..have a much higher hand per hour rate....I would doubt on a $ basis that it is better then 6:5, although I admit, you have been doing this much longer then I and your response has my upmost respect...
D
..have a much higher hand per hour rate....I would doubt on a $ basis that it is better then 6:5, although I admit, you have been doing this much longer then I and your response has my upmost respect...
D
Most of the casinos have replaced lower level tables with 6:5 games at the same limits. At most of the casinos I visit, if you have a $10 6:5 game, there is also a $10 shoe.
Then the dealers tell the players that �this is really a better game, because this is single deck.� Some of them really believe that, because they have been duped by casino propaganda.
I think for casino to tell layers that 6:5 is a better game because it is single deck is despicable. I think it is comparable to the cigarette companies in the 50s telling people that smoking was good for them.
I have not read or heard Max Rubin�s statement first hand, so I will not comment on it until I see the context. I have a lot of respect for him, so I will assume that there was a context for this statement.
However, as to the hypothetical matter of casino people promoting 6:5 games- Well, we need a Surgeon General for gambling.
CSMs don�t speed up the game a lot more than ordinary shoes. All they save is the shuffle time. With auto-shufflers, this is not a big saving. And CSM dealers get more fatigued, which slows the game down.
Single Deck is relatively fast, because the shuffle time is fast. I would not be surprised If 6:5 gamers were as fast as CSMs.
But even if the 6:5 games are slower- can they be that much slower. A BS player losses maybe 4 times as much at a 6:5 game as at a CSM. Someone with weaker strategy may lose twice as much.
Are you really telling us that you think CSMs are twice as fast as 6:5?
Casinos should not promote 6:5 as a better game, I never said they should...
I had one dealer tell me I should play SF because it is a better game (was playing a nice DD DAS 75% pen game) when I asked her if giving up the odds on BJ made the game any worse she said and I quote "Its only a 2% advantage" of course giving no reference to myself or the other players at the table what the edge was on this excellent DD game was. It was initially hard to bite my tongue, but there is no way Im going to give myself up to save a ploppie...
I think this is entirely unethical, the dealer in my case even worse because if she knows the edge on SF, she probably knew the edge on DD and likewise that her statements were false. I am not saying the casinos should encourage people to play 6:5 or SF, I am not saying WE should encourage people to play 6:5 or SF, I am just saying that at a snapshot moment in time, for the rec player, there are other factors to consider then simply edge.
Is it worse then it USED to be before they took out some of the 6 and 8 deckers to replace with 6:5? SURE! But that's the past. Will it be better if they take out the 6:5? SURE! But that hasn't happened (yet..although I have seen a vast reduction in players..that definitely encourages me). But as of right now, the rec player has a choice between a $5 6:5 (or SF) and a $15 6 deck shoe, I am not so sure the rec player is doing himself a disservice (on a limited bankroll) by going to the 6:5. Will he lose more in the long run? SURE! But the rec player isnt in it for the long run, as we are, he is in it for the short run fluctuation. In the short run, number of players and min bet are far more important then house edge...
D
if there are 6 players at 6:5 vs 3 at the CSM and higher table limit at the CSM (lets say 10 vs 5 min for our example)...without running the numbers I would say it's better at the 6:5, wouldnt you?
just plain wrong! As in not correct. A lie. There is no way around it.
You went ahead and repeated yourself on casino conditions favoring a newbie sitting at a 6:5 game. I am not going to bother repeating myself on why this is completely incorrect.
...because you obviously missed the point. I presented conditions that you aparently do not see as relevant, and I think they are, that is where the disagreement is. I really do not understand how you cannot see them as relevant, being that we as positive expectation players look for the exact opposite to maximize our gain (fewer players, more money on the table). It is only logical that a negative expectation player would want the opposite of a positive expecation player, but again you refuse to see that too.
Either way, you are correct, I repeated myself once and you did not get it, enough said...
D
That's what the gaming "industry" is all about.
The 6:5 game offers the uninformed player the appeal of the SD game, but gives the house more revenue per square foot per hour.
Whenever traditional table games stop generating enough revenue the space will be turned over to carnival games or slots. That's just the nature of the business our "hosts" are in. Live with it.
