0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Did you find this post helpful?
Yes |
No
Originally Posted by
dogman_1234
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.
Bookmarks