Casino Blackjack Game Offerings Decision???

[Memphis10Tigers]

Question: What factors do casinos take into consideration when offering their game mixes and who makes these decisions? I am speaking to the rule specifications - i.e. # of decks, H17/S17, LS/No Surrender, BJ 6:5 vs BJ 3:2, CSM or not, etc? And how many tables to offer with each and at what minimum wager?

I'm sure there are several variables involved in making this decision, but certainly there are a few key driving factors. Maybe it is a matter of competition? For example, no other casino in the area offers a double deck game, so we'll be the first to offer it?

Ultimately, it is a matter of balancing the profitability of a game while still keeping folks who want to play around. But to me, the average player does not fully understand the implications of the rule changes, nor do they have visibility to see what the rules are at a given casino before they go. To them, blackjack is blackjack is blackjack. So why offer better rules anyway?

Of course, this is the trend being observed with the prevalence of H17 and the horrible BJ 6:5 payouts. It would be nice to understand what factors keep favorable rules (to the player) in place.

[FlightMedicNoMore]

In PA the only thing keeping the good rules in place is the gaming commission.

[Bentley]

It's all about revenue. The poorer the rules are for the player, the more revenue the casino brings in. The only way 'we' can influence that is by not playing games with poor rules.

[bigplayer]

The biggest factor aside from regulatory requirements, is competition. People used to argue that AC had relatively bad conditions (no pitch games, no surrender, 2 deck cuts) because of the Uston case and their inability to throw out advantage players. Well obviously AC can protect their games by other means but this belief stuck around for decades until the mid-2000's mergers of Harrah's/Park Place and MGM/Mandalay Bay allowed casinos in Vegas on the Strip to offer games far worse than anything Atlantic City ever offered. The lack of competition has allowed junk games to proliferate. The marketing of Vegas as a place to go to shows, eat, to go clubs, etc as opposed to just gambling has brought many more stupid visitors to town who either don't know or don't care that they are playing a blackjack game with a house advantage of 2% (witness the ***** Cat Dolls pit at Caesars). If Mandalay Bay, Luxor, and Excalibur were all owned by three different companies the chances that all three of them would offer nothing but junk rules on their low limit games would be much smaller. Today they can all offer junk rules because they know their sister casino also has junk rules so if a strip customer takes their business elsewhere they're taking it to another of their own casinos.

I'll add, bad rules don't necessarily bring in more revenue. Going from s17 to h17 is an 80% increase in the house advantage versus basic strategy players but only a 15% increase versus typical players. Players on a 6/5 game are already playing at a 1.3% disadvantage due to horrible play...making the game 2.75% simply wipes their limited gambling budget faster. According to Bill Zender in Casino-ology 16% of games on the LV Strip are now 6/5 payoff games. On page 48 he notes that the average hold from 2000 to 2004 the average hold at BJ was 11.9%. One would think that the proliferation of 6/5 payoffs on the strip since 2004 would increase the hold to 13%...instead the hold dropped to 10.8%. If people play less blackjack as a result of bad rules or cannot find a game they are willing to play the grind will not have the same effect. There are two elements that contribute to the hold of blackjack...action (as a function of time played and average bet) is one of them and house advantage is the other. If most of the lower limit games are 6/5 payoff or bad rules such that a large number of "wise shopper" gamblers play shorter sessions or choose to take their business to locals casinos the casinos will make less money.

Zender has shown that bad rules (6/5) in the improper context can literally drive off business. He says there is a place for it where the customer demographic is "limited in sophistication" in areas such as the Las Vegas strip or maybe Lake Tahoe but "even when used in tourist-type gambler areas, it may be prudent for the casino executive to commit to closely monitor the performance and appeal of these games in order to mitigate possible risks from player backlash and diminishing revenue." (page 49 Casino-ology). In otherwords, too many of these games and you run the risk of making less money not more money.

[Memphis10Tigers]

Who and at what level are these decisions made? My assumption is that, at least in the corporate joints, there is a team of analysts who gather marketing data and relay this to some operating management level to decide which mix of games to offer. My time in the corporate world at least suggests that it would happen this way...of course in the smaller joints it could be up to some boss who may or may not know of the implications of these decisions.

[21forme]

Very well said, bigplayer. The other thing the casinos fail to recognize is when Joe BJ Player refuses to play crappy BJ games, Mrs. Joe leaves with him and takes her slot play elsewhere.

It's been said before, but it never ceases to amaze me how stupid and short-sighted casino management is?

[Gamblor]

Very well said, bigplayer. The other thing the casinos fail to recognize is when Joe BJ Player refuses to play crappy BJ games, Mrs. Joe leaves with him and takes her slot play elsewhere.

It's been said before, but it never ceases to amaze me how stupid and short-sighted casino management is?

Yes, McDonalds makes little or no profit on Big Macs, but makes their profits from soda. Something silly casino managers don't realize from Business 101.