> I once witnessed a casino that had a single
> zero roulette table with a double zero table
> next to it. Both tables had the same number
> of players playing at it !!!
Musta been Americans that didn't want to play 'European Roulette.'
> I once witnessed a casino that had a single
> zero roulette table with a double zero table
> next to it. Both tables had the same number
> of players playing at it !!!
Musta been Americans that didn't want to play 'European Roulette.'
> Musta been Americans that didn't want to
> play 'European Roulette.'
It was (Iowa) but by the same token do the Americans play 6/5 single deck Blackjack because they don't want to play shoe games ?
In other words the dynamics of the game seem to take precedence over the house advantage, despite the games being similar, from a gambler's point of view.
Oh to have a gambler's mentality - such uncomplicated bliss ;-)
Best,
Geoff
> It was (Iowa) but by the same token do the
> Americans play 6/5 single deck Blackjack
> because they don't want to play shoe games ?
> In other words the dynamics of the game seem
> to take precedence over the house advantage,
> despite the games being similar, from a
> gambler's point of view.
> Oh to have a gambler's mentality - such
> uncomplicated bliss ;-)
Actually, I believe that most people are playing these 6:5 single deck games because every blackjack book in the world says that single deck games have the smallest house advantage.
Of course, all the books were written before the 6:5 payout games came onto the scene.
In addition, there is a certain percentage of the population that is so terminally math-impaired that they actually think that 6:5 is better than 3:2. One casino was even so brazen as to put up on their marquee: "Single Deck Blackjack Pays a Whopping 6:5!"
They have since taken it down.
> In addition, there is a certain percentage
> of the population that is so terminally
> math-impaired that they actually think that
> 6:5 is better than 3:2. One casino was even
> so brazen as to put up on their marquee:
> "Single Deck Blackjack Pays a Whopping
> 6:5!"
Good point.
I suppose they could also have added :-
"We force our dealers to bust more often by making them hit soft 17" :-)
Geoff
They could also say that they bar counters to prevent the player who hits 12 v 4, 5 or 6 and 13 v 2 (all negative count variations from basic strategy) and who splits 10's v 4, 5 or 6 (High positive count variations) from messing up the natural order of the cards.
i had a game with a friend and i had all the good rules and they gave me dealer wins ties. i finally ran it on Wong's (actually D.R. Smith's) PBA and found a nice egde, just under ten percent, which was confirmed independently by Don.(by the way-- is that a good program-- looks good to me, but ive never heard it mentioned-- i assume because its a competing program) With a $2 max bet i went down forty bucks quickly. then later i got complaints and had to give up the delaer wins ties. but since i had the edge of course i kept going. i raised the limits to $10 bets and a week later was down another $250. all of that is perfectly within standard deviation. i was going to keep going, unphased but some other freidns of mine convinced me to not play with my friend because we've all seen him developing a gambling problem. i had the edge and not once did i have a winning session. but thats the game. shit happens. in teh end though, you will win. but dont count on it for a 15 hour period. i probably shouldnt even be posting since those who remember me know i am a newbie -- but sharing my experience cant hurt.
> Me and my friend ran a blackjack table at
> our frat house last year for 3 nites.
> It was an absolute disaster. We were out
> about 500 bucks after about 15 hours of
> dealing before we closed shop forever. (And
> no one ever risked more than 10$) Min bet
> was 50 cents, the max anyone ever put down
> was 15 bucks or so.
> I have never seen anything like that. I
> busted about 20 consecutive times, guys were
> doubling on 6's and winning.
> A year later we want to try again, we are
> convinced it was a fluke.
> The thing is we can only do it a couple of
> nights. Is it plausible? Or are the swings
> to great?
> We are going to change every rule in our
> favor (the boys will play anyway): ties on
> 17 go to dealer, no double after split, hit
> soft 17, etc.
> What do you guys think? Will it work? Or are
> we doomed again.
Table limits are key in this type of operation.
I used to volunteer as a dealer at a local charity event that was held every 2-3 months. There were at least a dozen or more BJ tables, and I knew the guy who ran the event. After each evening, he would report on how the tables did. Although most won most of the time (including mine), there were always a couple of losers on the night.
The problem is that you can grind out people at $2-$5 per hand all night long and then have someone step up and start betting $25 or more a hand. If he/she gets hot, the whole night's profits go down the drain in minutes.
So, maybe the solution is to keep the limits relatively tight so that this sort of thing can't happen.
Don
> So, maybe the solution is to keep the limits
> relatively tight so that this sort of thing
> can't happen.
No maybe about it. That is the solution, right?
Otherwise you are just over betting your bankroll, from the opposite side of the table.
Wasn't Binion's the only place around that would take (read: gamble with) any max bet?
Yep, provided your first bet was the max you bargained for.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks