That game is almost impossible to win if you play a 100 hands or more. The dealers hate the game because people are playing for really small stakes and dealers make money on tips so they prefer stakes to be a little higher because most people tip on winnings. Low stakes means low winnings. The odds of winning over 100 hands is under 1% if you bet a $1 every hand. Game is very profitable for casino if suckers are willing to play it.
Economics of $1 Blackjack
- Thread starter zoomie
- Start date
zoomie said:
Idle curiosity made me do some calculations about $1 BJ, which is all the rage in AC now. Assuming 5 players per table, a $0.25 ante per hand, an average bet of $1.50, 50 rounds per hour, 2% HE, I get a total revenue number of $70.00 hourly for the house, of which only $7.50 is betting wins, with the $62.50 balance being from the ante. Overall HE is nearly 19% :flame:
Using the same figures for a $10 min table, but assuming an average bet of $12, I get hourly revenue of only $60.00. No wonder that, in stores that tend toward a lower min anyway, the $1 game is so popular with management. :cry: (At a $15 table with a $17 average bet, revenue is $85 hourly, so the more upscale stores should have no interest in $1 BJ.)
Meanwhile, the poor ploppies are actually paying slightly more per hour to play $1 BJ than they would - as a group - at the $10 table (but their individual variance is lower).
Using the same figures for a $10 min table, but assuming an average bet of $12, I get hourly revenue of only $60.00. No wonder that, in stores that tend toward a lower min anyway, the $1 game is so popular with management. :cry: (At a $15 table with a $17 average bet, revenue is $85 hourly, so the more upscale stores should have no interest in $1 BJ.)
Meanwhile, the poor ploppies are actually paying slightly more per hour to play $1 BJ than they would - as a group - at the $10 table (but their individual variance is lower).