LA Times article surveys the Vegas blackjack scene

From the Los Angeles Times:
(Dead link: http://travel.latimes.com/articles/article/la-tr-vegas25feb25?single_page=y) _Las Vegas: A Winners Guide to Blackjack_

An excerpt:

Great article. Hopefully it will get the powers-that-be thinking...

Vegas has really gone downhill. Now you can't even wong into tables anymore because they are all starting to put in $200 max bets if you enter a game in mid-shoe. I blame the mega resorts which attract tourists instead of gamblers. Tourists have no problem blowing their money because it is simply a part of their holidays. There are much better games outside of Nevada now.

"Why should I play here when you pay only 6-to-5?" I asked.

She paused for a moment, then said, "Well, we call this the Party Pit," pointing out that the Flamingo's new theme is that of a Cancún-like tropical beach party.

I dont know about the rest of you, but I have noticed people dont directly answer questions anymore. She might have said "because the house makes more money with 6-to-5 blackjack."

Or "We were hoping you wouldn't understand or care".

The original answer

Back when 6/5 first came into being I mentioned to a pit that this was a horrible rule for the players. Her answer was, "you do not get that many blackjacks anyway, so it makes little difference." Instead of giving her a math lesson and sounding like perhaps I knew what I was doing, I replied, "if it makes little difference, why did you change the rule in the first place?" Her reply, "I have to take care of something on the other end of the pit."

Meanwhile, in my case there are still more than enough decent games in Vegas to keep me happy. The problem is that if you play in Vegas now for less than a quarter, the playable games are much fewer, often in places that sweat the money and at times only available at off hours.

ihate17