For Your Consideration

[StudiodeKadent]

A nice little hypothetical "if Australian casinos were sane" thought experiment...

Question: Do you think the following conditions are both 1) acceptable to basic strategy players, 2) permitting of just enough low-limit counting to keep the game's appeal strong, and 3) still very profitable for a casino that would implement them?

MAIN FLOOR BLACKJACK CONDITIONS
8 Deck
Shoes w/Auto Shufflers
5 decks dealt before reshuffle (pen = 62.5%)
S17
DA2
DAS
Split to 3
nRSA
No Surrender
OBO if Dealer BJ's
House Edge: 0.45%

HIGH LIMIT BLACKJACK CONDITIONS
6 Deck
Shoes, hand shuffled
4 decks dealt before reshuffle (pen = 66.6%)
S17
DA2
DAS
Split to 3
RSA
No Surrender
OBO if Dealer BJ's
House Edge: 0.37%

ADVANTAGES
1) Low house edges mean a good game for basic strategy players
2) Low house edges attract more customers
3) No CSMs cut down initial costs
4) Relatively low penetration is good for game protection (thus CSMs are not necessary)
5) ASM's speed up shuffle time, thus nullifying the game speed advantage of CSM's

 

[Koz1984]

I prefer Crown VIP rooms where the rules are relatively crap, but offer up to 90% pen.

 

[StudiodeKadent]

I prefer Crown VIP rooms where the rules are relatively crap, but offer up to 90% pen.

Understandable sentiment for an advantage player, but that wasn't an answer to the actual question.

And being a basic strategy player, I'm happy to sacrifice penetration for good rules (ceteris paribus). The question is about balancing the interests of all the different constituencies of consumers.

 

[Koz1984]

Australian Casino's are very backwards in their thinking, and assume the 0.05% of players who legitimately win at their games are seriously hurting their bottom line. They're not. And to change the rules as they have done over the past years will only cause the high rolling Asians to leave in their droves, costing them money. The only reason H17 wasn't introduced in the Mahogany Room was for that exact reason, it was considered outrageous by the high rollers. CSM's, again, costing them money. I think they're trying to prove a point that nobody deserves to make their establishment a place of income.

 

[StudiodeKadent]

Australian Casino's are very backwards in their thinking, and assume the 0.05% of players who legitimately win at their games are seriously hurting their bottom line. They're not. And to change the rules as they have done over the past years will only cause the high rolling Asians to leave in their droves, costing them money. The only reason H17 wasn't introduced in the Mahogany Room was for that exact reason, it was considered outrageous by the high rollers. CSM's, again, costing them money. I think they're trying to prove a point that nobody deserves to make their establishment a place of income.

Oh, I agree with you entirely. Its an unfortunate situation.

But that's why this topic is a hypothetical. I was simply asking if you think a regime based on the rules above would satisfy the needs of all constituencies.

 

[Koz1984]

I think that on the $5-$15 tables that perhaps yes, leave the poor rules if they wish. Have 6:5 BJ, H17, Double 9,10,11 only. But they have $100 tables on the main floor with ridiculous restrictions such as D9,10,11 only! $100 tables! I think at the $25 level and above they should employ the rules they have in the Mahogany Room, that is, S17, DOA. At $50/$100 tables, perhaps introduce the surrender rule, and reduce it to 4-6 decks.

 

[StudiodeKadent]

I think that on the $5-$15 tables that perhaps yes, leave the poor rules if they wish. Have 6:5 BJ, H17, Double 9,10,11 only. But they have $100 tables on the main floor with ridiculous restrictions such as D9,10,11 only! $100 tables! I think at the $25 level and above they should employ the rules they have in the Mahogany Room, that is, S17, DOA. At $50/$100 tables, perhaps introduce the surrender rule, and reduce it to 4-6 decks.

But, do you think that IF an Australian casino openned, with the conditions described in the first post of this thread, said conditions would satisfy all major constituencies (i.e. basic strategy players, low-limit advantage players, and the casino itself)?

