Mohegan Sun Ct goes 6:5.

[Three]

As everybody knows many of the casinos on the Vegas strip are now 6:5. This appears to be working since tourist are their main clientele and tourist don’t care what they play.

You don't understand why it is working. It is working because they have people waiting for a table. It doesn't make anyone lose more money. It makes them lose the money they brought to risk faster. If they lose it too fast they decide gambling is a waste of time and not worth it. That hurst profits. where it can help profits is when people can't play because all the tables are full. Here making a person lose the money they will lose anyway faster gets another a seat sooner. That is the only way it can increase profits. Most gamblers play until they lost what they brought to lose. They almost never leave ahead or even with money left because there is never enough money to get them to leave. The key to making the most off these people is making sure they can play when they show up. And their previous experience makes them feel their chances of winning is good enough to come back. If they lose their money too fast and with too high a degree of certainty many will not return.

I hope you can understand the subtle differences here. Maybe Vegas doesn't care about repeat customers in the casino. Maybe they have lines of people waiting to get a seat at a BJ table. Maybe they are really and at running business and let bean counters convince them that you can assume the same number of players play the same number of rounds regardless of how much they lose. This is an assumption everyone should know is false.

New Jersey passed a law where they can’t bar APs.

This was a court ruling not a new law. They can't bar you for thinking while you play. The judge ruled casinos can't bar good players and only let poor players play if they offer a game of skill.

[Dbs6582]

More bullshit from the Dipshit.

Frieghtman, if you don’t agree with me then let me know why. You're very good at calling people names but not very good at coming up with coherent augments to defend your position.

Can you explain to me how 3:2 is better for ploppies than 6:5? From a poppy’s perspective, both games will take all their money. The only difference is 6:5 takes it faster. I would think this is a good thing for a poppy since it gives them more time to do other things. Can you explain why you don’t agree with me?

I get why 6:5 is worse than 3:2 for the AP. For purposes of this discussion, I’m only taking about ploppies. I’m waiting for your reply. I hope it involves more than name calling.

[Three]

Can you explain to me how 3:2 is better for ploppies than 6:5? From a poppy’s perspective, both games will take all their money. The only difference is 6:5 takes it faster. I would think this is a good thing for a poppy since it gives them more time to do other things. Can you explain why you don’t agree with me?

Do you work for a casino?

Can you explain to me how 3:2 is better for ploppies than 6:5?

I think you answered your own question.

From a poppy’s perspective, both games will take all their money. The only difference is 6:5 takes it faster.

[Freightman]

Frieghtman, if you don’t agree with me then let me know why. You're very good at calling people names but not very good at coming up with coherent augments to defend your position.

Can you explain to me how 3:2 is better for ploppies than 6:5? From a poppy’s perspective, both games will take all their money. The only difference is 6:5 takes it faster. I would think this is a good thing for a poppy since it gives them more time to do other things. Can you explain why you don’t agree with me?

I get why 6:5 is worse than 3:2 for the AP. For purposes of this discussion, I’m only taking about ploppies. I’m waiting for your reply. I hope it involves more than name calling.

Okay.
The ploppy gets to play longer getting more entertainment value for his money. He will gladly go back at a future date, to lose more money. That’s the value of 3-2 versus 6-5. I trust that satisfies your commentary.

You’re still a Dipshit, as only a Dipshit could offer the excrement that you promote as intelligent commentary.

[Kenny322]

ok - some of the posts make sense - If a business can make profit by changing the rules (price), as long as regulation permits it, they can.
I would have thought competition (Springfield) would have provided an opportunity to make things better for the leisure consumer but at least so far, that has not happened.

One would think a casino could corner the market if they offer slightly better odds.
Easy example - European Roulette versus zero and double zero. 1/37 x high volume is more than 2/38 x low volume.

[lij45o6]

Can you explain to me how 3:2 is better for ploppies than 6:5?.

3:2 = 3/2 = 1.5
6:5 = 6/5 = 1.2

1.5 > 1.2
3/2 > 6/5
3:2 > 6:5

Any other questions?

The player loses less in the long run under 3:2 than with 6:5.

