Does anyone know about any good Oklahoma locations? I heard they've opened up some casinos to blackjack, but have yet to visit any.
Does anyone know about any good Oklahoma locations? I heard they've opened up some casinos to blackjack, but have yet to visit any.
> Does anyone know about any good Oklahoma
> locations? I heard they've opened up some
> casinos to blackjack, but have yet to visit
> any.
Cherokee Casino East of Tulsa opened a huge poker room and blackjack -- Poker is good, but they are charging the .50 cent ante per hand on blackjack -- no good.
Winstar Casino now has blackjack and will be starting poker -- no idea on conditions.
Chocktaw Gaming Center in Durant now has blackjack -- no idea on conditions.
> Cherokee Casino East of Tulsa opened a huge
> poker room and blackjack -- Poker is good,
> but they are charging the .50 cent ante per
> hand on blackjack -- no good.
I have never heard of this. How does it work? I'm reading that for every hand you play you have to put up .50. It being an ante does that mean a player has a chance to win it?
Looking for an explanation if you don't mind.
Thanks!!!
No, it is a per hand rake. So if you bet $5, you get paid $4.50 on a win. It is a common practice at Indian Casinos. I think the money is being pooled, and then they will have a bunch of BJ tournaments or something, and use this fund (minus a house cut) to pay lucky ploppies fabulous prizes.
That's insane. Thank you for the explanation.
Kid
> No, it is a per hand rake. So if you bet $5,
> you get paid $4.50 on a win.
I haven't played the new games there but in the old days it had nothing to do with winning. It was $0.50 or $1.00 per hand period.
The dealers kept you supplied in silver as they made change which you kept in a neat little pile off to the side of your stack. Before every hand was dealt, they would go around the table picking up the ante off each pile. Very quick, very painless, you barely even knew they were doing it.
And as you say, the BJ profits that collect in the dealer's tray are allegedly to be paid back to the players in various forms -usually casino giveaways or no-entry-fee tournaments.
The ante is somewhere between really difficult to near impossile to overcome.
50 cents is too much to be charging per hand, and makes the house advantage ridiculously high. I refuse to play this at Winstar when I go, despite that Blackjack is my favorite casino game.
I sincerely hope that others will follow, although I doubt they will, looking at the hundreds (they just added 30 more tables!) of people who sit giving their fee, thinking "oh it's just 50 cents"... Not for me!
(as for giving back to the player, nope! Their comp system pays back around 0.17%. Stay away from this place until Harrah's opens across the street)
> 50 cents is too much to be charging per
> hand, and makes the house advantage
> ridiculously high. I refuse to play this at
> Winstar when I go, despite that Blackjack is
> my favorite casino game.
> I sincerely hope that others will follow,
> although I doubt they will, looking at the
> hundreds (they just added 30 more tables!)
> of people who sit giving their fee, thinking
> "oh it's just 50 cents"... Not for
> me!
Please take all of this with a grain of salt, because I've never been to the casino that is being discussed, but do not look past places with per hand collections so quickly, sometimes they will have very favorable promotions from my experience. I know of 5 guys who have collectively made over a million dollars in less than 4 years playing less than 10 hours per week at one of these places.
Good Luck
hard18
Of course if it was just about straight counting a game and depending on the EV, the collection fee is a killer.
If I have learned one thing from life that most certainly applies to BJ, that is open your eyes, look around you, and pay attention to what is really going on. Opportunity abounds for those who are able to see past 'what is.'
Maybe you would'nt mind going to the collection game and losing $10 a week (and who knows, variance might shine and you make $10) just so you could get invited to their monthly or quarterly BJ tournament that pays thousands?
Good luck.
Losing $10 a week would be fine for playing hours of blackjack, but I tend to play more than 20 hands in 30 minutes, let alone a week. The 50 cent charge will cost the average player $30 / hour, and no, Winstar has no promotions to make up for this kind of loss. They only have tickets that you can win to enter drawings, and their cashback only applies if you're playing $25 a hand (and it only pays back at 1/600 of a percent).
So in this case, Winstar is not the place to go for blackjack, unless you love the game so much that you are willing to never win money. I will save my money and continue to take trips to Vegas.
> Losing $10 a week would be fine for playing
> hours of blackjack, but I tend to play more
> than 20 hands in 30 minutes, let alone a
> week. The 50 cent charge will cost the
> average player $30 / hour, and no, Winstar
> has no promotions to make up for this kind
> of loss. They only have tickets that you can
> win to enter drawings, and their cashback
> only applies if you're playing $25 a hand
> (and it only pays back at 1/600 of a
> percent).
Another way to look at it: If your average bet is $25, that $.50/hand fee adds a whopping 2% to the advantage you must overcome. This makes the much-maligned (and rightfully so) 6:5 games look good by comparison. Most of the bonuses, promotions, etc., only add a few hundredths percent EV.
> So in this case, Winstar is not the place to
> go for blackjack, unless you love the game
> so much that you are willing to never win
> money. I will save my money and continue to
> take trips to Vegas.
A wise move, and one with which I fully concur. Shreeveport and Tunica are other options. Life is too short to play bad blackjack.
I stopped at an OK casino a couple of weeks ago and was mesmerized by this .50 cent ante. Do the casinos ever think about HOW MUCH THEY LOSE with this stupid plank? Clock it next time you sit down or watch one of these games. It takes FOREVER to play a round.
The money they make is way less than whatever they would make on the rake over a faster game! Kind of like penetration. They think they are so smart and all they do is shoot themselves in the foot!
I have not heard anyone talk about this aspect before, but it's pretty obvious to me that when you take 1/2 minute or more to collect the ante, make change, collect the ante, etc., it slows the game way down. Duh, more rounds per hour means more money to casino, less rounds per hour means less money to the casino.
I doubt this small ante would ever overcome the house advantage of a faster game. Think about it...at .50cents a hand times 6 is only $3.00 per round. (Maybe $200 per hour)
How many rounds less will be dealt during that hour to collect this stupid fee? Now, add the 15-20% they rake in on the hands they could have played with a faster game.
Can anyone come up with a general figure for whether or not the casinos make or lose money by having an ante? I don't know what it would be, but depending on the action at a particular table, I would think it would FAR EXCEED $200 they collect for this stupid fee.
Am I the only one that thinks like this? Be curious to hear others view.
PM
Ola'!
You are right .. but the OK Native Americans don't feel they have any other legal way to deal the game. They are operating under a restricted gaming license from the state.
The state legislation they are playing under, most believe, only allows them to collect the ante for providing the house, the dealers, the cards and related equipment. Theoretically, they are not banking the game. The profits that move from your pocket to the chip rack by the winning and losing of the bets is to be paid back to the patrons in various forms (tournaments, give-aways, etc.) Theroetically.
Nobody more than them wishes they could drop the ante and deal straight BJ. (At least that is the company line.)
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks