Another Player Saved From 6:5

I had breakfast with a friend I had not seen for a while. We got to talking about blackjack. He then mentioned to me that recently he had played the 6:5 single-deck game in Freeport and was wondering if he had "done good."

I immediately got into the "Just Say No" mode and explained to him why it was such a lousy game. He had the standard response: He had no idea that it was such a bad bet. He knew that the rule had been changed and that it probably was not in his favor. However, because he had understood that the single-deck game was the most favorable, he figured that the change was not dramatic.

I directed him to Ken Smith's article on BlackjackInfo.com for further information.

Now that I have explained it fully to him, he has become a new convert to "Just Say No to 6:5"!!!

Say Hallelujah!

I recently received the pad of BS/games to avoid cards from BJ21.
My daughter and a bunch of friends are going to Vegas this weekend to celebrate a friends 21st birthday. These kids have little to burn on the tables and will party and dance mostly but they will play blackjack at least some.
My son in a few weeks is meeting about 30 old friends in Vegas. This group is around 30 years old, all are professionals of some sort and some play fairly big but none that I know of, have invested anytime in studying basic strategy, much less counting. They will all have a card with them and hopefully even if they do not study BS, they will avoid 6/5 and super fun.
When I go to Vegas I will have the remaining cards with me and be prepared to give them out to folks quietly

I was talking to a casino manager, a few weeks ago, and he commented that the standard of Blackjack players has generally got better (Internet advice would, I believe have a bearing on this) resulting in lower hold %'s for the casino.

Casino Managers are set targets by upper management and, rightly or wrongly, these targets included hold %'s for table games. Obviously, the overall win per day would be the figure that pays the bills.

The hold % for regular Blackjack varies from state to state but it has decresed due to more player awareness. The manager that I spoke to told me what his target % was and said that the only reason that he could keep his double decks games on the floor was because he had 'Super Fun' (he hasn't got 6/5). The 'Super Fun' compensated for the low % gained from the double deck.

So, playing Devil's Advocate, if you remove all of the higher % games then the number of better % games would be reduced to compensate. The multi-deck games are still producing enough hold % so the casino have not altered those games, however, the single deck and double deck are returning around 10% hold with regular rules.

If single and double deck games become less profitable then the danger is that these games will become less and less available with the end result being more slot machines or other types of table games to replace them.

By educating the general public then you could be deteriorating the standard of Blackjack games in the future. Imagine, for example, that everybody was educated into playing perfect Basic Strategy - single deck would disappear (although I know that it is a rare breed nowadays anyway).

When '3-card poker' rules changed this had the effect of changing the 'house edge' from 2% to 7%. End result is that the tables are still full and the game is still popular. There was no outcry of players being ripped off (that I know off) despite the edge on the game being higher than any Blackjack game available.

Nevertheless, I have based this viewpoint from another perspective. It doesn't mean that I agree with the principle behind these higher hold % games. I can certainly understand the view that acceptance of '6/5' will allow casinos to enjoy a full table without offering a 'fair' (what is fair?) edge on the game.

Basically, card counters have enjoyed decent games because the casino will make their profit from 'average' players. In fact a lot of professional players say that they would never educate a 'ploppy' at the table as the losses that they occur pay the professional's wages. By not adhering to Basic Strategy a player can lose well over 1% extra on top of the house edge. If a 'ploppy' plays at a 3% disadvantage then the '6/5' rule, for example, would incur an extra 25% disadvantage not 8 times worse off in his or her case.

In fact some of the best Blackjack games available tend to be in places where the players are of a poor standard. The casino can afford to employ favourable rules because they get their share from the players' mistakes.

Just an alternate perspective.

Best regards

'Switch'

Some folks, myself included, delude themselves into believing BJ is not so much gambling, in a puritanical sense, as we are, unlike poker, fleecing the big corporate non-descript house out of it's earnings and not some hapless poor soul out of his rent money.

But BJ players and poker winners are not that much different. It all comes from the losers.

In light of your most interesting message, I thought I should clarify my position.

I, for one, am no longer a crusader (I gave that up a few years ago!). Saving the "unwashed masses" is no longer my objective.

I only talk about the 6:5 issue to people I know, and only after they ask. If they tell me they play it and are happy with it, I shut my mouth.

In fact, as to the guy I mentioned that started this thread, after I told him about the house advantage, he started on about how he had played so well at the game and that it really didn't matter that much to him. I took it upon myself to explain to him the "long term" issue. I could just as easily have told him to do what he wanted.

