Number of Spots on BJ Table

When I played blackjack quite some time ago, I always *thought* the number of spots on blackjack tables were seven. I recently started playing again (about a year ago), and I've realized that the number of spots actually varies from 5 to 7. (Is the casino trying to reduce the players' edge by eliminating spots?) Does anybody know the "theory" behind the number of spots on blackjack tables (that is, if there is any)?

~Black Jack in the Box.

More player positions equals less hands per hour, therefore, it reduces your hourly winning rate if in fact you are winning.

Higher Limit rooms usually have fewer spots on the table. The idea is that people betting black, or sometimes even green, shouldn't be packed in like sardines.

If you deal to 6 people at a time, each playing $5 a hand, the casino is making a percentage of $30 each round. However, if you deal to 7 people thats $35 a round. Volume counts in a casino. They won't reduce a player's edge by having more spots, as a matter of fact this is a benefit to players without an edge. But it increases the total amount wagered per hour for that table, and thus a larger win for the casino. It will also save on labor. Why have 2 dealers each at tables with 3 spots when you can have 1 dealer at a table with 7 spots, and save on the labor.

I remember back in the '70s, when the late, lamented Dunes changed over from SD to 4D.

They kept the layouts (felts) with 7 spots, but put only 6 chairs at each table.

When I asked why, it was explained to me that with 4 decks, the ratio between playing time and shuffling time was better with 6 players than with 7.

Thank god for the casinos who actually consider the comfort and accomadations of customers, rather than the greedy casinos who couldn't care less about them and shut down other tables in order to force as many people as possible to take up every square inch at the table untill patrons have no space to even breath, much less gamble. Let's admit it, gambling at a packed blackjack table is NOT very comfortable or enjoyable,is it?

A casino that enjoys being greedy and has no concern for patrons will offer a tight intense uncomfortable atmosphere for their patrons to deal with. This can easily come back to haunt them. They may eventually witness less and less patrons. No wonder why the idiot ways and theories of these casino managers has often lead them to get the boot.

it also means less hands per hour meaning less money for casino. The ideal number of players per table for most hands per hour is between 3-4 people per table .

most blackjack games for high stakes were single deck. Casinos figured out that a 5 spot single deck table with two rounds dealt was less vunerable to counting than a 7 spot table with two rounds dealt. This is the main reason for 5 or 6 spot tables. Of course, the casinos would still make more dealing two rounds to 7 at single deck, even with a card counter playing at third base, because the casino gets more money in action from the other players. The casinos just can't stand for any player to have an edge and would rather win less overall than for management to risk having to explain how one player with an advantage happened to win big against a certain shift.

As time passed, the casinos then discovered that players were more comfortable at blackjack tables with fewer spots. It costs the casinos considerably, but generally this is a benefit to counters as less crowded tables help us, (with the exception being single deck games where a two rounds to 7 game is fantastic and a two rounds to 5 game is poor).

With single deck and 5 spots, the casino may deal 2 rounds when lots of small cards come out and deal 3 rounds when lots of high cards come out during the 1st 2 rounds. After 2 rounds, if lots of small cards come out, the count is now high, but there are not "enough" cards to deal a 3rd round - hence the deck is shuffled and all players are deprived of getting a round where the odds are in their favor.

After 2 rounds, if lots of large cards have appeared, there are enough cards left to deal a 3rd round, albeit at a negative count. All players that decide to play this 3rd round are playing at a disadvantage.

The above procedures allow the casino to reap a higher expected value (ev) from all players, regardless of skill level. For advantage players, simulations run on the Blackjack 6-7-8 software (available thru this site) suggest a reduction in ev of about 20%.

-Hal

>with the exception being single deck games where a two rounds to 7 game is fantastic

I don't quite get why this is fantastic. The second round is being dealt after you have seen approx. 8x2.7 = 21.6 cards, so it is not particularly deep. Sure, your strategy decisions at third base will be excellent on the second round (you will have seen about 14x2.7 = 37.8 cards by the time it is your turn to play the second round), but your betting correlation is based on shallow penetration. In addition, the game is so slow, the rounds per hour is way down there.

What am I missing that makes this game "fantastic?"

