc) actually translates into the actual value (post hoc). I'll let the audience decide whose make the logical fallacy.
Well, "proctor" in Latin means "manager" or "supervisor", so I really didn't know what you meant.
As to whether EV translates into actual value, see my post where I explained the exact equivalence between a set of outcomes and the mathematical sum of those outcomes. A 50% chance of winning $1 and a 50% chance of losing $1 = 0, even though "0" will never be the result of any one particular trial.
The actual result will approach the theoretical result more and more closely as the number of trials increases, but the absolute difference between the actual and the theoretical result will grow larger. This is the Law of Large Numbers, and not exactly a "fallacy".
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 12th, 2011 at 9:34:07 PM
permalink
Doh, there's me trying to be clever in Latin and all that and I wrote the wrong word. Ah well, never mind.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
January 13th, 2011 at 7:41:14 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitDoh, there's me trying to be clever in Latin and all that and I wrote the wrong word. Ah well, never mind.
Yes, well, it helps to know Latin before attempting to joke with it. I swear lots of people think "visa" is a Latin word meaning "to spend," because of the joke "Vini, vidi, visa."
Far easier to joke with latinate usages. For example:
Professor Septimus walks into a bar and places an order
"I'll have a dry martinus, please."
"Don't you mean," the bartender asks, "a dry martini?"
"My good man, if I wanted a double I would order it."
I think I've told this one here before on a joke thread.
Anyway, back on topic, it would help to understand the "success" of 6:5 not-BJ and double-zero roulette if we were to ask those playing such games why they play them. I really don't play either, or their legitimate variants, so I've had no ocassion to ask. Unlike, say, craps, which I do play and sometimes talk to other players about.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
January 13th, 2011 at 8:05:06 AM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321It's an error to expect a SINGLE result to match the theoretical result.
Casinos base player ratings on "theoretical" results, NOT actual results, so what does that tell you? That the "theoretical" is, in fact, very real, and is actually more significant than the actual result.
...
See the Wiz's signature line. The way to assess a bet is not by its result, but by how good of a bet (+EV) it was.
Some comments on the above:
Yes. Casinos place great value on the theoretical rather than the actual. Comp the guy who gives them action because irrespective of his actual results on this trip of his being a winner or a loser, he is a gambler. He gives us action ... we want to see him again. If he won this time, he will be bringing our money back to us. If he lost this time, he will be bringing more on his next trip.
Its like that red chip on the black triangle at a roulette wheel... they player sees a five dollar bet. The dealer does too, as does the surveillance camera. The only two possible results is a loss of his entire five dollars or a win of the casino's five dollars. Yet the old guy in the green eyeshades looks at the layout and doesn't see a five dollar red chip at all, he sees twenty-six cents.
Well, I don't wear green eye shades and I don't evaluate a bet by its quality... but by the results! I see a five dollar chip on that black triangle and I either see another one placed beside it or I see the dealer take it away from me. So while the casino may rate a player on his theoretical value they actually relate to the player based upon the immediate results of the bet. The actual result is what counts. Expectations are just that,,, expectations. The single result is reality.
The casino executives may have never expected 6:5 to be tolerated by the players and they may never have thought that the casino would ever be able to actually extend 6:5 until it was that which was most often encountered. We don't know if 6:5 was a "good" bet at the time the casino instituted it. We only know that the casino won! 6:5 is what we now have in most situations. Some players know this. Some players even care about it. The casino doesn't care if those players are upset or not.
Economically necessary? Well, perhaps. Economically rapacious? Well, perhaps. But one thing is clear: its reality.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:10:08 AM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321You show a basic misunderstanding of probability and expected value. You are far from alone. Because looking at a wager in terms of expected value is counterintuitive, many people simply don't even try to understand it.
Let me restate the situation to see if you understand it this way: At the moment you make the bet, you have a 49.3% chance of ending up with $200, and a 50.7% chance of winding up with nothing (numbers rounded). Mathematically, this is the EXACT SAME THING as now having $98.59 ($100-$1.41).
Don't patronize me, I'm not an idiot. Neither are any of the other people who disagree with you.
Let me try to put in a way that you might understand. When most people go to a casino, they bring actual money with them (not theoretical money). That is the money that they want to use THAT DAY to gamble with. They want to be at the casino for two actual hours. They have $200 to lose or win with.
During those two hours, if I'm playing craps, I'll be making 60 pass line bets. I'll ignore the odds bet.
Now since I understand expected value so well, I'm going to be playing $200 on the pass line. Because since variance doesn't exist, I'm losing $2.82 each roll, and in about two hours, I'll lose $170 regardless of how anything turns out. But I'll sure have fun.
Oh, and if I'm an advantage player, I only need enough money to make the first bet, since I win on every hand.
Everyone on this board knows how the math works. Single zero is better, 3:2 is better.
Maybe one day when I have as much money as you, I won't have to worry about variance, and I can make fun of those that have to worry about it. I'm looking forward to that.
