Blackjack poll

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#1
I am forwarding this idea, originally posted over at BJ21 to this site because there is the slightest chance we could all benefit by participating.

Las Vegas sun has an article about BJ games in vegas complete with a reader poll about whether players prefer party pit atmosphere blackjack paying 6-5, traditional blackjack paying 3-2, or no blackjack. Currently traditional blackjack has about 80% of votes. It only takes a second to vote and no registration or anything is required and just on the off chance that some casino exec could take note, please vote.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/26/blackjack-payouts-drop-oh-those-dancers/
 

Lonesome Gambler

Well-Known Member
#2
"The concept produces the best of all worlds for the Hard Rock — table minimums are $25 and often climb to $100 when demand is high, automatic shuffling machines keep the games moving quickly and players tend to stay longer to admire the eye candy. And the tables pay 6:5."

Almost threw up in my mouth.
 

ChefJJ

Well-Known Member
#5
Harrah's

I guess if any company is up for the task, it would be Harrah's. :flame:

I've got such mixed emotions about Harrah's because the Total Rewards system is decent with its far-reaching system with decent offers. With Reel Rewards, they pretty much pay you to get a good amount of points on your account...the BJ just continues to lead the way towards skankiness.

Such is life. :cool: The days of our flush economy and good profits for the casinos have passed on for now, so the average player sees the games and comp offers tighten. CEOs think this helps their bottom line, but does it? It's the same question that gets posed around here all the time, and we know what our answers are. :rolleyes:

good luck :joker:
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#8
Lonesome Gambler said:
"The concept produces the best of all worlds for the Hard Rock — table minimums are $25 and often climb to $100 when demand is high, automatic shuffling machines keep the games moving quickly and players tend to stay longer to admire the eye candy. And the tables pay 6:5."

Almost threw up in my mouth.
Last time I was there they were not ASMs, they were CSMs. There's a big difference. Little chance at all to win any money is the trade-off for sexy dancing girls, non-stop music and a party atmosphere. The joint was packed.
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#9
21forme said:
Why stop there ChefJJ?
Which casino will be first to make a player BJ an automatic losing hand? Harrahs? :laugh:
That's a concept! And dealers beat the table with 22, including blackjacks. :eek: And why not? 22 is larger than 21! It's all good.:grin: Step right up. Put your money down. Have a good time. Hurray for Harrah's! :laugh:
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#10
ChefJJ said:
I've got such mixed emotions about Harrah's because the Total Rewards system is decent with its far-reaching system with decent offers.
I've got to hand it to them, they pay suckers handsomely!
 

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#13
You horn dogs are amazing. :(:eek: Half naked women over 3-2 blackjack. :( If you want to see naked women go to the tittie bar. Let's leave the blackjack tables for winning money. Better yet, take your winnings from 3-2 blackjack and go to the tittie bar. :laugh:

Seperate business and pleasure!
 

prankster

Well-Known Member
#15
kewljason said:
You horn dogs are amazing. :(:eek: Half naked women over 3-2 blackjack. :( If you want to see naked women go to the tittie bar. Let's leave the blackjack tables for winning money. Better yet, take your winnings from 3-2 blackjack and go to the tittie bar. :laugh:

Seperate business and pleasure!
sounds right!:joker:
 
#16
I was so bummed when I arrived at the Golden Gate to find that the pianist had been replaced by the party pit girls, leaving the piano empty. It's not like I care about their BJ payouts, as their games are preposterously bad, but this party pit garbage has really taken over, even at the places that used to have a little class.
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#17
Lonesome Gambler said:
I was so bummed when I arrived at the Golden Gate to find that the pianist had been replaced by the party pit girls, leaving the piano empty. It's not like I care about their BJ payouts, as their games are preposterously bad, but this party pit garbage has really taken over, even at the places that used to have a little class.
Some casinos have successfully changed their image; they have become more than just casinos.