--Eliot

Some people (including myself) solely/almost solely use playing variation to get their advantage on BJ tables. Having said that,

>> The second round is being dealt after you have seen approx. 8x2.7 = 21.6 cards, so it is not particularly deep.

You have two rounds per shuffle for 7 players:
1st: Need to bet when you have seen no cards.
2nd: You have seen approximately 20 cards by the time you have to bet.

Compare this to, say, two rounds for four players, which is the *worst*:
1st: 0
2nd: ~13 cards

Or to, five rounds in head-on game.
1st: 0
2nd: ~5
3rd: ~10
4th: ~15
5th: ~20

Which one would you choose (solely based on the "average" number of cards you can see before betting)?

>> In addition, the game is so slow, the rounds per hour is way down there.

Well, that's the way it is. If you can find much faster game with better advantage, then go for it. I personally prefer head-on games to full tables (even though I can make much more efficient playing decisions at full table (with seven players) *on average*), but, in reality, they are hard to come by.

~Black Jack in the Box.

PS: BTW, not to nit-pick or anything, but your expression 14x2.7 is not completely accruate. The third baseman should be able to see 15.5 hands (including the hidden ones) before he has to make a decision on the second round.

>> Casinos figured out that a 5 spot single deck table with two rounds dealt was less vunerable to counting than a 7 spot table with two rounds dealt.

This is something I suspected. But, I was just wondering....

How Smart Is the Casino??? Do they really know what depth charging is? Or, Are They So Paranoid that they would rather cut their profits (by using small number of spots) than (potentially) give a tiny edge to the third base player who may, just may, be an advantage player (one in hundred? one in thousand?)???

In any case, you are right, bigplayer. I would rather play with some elbow room than play like "packed sardines".

Thanks,
~Black Jack in the Box.

Thanks for your response. My only question was why BP used the adjective "fantastic" to describe this game.

>14x2.7 is not completely accruate. The third baseman should be able to see 15.5 rounds

And 15.5x2.7 is too many, you have really seen 14x2.7 + 3 = 40.8 cards by the time play comes to you in the second round, which is excellent playing efficiency, no doubt. It's betting after seeing 8x2.7 = 21.6 cards that is not "fantastic" --

And, as I am sure you know, there are single deck games around that do much better than RO6.

Thanks for your response.

--Eliot

>> And, as I am sure you know, there are single deck games around that do much better than RO6.

No, I'm really new to this "fantastic" world of Advantage Play, and I know of very few casinos which even have SD games. (No ploppies would pay much attention to how many rounds are dealt between shuffles.) I'd be ectatic if you would be kind enough to share this information.

>> And 15.5x2.7 is too many, you have really seen 14x2.7 + 3 = 40.8 cards

Yes, I think we are agreeing. (It's just that the three(2+1) can be four(3+1) or five(4+1) depending on how many times you'll hit/double/split..., and I was just counting it as "one hand + 1".)

>> My only question was why BP used the adjective "fantastic" to describe this game.

Obvisouly, I cannot answer this on BP's behalf, but I was trying to say that *I* consider this "fantastic" from the PE perspective. (We are talking about ~80% penetration!)

Thanks,
~Black Jack in the Box.

There are single deck games with consistently better penetration than RO6. I know an AP who plays almost exclusively single deck, and almost never plays the LV games. But, LV has some decent SD games for those willing to seek them out. Last time I was there, I played heads-up with a dealer who was giving RO8 (or better) for an hour.

Just a few short years ago, it was much easier to find these games in LV.

--Eliot

run the numbers using BJRM. The increase in win rate from the deep penetration more than makes up for the slow speed. Think about it this way...50% of the rounds you play you will have very strong knowledge about composition of the remaining cards. Play deviations for the third base player will be made with only 6-8 cards left in the deck.

as it usually forces consistent number of rounds on the part of the casino.. When I play at a place that sometimes deals a third round I always find an excuse to sit out. If the dealer or pitboss asks me why I'm sitting out I say "the dealer has always only dealt two rounds per deck...I didn't understand why the dealer decided to deal an extra round so I always sit out when there is a third round."

Mostly SD. Of course it doesn't have stifling heat, insufferable tourists with insufferable kids, 24 hour traffic jams, and Mexicans jamming cock books in your gut on every street corner. Ahhhh, the glamour of fabulous Las Vegas.