What is wrong with Marina Bay Sands?

  • Mr. T

    What is wrong with Marina Bay Sands?

    They only filed with the government for 9 table games whereas their rival RWS filed for 19.
    They did not filed for Pontoon a variation of BJ which is even more popular here than BJ itself.
    Their HA for BJ is 0.16% which looks like a knock off from their Macau operation whereas their rival HA is 0.62%. They have a duoploy here whereas in Macau they have 30+ other casino competitors.

    Looks like they have lost the ball they have been playing with.

  • StudiodeKadent

     

    Quote: Mr. T said:
    They only filed with the government for 9 table games whereas their rival RWS filed for 19.

    This isn’t necessarily bad. I mean, the big game amongst the Chinese population is Baccarat, and amongst Westerners the big game is Blackjack. These games are the biggest money spinners. I think its better to cut costs and specialize in the most popular games, generally speaking.

    Additionally, there are plenty of sucker games like Sic Bo and the like that will still be offerred.

    Quote:
    Their HA for BJ is 0.16% which looks like a knock off from their Macau operation whereas their rival HA is 0.62%. They have a duoploy here whereas in Macau they have 30+ other casino competitors.

    Technically they only have 5 other competitors; Wynn, MGM, SJM, Crown Melco and Galaxy. The chains have more or less harmonized rules across all their properties (although I think SJM uses 5 decks in the Old Lisboa but otherwise the rules are the same).

    Maybe MBS is trying to go for the hardcore gamblers and leave RWS to be the tourist’s casino? I mean, Universal Studios and (when its built) Equarius will get tons of people there and at least some of them will go through the RWS casino.

    And MBS’s clientelle will obviously have a lot of international businesspeople and conventioneers. They will be exposed to overseas markets and the enthusiastic gamblers among them will probably know Macau as well.

    Whilst I still think you’re overestimating RWS’s house edge, I agree that MBS could raise their edge without losing any business at all. They have an essentially captive local market, large throngs of international conventioneer/business types, etc.

    So the cynic in me would estimate that MBS would probably end up introducing an ENHC rule. That would raise their house edge back to 0.26%, like the Sands Macau before 2009. It would also make the game competitive with an S17 Vegas Strip game.

    If I were to attempt optimism, I’d hope (beyond reason) that RWS’s casino would lack gamblers and they’d introduce soft doubling. But this is unlikely. I’d think if anything, RWS would only liberalize rules on high-limit tables IF MBS ended up grabbing a very large share of the high-limit market and doing so in a way that RWS found did damage to their business.

    So, my predictions for Singapore’s two casinos?

    1) MBS will likely introduce ENHC, raising their house edge to 0.26%. Still better than RWS’s 0.33%.

    2) If MBS attracts high-limit blackjack players away from RWS, expect RWS to retaliate by introducing soft doubling at high limit blackjack. This would lower RWS’s high limit house edge to 0.24%

    I think the first situation is quite likely over time. The second one is only likely if both MBS and RWS are large enough to service all high-limit players.

The BlackjackInfo Knowledge Base contains over 200,000 messages posted by the BlackjackInfo community.

Posting and replies to the knowledge base are no longer available, but comments and replies are welcomed on the blog.