Mohegan Sun Ct goes 6:5.

[lij45o6]

I get it! I truly 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.

Because the magnitude of the change is massive relative to the other changes? Also, makes it harder (if not impossible) to beat the game. A fundamental principle that made 21 a popular game in the 60's.

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.

And what is wrong with that? Why should we remain silent in our dissent concerning 6:5? Not only does it hurt counters, it hurts the general population as well.

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.

Just because players are ignorant about the effects of rule changes that hurt them, doesn't mean that is "better" for them.

You could make the argument 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.

How? Is not losing your money faster tortuous as well? Isn't your point about ploppies playing 21 about fun? Isn't that your point about the utility of their money? 3:2 offers more "fun" as a product of time, whereas 6:5 offers less "fun" as a product of time! They get less "fun" per dollar under 6:5 as opposed to 3:2!

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

I can't believe they were playing either. Though, what were all the rules? That may explain why they were playing it. Who knows.

Anyway, you point about 6:5 being "better" rest upon what? It's not "better" under the sense of fun as a function of time, nor is it "better" in a sense of utility of their money.

I don't know why you are defending a purposefully inferior product over a better product. Your false altruism for players is nonsense! "They lose more in shorter time. Therefore, they lose less!" Nonsense.

[Dbs6582]

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.

Three, isn’t this kind of saying the same thing? The new law came into place due to the court ruling due to Ken Uston bringing a lawsuit against New Jersey. I’m sure you think this makes you look smart, by be nit picky with posts.

And I fully understand why the Vegas strip went to 6:5. When I read your post it sounded like what I said. Why do you make a post to repeat what someone has already said?

[Three]

How does it make me look smarter. I just corrected you on something you got wrong. The legislature didn't pass a law. The courts said the casinos can't bar someone just for making smart bets and plays. If they offer a game that can be beat with the brain, they can't demand people don't think when they play it.

There is a big difference between the two.

[Dbs6582]

How does it make me look smarter. I just corrected you on something you got wrong. The legislature didn't pass a law. The courts said the casinos can't bar someone just for making smart bets and plays. If they offer a game that can be beat with the brain, they can't demand people don't think when they play it.

There is a big difference between the two.

Explain the “big difference”. They function the same way. In either case a casino can’t bar a counter. You’re making a distinction that is meaningless in terms of the point I was trying to make.

[Dbs6582]

Because the magnitude of the change is massive relative to the other changes? Also, makes it harder (if not impossible) to beat the game. A fundamental principle that made 21 a popular game in the 60's.


And what is wrong with that? Why should we remain silent in our dissent concerning 6:5? Not only does it hurt counters, it hurts the general population as well.


Just because players are ignorant about the effects of rule changes that hurt them, doesn't mean that is "better" for them.


How? Is not losing your money faster tortuous as well? Isn't your point about ploppies playing 21 about fun? Isn't that your point about the utility of their money? 3:2 offers more "fun" as a product of time, whereas 6:5 offers less "fun" as a product of time! They get less "fun" per dollar under 6:5 as opposed to 3:2!



I can't believe they were playing either. Though, what were all the rules? That may explain why they were playing it. Who knows.

Anyway, you point about 6:5 being "better" rest upon what? It's not "better" under the sense of fun as a function of time, nor is it "better" in a sense of utility of their money.

I don't know why you are defending a purposefully inferior product over a better product. Your false altruism for players is nonsense! "They lose more in shorter time. Therefore, they lose less!" Nonsense.

You have every right to complain about 6:5. That’s never been my point. But I don’t see how it hurts the general public. Both 3:2 and 6:5 will take the general public’s money. They are both negative EV games for the ploppies. You could make a strong argument that 3:2 is crueler because it leads ploppies on and gives them the illusion they might be able to beat the game.

6:5 is like tough love. The general public is better off playing a game they have less chance to win so they lose their money quicker and can go home and do other things. It also might discourage them from playing so often. This is “better” for the ploppies in the long run since it means they will lose less money longer term.

Using your logic, casinos shouldn’t allow ploppies to play bj unless they know basic strategy. Most ploppies play at a bigger disadvantage due to not knowing basic strategy then then because of 6:5. It’s estimated that the average ploppy plays at a 2 to 3% disadvantage because they don’t know basic strategy.

What about the side bet? Should casinos remove those? At my local casinos the ploppies enjoy the side bets more than blackjack. I sometimes have as many as 3 ploppies play on mine. What’s the house advantage on the side bet? It’s about 10% for the ones at my local casinos. Should the casinos remove these side bets? Most ploppies know the odds are bad on side bets and they still play them. I’ve heard ploppies say, “I know it’s a sucker bet” but they still like it. Why? Because it pays off when they hit it.

Btw, about the bj game I found in the back of a bar in northern Sweden, it was really blackjack and yes people were really playing it. Why? The same reason they were drinking and dancing. They thought it was fun. Who knows why? I don’t think I saw anybody last more than 15 mins. They would lose quickly and go back to the bar and order a beer. The reason I think this game was good for the people at that bar is you could tell nobody expected to win. None of them lost much either. They lost a quick $20 or $100 and moved on.

I believe a game with a high house advantage is the best game for ploppies since they lose their money quickly and aren’t deceived into thinking they can beat it. They are playing for fun and nothing more. That’s the way all ploppies should approach any casino game.

[Three]

Explain the “big difference”. They function the same way. In either case a casino can’t bar a counter. You’re making a distinction that is meaningless in terms of the point I was trying to make.

Legislature passes a law. Then judges tell people what that law means. Like there is a law (Constitutional Amendment) that gives us freedom of religion. But the courts tell us that actually means freedom from religion.

The legislature can pass any law they want but it will mean only what the courts say it means. You can't you see the distinction? The legislature could pass a law that says you can't bar skilled players. But if judges rule that they can bar skilled players the law means they can bar skilled players.

A law works until a judge interprets it differently in court. A court decision is the precedent until a higher court overrules it. There is a big difference between a law and a court ruling that interprets the law. A court ruling has more power.

[lij45o6]

I don't know why you are still here.

You have every right to complain about 6:5. That’s never been my point. But I don’t see how it hurts the general public. Both 3:2 and 6:5 will take the general public’s money. They are both negative EV games for the ploppies. You could make a strong argument that 3:2 is crueler because it leads ploppies on and gives them the illusion they might be able to beat the game.

You obviously did not read my previous point, or at least didn't get the overarching narrative of it.

No, it is *not* better for the general public. The general public is stupid beyond belief if they think 6:5 is better than 3:2. End of story! No points awarded for effort!

Yes, both games offer -EV in terms of the rules; however, one of those payouts is less +EV than the other in terms of return per round.

As to the supposition that the 3:2 rule offers some "illusion to beat the game": That is the point of gambling in a casino, especially playing 21. "Come beat us and Win!" is a common trope in gaming advertisement. And again, one of the ideas about playing 21 is that it is actually beatable. It is what made is a popular game back in the 60's!

6:5 is like tough love. The general public is better off playing a game they have less chance to win so they lose their money quicker and can go home and do other things. It also might discourage them from playing so often. This is “better” for the ploppies in the long run since it means they will lose less money longer term.

Sophistry. 6:5 optimized the return per round for the casino. Fewer rounds per player means more asses in seats per hour. This increases the casino bottom line as they are extracting extra cash from their capital production caused by the increase in the HE!

You application of "better for the ploppies cuz it lets them lose more in a shorter amount of time, therefore they save more!" is inherently contradictory! Do they lose more? Or, do they save more? Which is it? it can't be both! You know that.

Using your logic, casinos shouldn’t allow ploppies to play bj unless they know basic strategy. Most ploppies play at a bigger disadvantage due to not knowing basic strategy then then because of 6:5. It’s estimated that the average ploppy plays at a 2 to 3% disadvantage because they don’t know basic strategy.

I said *nothing* about basic strategy nor did I say players are not allowed to play if they don't use strategy! You are straw-manning my position and refutation(s) of your argument(s)!

6:5 widens that -EV cavern significantly making it a horrid game to play for the average punter!

What about the side bet? Should casinos remove those? At my local casinos the ploppies enjoy the side bets more than blackjack. I sometimes have as many as 3 ploppies play on mine. What’s the house advantage on the side bet? It’s about 10% for the ones at my local casinos. Should the casinos remove these side bets? Most ploppies know the odds are bad on side bets and they still play them. I’ve heard ploppies say, “I know it’s a sucker bet” but they still like it. Why? Because it pays off when they hit it.

This is *NOT* about side bets. This is about 21 and the newly sought-after and horrendous natural 21 payout offered by casinos!

Btw, about the bj game I found in the back of a bar in northern Sweden, it was really blackjack and yes people were really playing it. Why? The same reason they were drinking and dancing. They thought it was fun. Who knows why? I don’t think I saw anybody last more than 15 mins. They would lose quickly and go back to the bar and order a beer. The reason I think this game was good for the people at that bar is you could tell nobody expected to win. None of them lost much either. They lost a quick $20 or $100 and moved on.

Argumentum ad Populeum: "If the people like it, it must be good!" Fallacy! You know that -EV rules are worse for a punters utility. Their utility to purchase "fun" is reduced. That is, the cost of a product is increase while the quality os reduced per unit. How the hell is that better for a consumer?

I believe a game with a high house advantage is the best game for ploppies since they lose their money quickly and aren’t deceived into thinking they can beat it. They are playing for fun and nothing more. That’s the way all ploppies should approach any casino game.

I already argued that this reason is false. Casino's making game that are perceived as "unbeatable" will not win the hearts of the consumer. Remember: the idea of gambling is that you have a shot at winning the houses money and walking away a winner. Whether that is true or not, what should be apparent is that you are getting less of your moneys' worth of fun.

Also, the given comment in quotes above indicates you either work for the industry, are a shill, or simply trolling. Possibly all three. Why are you here?

[Three]

Also, the given comment in quotes above indicates you either work for the industry, are a shill, or simply trolling. Possibly all three. Why are you here?

He slipped up when he says the "ploppies hate us anyway" when referring to casinos. He included himself with the casinos by his choice of pronoun.

[Kenny322]

Foxwoods has low table minimum ($10) and 3/2 blackjack. You have to be a sucker to play the $10 table at Mohegan Sun or the 6/5 games at MGM Springfield.
Even if you just play $10 a hand, on average 1 in 21 hands is a natural, so $3 extra for each twenty-one hands.

[paymypush]

Not too long ago there were close to 40 6:5 tables at Foxwoods. Since the beginning of this past September they have all been converted back to 3:2. There are no more 6:5 tables at Foxwoods.

The high limit rooms remain sweaty and backoffs have been increasing on the main floors even at the red chip level. This place does not like winners. They resent them.

[GMass]

Not too long ago there were close to 40 6:5 tables at Foxwoods. Since the beginning of this past September they have all been converted back to 3:2. There are no more 6:5 tables at Foxwoods.

The high limit rooms remain sweaty and backoffs have been increasing on the main floors even at the red chip level. This place does not like winners. They resent them.

Inaccurate. Amazing the disinformation people post on these forums to protect what they believe are their own games.

[Hsiaodi]

Inaccurate. Amazing the disinformation people post on these forums to protect what they believe are their own games.

Do you mean fxwo like winners?

[paymypush]

Inaccurate. Amazing the disinformation people post on these forums to protect what they believe are their own games.

What an ignorant, foolish post. Every word I said is 100% accurate. If you've never been hassled at this casino you're probably doing something wrong and most likely not winning.

Your idiotic assumptions about protecting my own game are unfounded and don't make any sense. I'm willing to share with anyone and will draw on my 27 years of experience at Foxwoods to answer honestly and respectfully. Keep reading here. You have a lot to learn.