Unfortunately many rubes know well enough to bet more when no aces come out, which makes these games less profitable than a 6 decker or even a 2 decker. That and card counters can crush them. There's really no reason for a casino to offer full pay single deck, is there? Good thing if you have skills, you can still make money on a 2, 4, 6 or even 8 deck game, huh?
hows the SD at mandalay bay?
- Thread starter jingber05
- Start date
These concerns can be addressed by shuffling more often and using a shuffle machine to compensate for the drop in game speed.
If you shuffled, say, every second hand if 3 or less people are at the table, and every hand if 4 or more people are at the table, you'd have sufficient game protection to make the game viable.
If you shuffled, say, every second hand if 3 or less people are at the table, and every hand if 4 or more people are at the table, you'd have sufficient game protection to make the game viable.
Sorry but single deck is dead, just have to live with it. There was a single deck game in my gaming market that lasted for a short time. None of the ploppies would play it. Too many shuffles for them, and this game often had rule of 7 penetration. So naturally the only people who played it were knowledgeable players.
The casino tried to offer a good single deck game at $25 minimum, but as many times as I saw that table empty leads me to believe the public didn't want it.
Also you really need to understand that "house advantage" is just one of many things that determines how profitable a game is. For instance would you rather play a 6-5 game dealt to the last card, or a 3:2 game where they shuffle after every hand? There is only one correct answer.
The casino tried to offer a good single deck game at $25 minimum, but as many times as I saw that table empty leads me to believe the public didn't want it.
Also you really need to understand that "house advantage" is just one of many things that determines how profitable a game is. For instance would you rather play a 6-5 game dealt to the last card, or a 3:2 game where they shuffle after every hand? There is only one correct answer.
I'm aware that house edge isn't the only factor involved. I'm aware that penetration matters as well, not just for APs but also because a certain amount of penetration helps the perception of game integrity (i.e. people are more likely to accept that the game is fair).
As a basic strategy player, I'd pick the 3:2 where they shuffle after every hand. Lower house edge and lower hands per hour. I think APs would prefer the 6-5 down to the last card, though, for obvious reasons.
Is single deck 3:2 dead? I don't think so; there are still some casinos that offer it. Naturally they'd have to watch the game like hawks, I accept.
I do accept, however, single deck blackjack with a full payout would not survive in some markets (shrewder markets) but I think there are niches where it can survive.
As a basic strategy player, I'd pick the 3:2 where they shuffle after every hand. Lower house edge and lower hands per hour. I think APs would prefer the 6-5 down to the last card, though, for obvious reasons.
Is single deck 3:2 dead? I don't think so; there are still some casinos that offer it. Naturally they'd have to watch the game like hawks, I accept.
I do accept, however, single deck blackjack with a full payout would not survive in some markets (shrewder markets) but I think there are niches where it can survive.
:laugh:
You'd need to go without I.D. (or a car registered in your name) — and place flyers under
the windshield wipers in the thousands of cars that are parked in casino garages.
We, (the physically able), should agree to volunteer for this as a group action — selecting
one casino at a time wekly— as it would need to be done quickly as in a blitzkrieg action.
The only problem is the security staff on bicycles will go around removing them;
except those that are slipped into the many slightly opened car windows.
I'm surprised a place like Harrah's hasn't gone 100% 6:5 yet. I can't think of any reason for them not to at least try. Even gamblers who understand the implications of 6:5 will still play it if it's their only choice, because they're gamblers. It's only a matter of time before a few forerunners convert all their blackjack games to 6:5, and then only a matter of time after that 6:5 is ubiquitous.
So, do the exact opposite of the comical suggestion to take it easy on places that offer better games. Pound those places hard and do it now, before it's too late. 6:5 is an inevitability, because casual gamblers are largely insensitive to increases in the house edge on any and all casino games, including blackjack. In fact, Gary Loveman recently gave a talk on this very subject in the context of slot machines, that Harrah's had determined that slot machines got the same amount of play even if their payouts were made less favorable for gamblers. So, under Loveman's leadership Harrah's has tweaked its slots in general to be more favorable to the house. The NGC sets limits on how unfavorable slots can be to gamblers, and I imagine Harrah's is right up against those limits across all their machines by now.