So, unlike others on this forum who are passing out cards to strangers, or who sit at a 6:5 table and make an issue out of it, I do not. As you say, let the uneducated (those who play the game without taking the time to understand it) lose, so that we can continue to win.

Taking your perspective, every full 6:5 table is a positive sign for the rest of us.

Tuna Dave Quote " ... As you say, let the uneducated (those who play the game without taking the time to understand it) lose, so that we can continue to win."

Exactly !

To underline the point further, 'gamblers' get their enjoyment from being able to gamble - it's the arenaline rush of the Roulette ball landing or the card being turned over on a Blackjack table.

Sure, keep the odds fair but what is fair ? 0.1% house edge, 0.5%, 1.5%, 5.5% ??? If enough games exist to finance those who have chosen the time to exploit the advantages then I wish them 'Good Luck' and continued success.

SunRunner makes a valid point - although it seems that it is the 'House' that we are battling to win against (unlike poker) there are a lot of similarities with taking profit from poor play (like poker).

Gamblers do not gamble to win - they gamble to gamble. Let them continue to gamble in their uneducated 'gut feeling' ways so that the advantage players can earn a living from their errors.

Best regards

'Switch'

You seem to be saying that if the casino can successfully offer poor table games, such as, 6:5 or to extend the argument, CSM's and 8 deck games, the higher hold on those games will allow the casino to continue offering games with good rules.

I have not found this true. As the poor games gain acceptance the better games are completely removed from the casino, except maybe for a few tables in the high limit area with minimum bets of $100 or more.

The ploppies tend to lose their money no matter how good or bad a game is due to lack of knowledge, overbetting their bankrolls, etc.

The major casinos will always have at least a few blackjack tables due to demand for the game. But if even the ploppies know 6:5, CSM's and 8 deck games are only for suckers and refuse to play at those tables, the casino will remove them, leaving only the best games.

An added benefit of the ploppies playing only the better games, it is much easier for the rest of us to blend into the crowd for longer periods.

If the ignorant masses continue to play 6 to 5 single deck, it is just a matter of time before it spreads to double deck (already has at O'Sheas in LV), and shoe games. Imperial Palace already has 6 to 5 CSM'S!

If the public accepts 6 to 5, it will eventually become the norm for all blackjack games, just as the poor paytables on most video poker have become the norm.

From what I have seen over the past 4 months or so, most of the 6:5 single-deck games have fairly low table limits - $5 or $10. If that is the case, then let the small stakes gamblers have those games while we stick to the better shoe games.

I have no idea of the finances involved. However, I can only assume from the proliferation of $5 6:5 single-deck games that these are very profitable for casinos.

When I have gone into casinos lately, just about all of the 6:5 tables have been completely full, while the shoe tables generally have open spots. If that is the case, then the 6:5 players will not sit at the higher stakes tables anyway.

Is my logic off here?

th 6:5 games being full at all times is just going to give the casinos an excuse to get rid of more and more of the good games. I know if I'm ever forced to only have the option of 6:5 my playing days will end rather prematurely.
happy hunting!!!
gh

Quote (Tuna Dave) - "I have no idea of the finances involved. However, I can only assume from the proliferation of $5 6:5 single-deck games that these are very profitable for casinos."

Yes. A casino will hold around 20% on 6/5 or 'Super Fun' compared with around 10% for single deck and double deck and 14% multi-deck.

Quote (Tuna Dave) - "When I have gone into casinos lately, just about all of the 6:5 tables have been completely full, while the shoe tables generally have open spots. If that is the case, then the 6:5 players will not sit at the higher stakes tables anyway."

It's true that there will be a relationship between lack of higher stakes players with the 6/5 game as the more serious player will make some effort to find out how damaging it is. The 'fun' player just wants to gamble and is likely not to know the effect of the 6/5 payoff as well as it not being as proportionately detrimental to him.

My main concern is that the busy casinos, who enjoy a large flow of traffic, may start to employ 6/5 on the multi-deck games. I have heard that a few casinos on the 'Strip' have started to do this.

Good news, contrary to your observation, was that at a large 'strip' property, on a Saturday night, about a month ago, the only seats available were those on the 6/5 tables. The standard games were full with people waiting so that was quite promising. This may not be the case everywhere especially as you observed differently but maybe some casino players are beginning to get more choosy.