Where the focus of casinos is on gambling, you can't get away with unbeatable games. The word gets around that you can't win at Charlies' Casino and eventually no one goes there anymore.

But if casinos focus on becoming entertainment venues rather than gambling venues, then you can pull out all the stops. Instead of charging admission to the show and charging additionally for the alcoholic beverages, the casino model is: free admission, free alcohol, and it's all paid for by the incidental gambling, which is itself a form of entertainment. The focus has shifted from gambling to entertainment in general. Dancing girls, customer guys and customer girls looking for a good time, free beer and mixed drinks, the latest rage in music, bands, singers--now you can slip in all those CSMs and unbeatable games because no one is paying attention to them anyway. It's party time!!! It's what's happening!!! Be there or be square!!!

Have you been to Hard Rock in Vegas lately? CSM City! And wall-to-wall people, including a few off-duty card counters. Only in America.
 

blackchipjim

Well-Known Member
#18
Party pit pity!

I walk thru some of these joints now and just shake my head. I get so disgusted at the garbage they offer and some of the places are loaded. They have brainwashed people at least young men and some old into tolerating this. I go to a half dozen places on strip to play because that is about all that is left in my br range and rule requirements. I find much better games and less bullcrap off the strip and since I always get a car when I go it makes for a better trip. I can honestly say I rarely walk the strip anymore becasue of the poor playing conditions. I don't need nor want entertainment at the expense of the game. The cocktail waiteresses are enough to gawk at if I want a minor distraction.
 

StudiodeKadent

Well-Known Member
#19
I hate to be the contrarian here, but honestly, remember that APing is not universalizable conduct (if everyone were an APer than blackjack would not be offered by casinos) and those sucker games end up subsidizing AP-able games.

Blackjack indeed is popular because the game has a low house margin and is beatable by card counting. However, the game does have to be profitable for casinos and the game does need to have generally low house edges for basic strategy players.

There are 4 constituencies here;
1) Advantage Players that require a game that is beatable
2) Casinos that need the game to be overall profitable
3) Basic strategy players that need a sensible house edge
4) The dumb mass market who are the primary customers

All these groups need to be factored into consideration when deciding whether a set of gambling conditions are good or bad.

I should clarify that over the long run, if any of these constituencies screws over the others, the situation will be bad for everyone involved. It is probably fair to say that, these days, Constituency 2 is excessively paranoid about Constiuency 1 and as a result of this is shafting Constituency 3 by hiking house edges (which is also bad for Constituency 4). What is required is balance between all the relevant interests.

That said, my (admittedly somewhat arbitrary) standard for an "acceptable" house edge is 0.5%. Any game over this should not be played (although obviously one should play the lowest edge game one can get, assuming a multitude of games with acceptably low house edges). I also think CSMs CAN be acceptable if the rules are more liberal than an equivalently-priced shoe-dealt game (or the limits are lower than an equivalent-rules shoe dealt game) and the game is played with 4 or 5 decks and there is a 1 deck discard tray (this provides variance, which makes the game more exciting).

If we add in a Party Pit to the equation, then we have a situation where it is proper to raise the house edge as a payment for the utility provided by the eye-candy.

6:5? I think that is too extreme, honestly. But I think in the case of a Party Pit, a house edge approaching 1% is fair payment. So a 7:5 payout on an H17 8D LS RSA DA2 (HE: approx 0.9%) game is, in my judgment, a fair tradeoff for the utility provided by the eye candy.

I should add that I think any single casino should offer games suited for all consitutencies, and I think that making one's entire blackjack selection "party pit" is a foolish strategy over the long term.

Would I personally play a party pit game? Probably not. I'm a stingy gambler and a house-edge fundamentalist and if I want to see some eye candy I'd go to a specialist establishment (although I am certainly contemplating a visit to the Playboy Club at the Palms... it might be H17 @ 25 mins, but the rules are otherwise liberal and I'd consider the H17 a reasonable tradeoff for the atmosphere).

