6:5 is the new 3:2
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