Ploppies don't care; they just want to gamble. 6:5 or 3:2, they just don't care. There is simply no reason for casinos to still spread 3:2 games other than tradition, and that isn't enough to keep them around for very much longer. The biggest of whales can always request certain rules anyway, so the casinos don't have to fear losing their best customers if they change to 6:5 on all their tables. Emerging whales will be accustomed to modern conditions, and in time these new whales will play 6:5 just like everyone else, because it's what they're used to.
So, do the exact opposite of the comical suggestion to take it easy on places that offer better games. Pound those places hard and do it now, before it's too late. 6:5 is an inevitability, because casual gamblers are largely insensitive to increases in the house edge on any and all casino games, including blackjack. In fact, Gary Loveman recently gave a talk on this very subject in the context of slot machines, that Harrah's had determined that slot machines got the same amount of play even if their payouts were made less favorable for gamblers. So, under Loveman's leadership Harrah's has tweaked its slots in general to be more favorable to the house. The NGC sets limits on how unfavorable slots can be to gamblers, and I imagine Harrah's is right up against those limits across all their machines by now.
Ploppies don't care; they just want to gamble. 6:5 or 3:2, they just don't care. There is simply no reason for casinos to still spread 3:2 games other than tradition, and that isn't enough to keep them around for very much longer. The biggest of whales can always request certain rules anyway, so the casinos don't have to fear losing their best customers if they change to 6:5 on all their tables. Emerging whales will be accustomed to modern conditions, and in time these new whales will play 6:5 just like everyone else, because it's what they're used to.
I just don't see 6:5 becoming a mainstay. The big reason? Competition. If someone like Harrah's goes 100% 6:5, there could easily be a campaign from a rival casino that will advertise their games.
6:5 is a fine balance for the casinos. They know that they are fleecing the ploppies, but they don't want the ploppies to wake up and realize that they are getting screwed.
Stations have tried to implement 6:5, but the locals are generally not dumb enough to play the games when they realize that they only get $12 for a $10 bet instead of $15.
The Strip is different. I'm curious to know if O'Sheas is doing well, as all of their tables are 6:5.
6:5 is a fine balance for the casinos. They know that they are fleecing the ploppies, but they don't want the ploppies to wake up and realize that they are getting screwed.
Stations have tried to implement 6:5, but the locals are generally not dumb enough to play the games when they realize that they only get $12 for a $10 bet instead of $15.
The Strip is different. I'm curious to know if O'Sheas is doing well, as all of their tables are 6:5.
Last edited:
The same competition that has led to the degradation in blackjack rules and conditions over the last few decades? Where was competition when H17 took over, or when games went from single to double to four to six to eight decks to CSMs? How has 6:5 already come to outnumber 3:2 on single deck games? The same competition that has people lining up to play single zero roulette but never playing double zero roulette? You're out of your mind if you think the oligopoly that is gaming in Las Vegas actually engages in any competition.
Like I said, slot payouts at Harrah's are as bad as legally possible. This has not hurt them. People are irrational. Gamblers just want to gamble and they don't really care what the odds are. They will gamble at whatever odds are given to them. Joe Average gambler does not shop around at sportsbooks for the best price, or shy away from carnival games or keno, or seek out the best blackjack rules. Competing for players like this has nothing to do with offering games with the best odds, and everything to do with all the other stuff. I am certain that if 6:5 were implemented on every blackjack game in Harrah's, people would still play, and that it would eventually spread.
As I said, it was from a talk. Not an interview or a paper. I doubt it exists on the internet.
Like I said, slot payouts at Harrah's are as bad as legally possible. This has not hurt them. People are irrational. Gamblers just want to gamble and they don't really care what the odds are. They will gamble at whatever odds are given to them. Joe Average gambler does not shop around at sportsbooks for the best price, or shy away from carnival games or keno, or seek out the best blackjack rules. Competing for players like this has nothing to do with offering games with the best odds, and everything to do with all the other stuff. I am certain that if 6:5 were implemented on every blackjack game in Harrah's, people would still play, and that it would eventually spread.
As I said, it was from a talk. Not an interview or a paper. I doubt it exists on the internet.