But my definition of a "reasonable gamble" is not everyone elses.

Also, as to the "I only tolerate topless dealers if the dealers are female," what about opposite-sex-attracted (i.e. straight or bi) women who play blackjack? I'm sure several of them would enjoy a bit of fanservice here and there. Same applies to same-sex-attracted (i.e. gay or bi) men. From a business perspective, Fanservice For Everybody is a profitable approach.
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#20
StudiodeKadent said:
I hate to be the contrarian here, but honestly, remember that APing is not universalizable conduct (if everyone were an APer than blackjack would not be offered by casinos) and those sucker games end up subsidizing AP-able games.

Blackjack indeed is popular because the game has a low house margin and is beatable by card counting. However, the game does have to be profitable for casinos and the game does need to have generally low house edges for basic strategy players.

There are 4 constituencies here;
1) Advantage Players that require a game that is beatable
2) Casinos that need the game to be overall profitable
3) Basic strategy players that need a sensible house edge
4) The dumb mass market who are the primary customers

All these groups need to be factored into consideration when deciding whether a set of gambling conditions are good or bad.

I should clarify that over the long run, if any of these constituencies screws over the others, the situation will be bad for everyone involved. It is probably fair to say that, these days, Constituency 2 is excessively paranoid about Constiuency 1 and as a result of this is shafting Constituency 3 by hiking house edges (which is also bad for Constituency 4). What is required is balance between all the relevant interests.

That said, my (admittedly somewhat arbitrary) standard for an "acceptable" house edge is 0.5%. Any game over this should not be played (although obviously one should play the lowest edge game one can get, assuming a multitude of games with acceptably low house edges). I also think CSMs CAN be acceptable if the rules are more liberal than an equivalently-priced shoe-dealt game (or the limits are lower than an equivalent-rules shoe dealt game) and the game is played with 4 or 5 decks and there is a 1 deck discard tray (this provides variance, which makes the game more exciting).

If we add in a Party Pit to the equation, then we have a situation where it is proper to raise the house edge as a payment for the utility provided by the eye-candy.

6:5? I think that is too extreme, honestly. But I think in the case of a Party Pit, a house edge approaching 1% is fair payment. So a 7:5 payout on an H17 8D LS RSA DA2 (HE: approx 0.9%) game is, in my judgment, a fair tradeoff for the utility provided by the eye candy.

I should add that I think any single casino should offer games suited for all consitutencies, and I think that making one's entire blackjack selection "party pit" is a foolish strategy over the long term.

Would I personally play a party pit game? Probably not. I'm a stingy gambler and a house-edge fundamentalist and if I want to see some eye candy I'd go to a specialist establishment (although I am certainly contemplating a visit to the Playboy Club at the Palms... it might be H17 @ 25 mins, but the rules are otherwise liberal and I'd consider the H17 a reasonable tradeoff for the atmosphere).

But my definition of a "reasonable gamble" is not everyone elses.

Also, as to the "I only tolerate topless dealers if the dealers are female," what about opposite-sex-attracted (i.e. straight or bi) women who play blackjack? I'm sure several of them would enjoy a bit of fanservice here and there. Same applies to same-sex-attracted (i.e. gay or bi) men. From a business perspective, Fanservice For Everybody is a profitable approach.
Sorry to be counter-contrarian, but I don't deal in trade-offs for eye candy as you call it. Also, I don't find any CSM game an acceptable trade-off for any purpose unless there are other AP possibilities there. I may want to have a good time while I'm at the table, but I don't believe it wise to trade off winning possibilities for entertainment. In fact, I know for certain that I will not feel entertained if I lose my money in the process. Any AP who does, is in reality a DP IMHO.

PS--I have a gambling buddy who is always trying to get me to "go in" with him to procure a high class AC hooker. I guess to him that represents an "advantage play." What you do with your money after you gamble is your business, but I don't go to AC or other gambling havens to be someone else's advantage play, be it the hooker's or my buddy's.
 
Top