Jackie Chiles: How can five players make more money than six or seven?

[Jackie Chiles]

On my last trip to Las Vegas I found myself at a table with five player betting squares. During a shuffle I mentioned this, and I remarked that in years past it always used to be six or seven players to a table. Other players started thinking about this, and I (half)-jokingly said that this must be because people are getting fatter. The dealer said that having five players actually increased the casino's drop. Huh? How can having fewer players putting their money in play increase ANYTHING good for a casino? The dealer seemed surprised that I would press him/her on this and rather sheepishly said something to the effect that "they know what they are doing - they have it all worked out." The math doesn't add up in my mind. I can understand the casino concluding that players are more comfortable at a "smaller" table and might therefore play longer and have a generally more pleasant experience. (Too bad similar logic isn't being applied to make non-cigarette smokers more comfortable.) Or is this some sort of self-defeating, super-paranoid move designed to thwart evil APs from spreading to multiple hands or a team from getting a "big player" into a juicy shoe? Am I missing something here? Just curious.

Jackie Chiles

[Parker]

> On my last trip to Las Vegas I found myself at a table
> with five player betting squares. During a shuffle I
> mentioned this, and I remarked that in years past it
> always used to be six or seven players to a table.
> Other players started thinking about this, and I
> (half)-jokingly said that this must be because people
> are getting fatter. The dealer said that having five
> players actually increased the casino's drop. Huh? How
> can having fewer players putting their money in play
> increase ANYTHING good for a casino? The dealer seemed
> surprised that I would press him/her on this and
> rather sheepishly said something to the effect that
> "they know what they are doing - they have it all
> worked out." The math doesn't add up in my mind.
> I can understand the casino concluding that players
> are more comfortable at a "smaller" table
> and might therefore play longer and have a generally
> more pleasant experience. (Too bad similar logic isn't
> being applied to make non-cigarette smokers more
> comfortable.) Or is this some sort of self-defeating,
> super-paranoid move designed to thwart evil APs from
> spreading to multiple hands or a team from getting a
> "big player" into a juicy shoe? Am I missing
> something here? Just curious.

There are a number of possible reasons, some logical, some not.

Back when single deck games were more common, it was common to see 5 spot tables. The main reason for this was that the dealer could be instructed to always deal 2 rounds to a full table without fear or running out of cards, or even giving exceptionally good penetration.

With double deck games, depending on where the cut card is placed, a five spot table might routinely get an extra round before the shuffle, resulting in increased hands/hour due to less time spent shuffling.

I don't see how it would be possible for shoe tables to get higher hands/hour with fewer spots.

Of course, a table with 5 spots is definitely more comfortable than one with 6 or 7. While I don't believe the casinos do things merely for our comfort, there may be a study somewhere showing that players at 5 spot tables tend to play longer sessions.

[Saboteur]

We shouldn't assume that if all five-spot tables in a casino were suddenly converted into seven-spot tables, there would be players there to fill the additional spots. By that, I mean that if the volume of customers called for it and space was too limited to bring in more tables, you just know that some of the existing five-spot tables would be changed to seven spots.

Somebody somewhere probably figured out that they'd make more money with seven dealers each dealing to five players than with five dealers each dealing to seven players, even if it meant paying the salaries of two additional dealers.

It probably reduces the house's risk by having more dealers in play, too. Wouldn't profits be a lot more reliable (steady) with 70 tables instead of 50, even if the number of paying players is the same?

[Bettie]

[Jackie Chiles]

Bettie:

Sorry, but I'd rather not say because I will be playing there in the very, very near future - I'll be on my way to Las Vegas in a few hours. I hope the weather holds up.

Jackie Chiles