greenhorn: OK Conditions

[Sun Runner]

Of course if it was just about straight counting a game and depending on the EV, the collection fee is a killer.

If I have learned one thing from life that most certainly applies to BJ, that is open your eyes, look around you, and pay attention to what is really going on. Opportunity abounds for those who are able to see past 'what is.'

Maybe you would'nt mind going to the collection game and losing $10 a week (and who knows, variance might shine and you make $10) just so you could get invited to their monthly or quarterly BJ tournament that pays thousands?

Good luck.

[Vince]

Losing $10 a week would be fine for playing hours of blackjack, but I tend to play more than 20 hands in 30 minutes, let alone a week. The 50 cent charge will cost the average player $30 / hour, and no, Winstar has no promotions to make up for this kind of loss. They only have tickets that you can win to enter drawings, and their cashback only applies if you're playing $25 a hand (and it only pays back at 1/600 of a percent).

So in this case, Winstar is not the place to go for blackjack, unless you love the game so much that you are willing to never win money. I will save my money and continue to take trips to Vegas.

[Parker]

> Losing $10 a week would be fine for playing
> hours of blackjack, but I tend to play more
> than 20 hands in 30 minutes, let alone a
> week. The 50 cent charge will cost the
> average player $30 / hour, and no, Winstar
> has no promotions to make up for this kind
> of loss. They only have tickets that you can
> win to enter drawings, and their cashback
> only applies if you're playing $25 a hand
> (and it only pays back at 1/600 of a
> percent).

Another way to look at it: If your average bet is $25, that $.50/hand fee adds a whopping 2% to the advantage you must overcome. This makes the much-maligned (and rightfully so) 6:5 games look good by comparison. Most of the bonuses, promotions, etc., only add a few hundredths percent EV.

> So in this case, Winstar is not the place to
> go for blackjack, unless you love the game
> so much that you are willing to never win
> money. I will save my money and continue to
> take trips to Vegas.

A wise move, and one with which I fully concur. Shreeveport and Tunica are other options. Life is too short to play bad blackjack.

[Praying Mantis]

I stopped at an OK casino a couple of weeks ago and was mesmerized by this .50 cent ante. Do the casinos ever think about HOW MUCH THEY LOSE with this stupid plank? Clock it next time you sit down or watch one of these games. It takes FOREVER to play a round.

The money they make is way less than whatever they would make on the rake over a faster game! Kind of like penetration. They think they are so smart and all they do is shoot themselves in the foot!

I have not heard anyone talk about this aspect before, but it's pretty obvious to me that when you take 1/2 minute or more to collect the ante, make change, collect the ante, etc., it slows the game way down. Duh, more rounds per hour means more money to casino, less rounds per hour means less money to the casino.

I doubt this small ante would ever overcome the house advantage of a faster game. Think about it...at .50cents a hand times 6 is only $3.00 per round. (Maybe $200 per hour)

How many rounds less will be dealt during that hour to collect this stupid fee? Now, add the 15-20% they rake in on the hands they could have played with a faster game.

Can anyone come up with a general figure for whether or not the casinos make or lose money by having an ante? I don't know what it would be, but depending on the action at a particular table, I would think it would FAR EXCEED $200 they collect for this stupid fee.

Am I the only one that thinks like this? Be curious to hear others view.

PM

[Sun Runner]

Ola'!

You are right .. but the OK Native Americans don't feel they have any other legal way to deal the game. They are operating under a restricted gaming license from the state.

The state legislation they are playing under, most believe, only allows them to collect the ante for providing the house, the dealers, the cards and related equipment. Theoretically, they are not banking the game. The profits that move from your pocket to the chip rack by the winning and losing of the bets is to be paid back to the patrons in various forms (tournaments, give-aways, etc.) Theroetically.

Nobody more than them wishes they could drop the ante and deal straight BJ. (At least that is the company line.)

[Praying Mantis]

> Ola'!

> You are right .. but the OK Native Americans
> don't feel they have any other legal way to
> deal the game. They are operating under a
> restricted gaming license from the state.

> The state legislation they are playing
> under, most believe, only allows them to
> collect the ante for providing the house,
> the dealers, the cards and related
> equipment. Theoretically, they are not
> banking the game. The profits that move from
> your pocket to the chip rack by the winning
> and losing of the bets is to be paid back to
> the patrons in various forms (tournaments,
> give-aways, etc.)

That being the case, I would think the a player MAY be able to get away with a little less heat, am I right?

What about those casinos in California that do the same thing. Some there collect an ante, as well. Are they under the same situations?

Thanks for the clarification.

PM

[Sun Runner]

> That being the case, I would think the a
> player MAY be able to get away with a little
> less heat, am I right?

When you are collecting an ante, and probably making off with more than your share of the table gains, the only heat is the heat watching their money being deposited in their bank.

> What about those casinos in California that
> do the same thing. Some there collect an
> ante, as well. Are they under the same
> situations?

I was not aware that the BJ games in California collected antes. I'm certain the games in SoCal do not.

[Parker]

> When you are collecting an ante, and
> probably making off with more than your
> share of the table gains, the only heat is
> the heat watching their money being
> deposited in their bank.

Agreed. Collection games are unplayable, at least by traditional card-counting methods.

> I was not aware that the BJ games in
> California collected antes. I'm certain the
> games in SoCal do not.

Since CA voters passed Prop 1A in 2000, the Indian casinos have gradually phased out the collection games, and now offer games no different from Las Vegas or anywhere else. However, some non-Indian cardrooms (still prohibited from offering house-banked games) offer a bastardized version of blackjack that involves a collection or ante. If you're going to visit these places, play poker, not blackjack.

[Vince]

I've come to accept the fact that Type-II Indian Casinos must collect an ante for each hand (I still refuse to play it because, call me crazy, I don't like games that guarantee I'm going to lose a LOT in the long run). However, is there any research that can be done to find out if 50 cents is the cheapest they can go? Even if it just dropped to 25 cents it would make the situation better.

Also, is there any other method to handle this constraint the casinos have, rather than taking a per-hand fee?? Maybe they can just charge a flat fee, and you get to stay at the table for as long as you like. Even THAT would be almost acceptable. Or some other method to still have the house not doing the banking.. I, as well as many others, just see this "fee" as more money in their pockets. Blackjack is not like Bingo or Poker; the house has an advantage and ALWAYS wins in the long run, never giving back to the player. Taking the additional "ante" just increases their intake. Does this make sense, or am I just a chronic complainer?

[Parker]

> I've come to accept the fact that Type-II
> Indian Casinos must collect an ante for each
> hand (I still refuse to play it because,
> call me crazy, I don't like games that
> guarantee I'm going to lose a LOT in the
> long run).

A wise decision.

> However, is there any research
> that can be done to find out if 50 cents is
> the cheapest they can go? Even if it just
> dropped to 25 cents it would make the
> situation better.

See below.

> Also, is there any other method to handle
> this constraint the casinos have, rather
> than taking a per-hand fee?? Maybe they can
> just charge a flat fee, and you get to stay
> at the table for as long as you like. Even
> THAT would be almost acceptable. Or some
> other method to still have the house not
> doing the banking.. I, as well as many
> others, just see this "fee" as
> more money in their pockets. Blackjack is
> not like Bingo or Poker; the house has an
> advantage and ALWAYS wins in the long run,
> never giving back to the player. Taking the
> additional "ante" just increases
> their intake. Does this make sense, or am I
> just a chronic complainer?

Why should they even care? They offer the game, and the suckers line up to play it.

[Sun Runner]

> A wise decision (not to play.)

Probably true. 99% of the time. I hate to ever say never.

> Why should they even care? They offer the
> game, and the suckers line up to play it.

Exactly, but to further clarify Vince's question .. the Type II casinos in my neighboorhood are not suppossed to be keeping the table profits. They are to collect and pocket the ante and share in a portion of table profits to help cover expenses but a portion (large portion) is suppossed to be given back to the players. Usually the casion has discretion in how that is done.

Do I think they play strictly by the rules and divy the table profit up as they are suppossed to?

The ones I'm familiar with have free-entry tournamanets paying sometimes large amounts to win, place, and show. Sometimes they give away cars and trucks.

The problem is you have to spend a fair amount of time playing at the ante tables to get invited to the tournaments. But not always.

The other problem is that all the casino 'profit' (including the BJ tables) can be paid out casion wide, I believe, -through the poker room or through slot tournaments.

As to Vince's idea about a $0.25 ante, sure, that would be better, but again, the casino's I'm familiar with have small table maximums compared to the ante that makes the ante virtually impossible to overcome.

And finally, as to the seat rental idea of Vince's, I garee Parker, why should they.

[Sun Runner]

Again, in my neighborhood, sometimes our Native American friends put up conditions that are unbelievable.

Fantastic pen, good rules, and other.

The down side is mostly ASMs / CSMs and the dastardly ante.

And of course, the only heat is that watching the money coming to them.

If I lived in a casino rich environment (i.e. LV) I'd play these games.

Since I don't, I spend some time scouting the opportunites locally. There are some; antes and all.

It's an art.

But to be clear to Vince and others, we have no disagreement. The typical ante game is to be avoided like the plague.