MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
January 11th, 2011 at 8:35:53 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

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.


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
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
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.
RaleighCraps
RaleighCraps
Joined: Feb 20, 2010
  • Threads: 79
  • Posts: 2501
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?
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!
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
January 12th, 2011 at 9:56:20 AM permalink
Quote: RaleighCraps

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?



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
FinsRule
FinsRule
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 125
  • Posts: 3793
January 12th, 2011 at 10:31:22 AM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

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.



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.
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
January 12th, 2011 at 10:49:20 AM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

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.



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
RaleighCraps
RaleighCraps
Joined: Feb 20, 2010
  • Threads: 79
  • Posts: 2501
January 12th, 2011 at 11:39:25 AM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

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.



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!
FinsRule
FinsRule
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 125
  • Posts: 3793
January 12th, 2011 at 11:46:50 AM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

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.




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.
teddys
teddys
Joined: Nov 14, 2009
  • Threads: 150
  • Posts: 5522
January 12th, 2011 at 12:58:07 PM permalink
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).

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?

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
toastcmu
toastcmu
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 292
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

  • Jump to: