Comments on: Max Rubin tells casino execs: "Don’t sweat the money"

By: Matt44

Matt44 — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 13:05:15 +0000

Whether dollars or percentages, the hold must overcome the direct labor and other expenses associated with dealing BJ. The argument of a larger drop with a lower hold % resulting in more dollar profit contribution is fine if the resulting dollar gain offsets the higher expense dollar costs associated with the higher drop.
As an example, if all direct expenses amount to (let’s assume) 10 to 12% of the higher drop, no matter how high the drop, the hold must exceed the 10 to 12% hurdle.
And, I am not saying that it cannot be done. I am saying that it seems easier for Casinos to do it the other the other way then to offer single deck BJ with great rules. Alas, I miss the good old days!

By: Ken Smith

Ken Smith — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:46:52 +0000

I disagree. I think Max is talking about the uninformed use of hold % without taking into account actual dollars. There’s no mention of more or fewer tables (read labor expense). Instead, each table should be judged on profit (drop X hold), rather than hold % alone.

By: Matt44

Matt44 — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:29:52 +0000

Great article, eternal discussion. Unfortunately, high direct labor costs associated with offering a BJ game favor a higher % hold versus a higher $ drop (at a lower % hold).
The economics improve as the table minimum and average bet move up.