"Whenever traditional table games stop generating enough revenue the space will be turned over to carnival games or slots" -OldCoot
Generally I would agree. I also hope there is some intrinsic benefit to table games that even when revenue dollars per sq ft dip below the expectation, they will remain in some playable form.
That would be they need/want to offer a game to the non-playing slot players spouse or friends even though it may not be producing the expected revenue.
Greed is not all bad!
"It is only logical that a negative expectation player would want the opposite of a positive expecation player." -BSS
I don't want to get in the face off with you all, I would just like to comment on the above.
A positive expectation player has really one goal ... maximize gains. For me that equates only to dollars. More sophisticated players (pros) probably have some formula for maximizing dollars and comps.
But if someone is willing to play a negative expectation game, and they know it, who knows what they want out of it.
I did not hear Rubin's comments either and probably should not have commented. But if he did say what was reported, or anything close, he was throwing a bone to the casinos and certainly not helping the plight of the advantage player at all.
And yet, he has custody of the Blackjack Hall of Fame.
Seems duplicitous to me.
There is the "balance" question, whereunder Mrs. Ploppy won't let Mr. Ploppy go to Vegas to play blackjack or craps if she can't go to play the slots; and Mr. Ploppy sure as hell wouldn't let Mrs. Ploppy go to play slots if he couldn't play his preferred table game.
I think is much worse despite the lower house edge compared to carribean stud, three card, or let it ride because the pace of 6:5 bj is much much faster than the other "poker style" games.
You make an interesting point in your message. From that perspective, it would make some sense for the inexperienced player to play 6:5 blackjack. However, it presumes that the inexperienced player actually knows that the odds are better than other games. Perhaps they assume that, since it's blackjack, the odds must be better. However, since I did not take the time to interview any of the 6:5 players in my recent trip, I can't really comment on their state of mind.
In any event, you mentioned casino edge on various games. Do you know the casino edge in Let It Ride? I hate to admit this publicly, but I enjoy playing LIR, if nothing more than for relaxation. To me, it is more fun than slots; and lightning could strike, giving me a royal flush. Speaking of that, on one hand this weekend, I was dealt the J, Q and K of clubs. My heart started beating just a little faster... until the dealer turned over the 4 of hearts. :-(
There is so much more to business the current bottom line of a particular venture. A smart businessman, just like a smart AP, knows that the long run is far more important than the short run.
and lightning could strike, giving me a royal flush.
Tuna Dave, from your post above about playing crummy double deck because you were tired, your time might be better spent resting in order to properly play the decent games, not the garbage. No disrespect intended, I just hate to see people throwing their money away.
You are absolutely right. My time would be better spent resting away from the casino. However, even though I play a very disciplined game of blackjack, I still have some of those gambling instincts. So, on every trip, I set aside $100-$200 to blow at the LIR table. Sometimes I win, most times I lose. But on many occasions, I can sit an entire evening at the LIR table and have lots of fun. And, I find LIR players to be very pleasant company... not as intense as BJ players.
Yes, I know I am rationalizing here. But, what the hell. Since this forum is part informational, part congregational and part confessional, I thought I could share a little with the group.
Forgive me, Advantage Players, for I have sinned. I have spent valuable blackjack money on a silly game of Let It Ride. What do I need to do to obtain forgiveness from the group? :-)
With perfect strategy the house edge is calcaulated to be about 3.5%
FYI I got my numbers from //wizardofodds.com
Some goods points made by other posters is that the odds do not include speed of play and assume perfect play.
Let it ride works for me, in that I can let my girlfriend play it. She can't handle flat betting at blackjack and I nearly scream when I put out 1 unit and she'll put out 4 cause she feels like it.
With let it ride she can bet 3 units then loose only 1 - woo hoo! And the game moves (in my opinion) slower than blackjack so without doing the math I'm convinced I'm saving money.
Where I really save money is that it keeps her away from Carabean Stud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which I believe our beloved Max Ruben said was a good game for the gambler. (on "Vegas Sucker Bets"). He said he didn't think there were any bad games.
Bj21 uses cookies, this enables us to provide you with a personalised experience. More info