Originally Posted by
Frankie
As I think Norm was suggesting, one problem with rules such as H17 is that they're short-sighted. Say a bean counter makes a decision to switch all of a casino's BJ tables to H17 (or 6:5, or NDAS, or any one of a number of changes that hurt the player). In the short term, the casino's profits will likely increase, since the house edge will immediately be higher, but there is a lag between a rule change and its effect on the number of customers. The bean counter's decision will be praised, and this will encourage more such decisions. Eventually, however, customers will tend to return to that casino less, either because they know the rule changes are unfavorable, and decide to start playing elsewhere, or (more likely) they notice their money just isn't lasting as long, even if they don't know why. This may even have the greater effect of discouraging that player from playing blackjack altogether. As it seems with many casino decisions (penetration, shuffle complexity, etc.), choices that are good for APs tend to be good for casinos.
Thank goodness for the generosity of civilians in supplying both groups with an income :-)
Bookmarks