[Freightman]

3:2 = 3/2 = 1.5
6:5 = 6/5 = 1.2

1.5 > 1.2
3/2 > 6/5
3:2 > 6:5

Any other questions?

The player loses less in the long run under 3:2 than with 6:5.

Some friendly advice.

Be very wary of Mr. Contrary. Mr. Contrary is a Dipshit who masquerades as DBS6582.

[Dbs6582]

3:2 = 3/2 = 1.5
6:5 = 6/5 = 1.2

1.5 > 1.2
3/2 > 6/5
3:2 > 6:5

Any other questions?

The player loses less in the long run under 3:2 than with 6:5.

Dogman_1234, thank you for standing in for Frightman. I doubt if he could have answered my question.

You calculation is for ploppies that play a set amount of time. As most people have pointed out, this is not the case for most ploppies. Most ploppies play until they lose all their money for that session. If that’s the case, then all 6:5 does is causes them to lose all their money quicker. I would think that’s a good thing for them because then they can do other more productive things with their time.

I stand by my contention that 6:5 was the best thing to happen to the ploppies. They can lose their money quicker and thus have more time to do productive things.

I have high income friends who go to Vegas once a year. They stay on the strip and have a set amount of money they set aside to lose gambling. They like blackjack but don’t even know basic strategy. For them 6:5 was the best thing that happened. It allows them to lose their gambling money quickly so they can spend more quality time with their family.

If what some people have said is true about 6:5....ploppies will lose their money so quickly they will quite playing bj altogether. Well, isn’t that a good thing too for the ploppies? That means the ploppies will lose LESS money long term...not more money.

dogman_1234 what I’m trying to point out is that it’s a little more complicated than your simple calculation above tried to show.

[lij45o6]

Dogman_1234, thank you for standing in for Frightman. I doubt if he could have answered my question.

I'm not standing in for Freightman.

You calculation is for ploppies that play a set amount of time. As most people have pointed out, this is not the case for most ploppies. Most ploppies play until they lose all their money for that session. If that’s the case, then all 6:5 does is causes them to lose all their money quicker. I would think that’s a good thing for them because then they can do other more productive things with their time.

Expectation is *not* a function of time.

I stand by my contention that 6:5 was the best thing to happen to the ploppies. They can lose their money quicker and thus have more time to do productive things.

6:5 is the best thing to happen to casino game operators. 6:5 does nothing but take more money from players under a fixed time frame.

Also, you point about the causitive nature of 6:5 forcing players to do "more productive things" after they lose is massively normative. You are ignoring the fact that the player thinks that playing a casino game offers the best utility of their time and money. Nothing based on your subjective understanding on what is "best" for them.

Lastly, players can keep playing after losing. They come back after they depleted their trip bankroll. Further extracting more money from them in a shorter amount of time.

I have high income friends who go to Vegas once a year. They stay on the strip and have a set amount of money they set aside to lose gambling. They like blackjack but don’t even know basic strategy. For them 6:5 was the best thing that happened. It allows them to lose their gambling money quickly so they can spend more quality time with their family.

6:5 offers less utility of their financial resources as they lose their bank in a shorter amount of time.

If they want to spend more quality time with their family: Skip playing 21 with shitty rules, save your money, and spend that time with family instead.

This saves your friends' money, they spend more time with their relatives, and fucks over casinos that offer a shitty game that should not exist!

If what some people have said is true about 6:5....ploppies will lose their money so quickly they will quite playing bj altogether. Well, isn’t that a good thing too for the ploppies? That means the ploppies will lose LESS money long term...not more money.

"They lose more money in a shorter time frame. Therefore they save money!"

Bullshit logic. They lose more money as a function of return per round. Again, Expectation is *not* a function of time!

dogman_1234 what I’m trying to point out is that it’s a little more complicated than your simple calculation above tried to show.

What I'm trying to show you is that you argument of stating 6:5 is better for players is fundamentally incorrect based on the absolute return offered by the game.

Everyone here gets that. But, for some reason, you can't get 2+2 to get 4, but rather: "Well it depends on how you measure sums!" There is no "other way" of looking at 3:2 vs 6:5. You lose more per round, thus more per n rounds per hour. Get it!

[Dbs6582]

ok - some of the posts make sense - If a business can make profit by changing the rules (price), as long as regulation permits it, they can.
I would have thought competition (Springfield) would have provided an opportunity to make things better for the leisure consumer but at least so far, that has not happened.

One would think a casino could corner the market if they offer slightly better odds.
Easy example - European Roulette versus zero and double zero. 1/37 x high volume is more than 2/38 x low volume.

That’s what you’d think, but this isn’t how ploppies think. I play in an area where two casinos are within 0.5 miles of each other. One offers H17 and the other one offers S17. Guess where most people play? The H17 place. Why? Because that casino has more bells and whistles and higher ceilings and more chandlers, etc.

Bottom line is most ploppies don’t think like us. It really doesn’t matter what the rules are anyway. They’re going to lose long term anyway since they aren’t playing with an advantage.

[Three]

Bottom line is most ploppies don’t think like us.

Can you blame them. I don't like casinos either.

[paymypush]

Im plan to go there soon, did they reflet some 6:5 BJ back to 3:2?

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk

No, they haven't however there are still 3:2 tables at both Connecticut casinos. You're asking about Mohegan Sun? There are two 3:2 pits in the Casino of the Earth, one at $15 minimums and the other at $25. There is one in the Casino of the Sky at $15 minimums. Then, of course, the high limit pits are all 3:2 with the good rules.

[Dbs6582]

I'm not standing in for Freightman.


Expectation is *not* a function of time.


6:5 is the best thing to happen to casino game operators. 6:5 does nothing but take more money from players under a fixed time frame.

Also, you point about the causitive nature of 6:5 forcing players to do "more productive things" after they lose is massively normative. You are ignoring the fact that the player thinks that playing a casino game offers the best utility of their time and money. Nothing based on your subjective understanding on what is "best" for them.

Lastly, players can keep playing after losing. They come back after they depleted their trip bankroll. Further extracting more money from them in a shorter amount of time.


6:5 offers less utility of their financial resources as they lose their bank in a shorter amount of time.

If they want to spend more quality time with their family: Skip playing 21 with shitty rules, save your money, and spend that time with family instead.

This saves your friends' money, they spend more time with their relatives, and fucks over casinos that offer a shitty game that should not exist!


"They lose more money in a shorter time frame. Therefore they save money!"

Bullshit logic. They lose more money as a function of return per round. Again, Expectation is *not* a function of time!


What I'm trying to show you is that you argument of stating 6:5 is better for players is fundamentally incorrect based on the absolute return offered by the game.

Everyone here gets that. But, for some reason, you can't get 2+2 to get 4, but rather: "Well it depends on how you measure sums!" There is no "other way" of looking at 3:2 vs 6:5. You lose more per round, thus more per n rounds per hour. Get it!

I get it! I truelly get your point. But isn’t this the case with all rule changes that benefit the casino? What about when the majority went from S17 to H17? What about some casinos that only let you double on 10 and 11, or not double after splits? How are their rule changes any different than 6:5? In all cases, the casinos changed the odds to move them more in their favor.

Why are APs so upset at 6:5? Because this rule change is so radical it makes it difficult for them to beat the game.

In most areas, casinos have a right to make the rules however they want. I’ve seen a casino (really a bar) in Sweden that offered a game where the dealer won all pushes. I have no idea what the house advantage was but it had to be huge. Guess what? The table was full and people were losing their money very quickly and actually seemed ok with it. Believer it not, this was probably the best game for ploppies. None of them had any expectation of winning. They were just doing it for fun.

You could make the aurgument that 3:2 is the worst game for ploppies. It’s like slow torture. They win just enough to think they know how to win...thus, they keep playing until the lose all their money.

That’s why the 6:5 game probably is the more human and better game for ploppies. They lose quicker and thus don’t have expectations to win. They’re just playing for fun, like our friends in Sweden playing a game where the dealer wins all pushes. I still can’t believe ploppies were playing that game. Lol