 

[Koz1984]

Yes perhaps very low stakes AP players, the penetration is quite poor at best. It wouldn't attract any serious AP players. I wouldn't be too happy with 5/8 decks being cut. I already cringe at the dealers who cut 2 decks. But for the basic strategy player the conditions are quite favourable, and reduce the HE significantly from what it is currently.

 

[StudiodeKadent]

Yes perhaps very low stakes AP players, the penetration is quite poor at best. It wouldn't attract any serious AP players. I wouldn't be too happy with 5/8 decks being cut. I already cringe at the dealers who cut 2 decks. But for the basic strategy player the conditions are quite favourable, and reduce the HE significantly from what it is currently.

Thanks for your perspective. The problem is that in a high limit room, AP's can do serious damage to a casino. But AP is a significant reason blackjack is such a popular game (the other is the generally low house edge). So obviously there is a trade-off. The casino should basically turn a blind eye to non-aggressive advantage play at low limits (say, spreading 1 to 4). Although I can understand a rationale for prohibiting AP's from a high limit room and/or flat-betting them in a high limit room.

A problem with the casino market is that intelligent gamblers have a lower margin than smart gamblers, and only smart gamblers truly care about a good game. The first casino that offers a good game will capture the least profitable (in terms of "proportionally loses the least money compared to their initial wagers") sector of it. However, at the same time, intelligent gamblers are also more loyal customers to a good casino and tend to gamble higher amounts of money.

In an area with competition, however, they can be an asset for the reasons stated above.

 

[Koz1984]

I believe the only thing that will aid the situation is competition. Since its open in 1994 Crown has turned BJ into a farce. It originally had DA2, re-split aces, S17 and other favourable rules across the board. Now its running a carnival with mere offspring of the game of Blackjack. Building another Casino in Melbourne, perhaps also one in a rural area, will force Crown to reassess the games it offers. And this isn't only to assist AP players, it would benefit regular punters who are being scammed for millions more than they should have to.

 

[blackjackstudent]

Monopoly is the word

Yes Australian casinos are based on monopolies. There is only one casino per 500km and sometimes one casino per state. Imagine if there is only three casinos in the state of California. I know California casinos dont offer proper BJ by law with the exception of Indian-based casinos but in the state of California, there are over 500 casinos.

Of course, if there is one casino per 500 km, the casino will bend the rules to its favour thus increasing the house edge of the games.

You need a large bankroll to be able to capitalize when it comes to playing in Australian casinos and seriously intent on making a decent profit. The bankroll has to be replenishable and the reason why there is less heat in Australian casinos is that if you have to employ a big spread to overcome the house edge. Casinos love new counters because more often than not, their bankroll can sometimes dwindle and they will eventually succumb.

Good luck fellow Aussies ! I doubt that there will be any more casinos opening in the next ten years.

 

[Koz1984]

Well there have been talks for a second casino in Victoria for a while now, possibly in Mildura or a second one in Melbourne. I hope that a second one comes to Melbourne, forcing Crown to either become a ghost town or change the rules back to days of old.

 

[blackjackstudent]

Depends on State Govt Koz

Yes, it all depends how hungry is the the Labour Govt of Brumby is in terms of its finances. You see all Australian casinos are heavily influenced by the government and whilst the government has to state that its casinos does not encourage problem gambling, this reality is a farce. Casinos of course encourage problem gambling - pokie venues encourage problem gambling. I think if Labour is in control, anything is possible. I probably would say maybe a casino in Mildura but not an extra one in Melbourne because Melbourne is right in the epicentre of the city.

 

[StudiodeKadent]

I believe the only thing that will aid the situation is competition. Since its open in 1994 Crown has turned BJ into a farce. It originally had DA2, re-split aces, S17 and other favourable rules across the board. Now its running a carnival with mere offspring of the game of Blackjack. Building another Casino in Melbourne, perhaps also one in a rural area, will force Crown to reassess the games it offers. And this isn't only to assist AP players, it would benefit regular punters who are being scammed for millions more than they should have to.

I agree with you entirely. At least over time, competition would slash house edges.

Unfortunately, gambling policy in Australia is controlled by emotionalist debates over "pokies stealing food from the mouths of hungry children" rather than dispassionate economic analysis.