Best regards

'Switch'

Yes. A casino will hold around 20% on 6/5 or 'Super Fun' compared with around 10% for single deck and double deck and 14% multi-deck.

The drop on 6/5 must be much lower, though, since usually the 6/5 suckers are the lowest-level players in the casino.

If every high-hold % game was removed from the casino then there would be no 'Carribean Stud', 'Let It Ride', 'Keno' etc etc. There has to be a balance between hold % and 'drop' to keep the game on the floor.

As stated earlier, most of the small bettors will play '6/5' which will result in a lower 'drop' at those tables. However, small bettors do add to the casino's overall 'drop' and if most of them are focused at the '6/5' table then they are providing action at a higher house % than if they were interspersed amongst the regular tables.

The 'drop' at a '6/5' table only has to be 1/2 of a regular table to give the same profit. Furthermore, a lot of tables are closed during quiet hours and these will tend to be the high house edge games. When the casino is busy then they can afford to open higher house edge games as players will still sit in those seats.

Nevertheless, if all players stopped playing '6/5' then the casinos would be forced to remove the game. I was pointing out that if this happens, due to educating the 'ploppies', then it may have a damaging effect on the standard of the games that are left. The high hold % games do, to some extent, balance out the lower edge games.

'Ploppies' play 'Carribean Stud', 'Let It Ride', '3-Card Poker' and all of these games have a higher hold than 20%. No education is given to stop them playing these games so my alternate viewpoint was should we be doing the same for a Blackjack version ?

Finally, I am not on the side of 'High Hold % Games', in fact, 2 casinos in Las Vegas have told me that they are concerned with installing my game as they feel that the house edge is not high enough. I have stuck to my guns and will not let my game be put into a casino with a high house edge even though I know that it may hinder the expansion of the game. Unfortunately, these 'Avoid 6/5' cards may also damage the image of my game and, worse of all, it is not even justified.

For new games it's a balance - hold too high and the game will not remain popular with players, hold too low and the game will not be popular with casino management. Do we continue to educate or do we let players find out for themsleves ?

Best regards

'Switch'

my alternate viewpoint was should we be doing the same for a Blackjack version?

Most of the 6/5 tables replaced playable shoe games, not carnival games. Substituting one carnival game for another carnival game wouldn't matter. No one cares if a casino takes out Carribean Stud and replaces it with Casino War. If 6/5 had replaced Let It Ride or other games played only by suckers, blackjack players wouldn't care.

But 6/5 has mostly replaced real blackjack games, which IS a reason for concern.

Hi Golden

Nowhere in my statements have I promoted the 6/5 game, I was offering a different perspective on why the game is on the casino floor and possible repercussions that could come about if the game was removed due to 'Ploppy' awareness.

Unfortunately some casinos are greedy and will take what they can. If that means 6/5 multi-deck and removal of regular Blackjack games then that will be a shame.

I do empathise with those casinos that say that the profits on single deck are deteriorating due to more player awareness. Casinos will offer single deck 3/2 as an attraction to 'average' players but will generally watch the game like a hawk as they know that there are a lot of knowledgeable players out there now.

If you owned a casino then what would you do ? If you had just 300 players a day coming to play your 30-tables casino then you would have to offer good games but what if you had 3,000 players a day with players vying for empty spaces ? If you held 8% on a single deck game then what % of your tables would be single deck in the first scenario - what about the second scenario ?

America is about freedom of choice. If you buy a pair of shoes for $200 when you could have got them for $90 at the store down the road who is to blame ? The public for not educating you ? The first store ? You ?

6/5 Blackjack will be the minority of Blackjack offered in casinos. It will never replace the regular game. If casinos wanted to stop the game being beatable they would have picked a more subtle method (and some have tried with shuffling machines).

There will always be regular Blackjack about, there's too much competition for it not to be. If every game was replaced with 6/5 then the casinos would lose out - and they know that.

The 'advice' card being handed out to 'Ploppies' states not to play 6/5 - house edge around 1.5% and 'SuperFun' - house edge around 1%. Why not tell them not to play '3-Card Poker', 'Let It Ride', Carribean Stud' all which have house edges well above the former 2 ?

You could argue that Blackjack is different as it has a fair edge - my question is "What is a fair edge ?". Players will eventually vote with their bankroll - if they cannot win then they will stop playing.

Personally I would like to see the 6/5 taken out with no compromise to the games already in. Not sure if handing out cards to 'Ploppies' is the best way to go about it.

Best regards

'Switch'