6 to 5 Blackjack spreads to Australia

[ian]

The Australian Daily Telegraph reports today that the Crown Casino in Melbourne has adopted the Blackjack pays 6 to 5 rule that first appeared on the Las Vegas Strip 3 or 4 years ago.

According to the Telegraph the rule is now in play on A$5 and A$10 minimum tables.


Crown casino reduces blackjack payout
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1225793726580


"Crown has reduced the blackjack payout on $5 to $10 tables on the public gaming floor. But the payout odds remain the same in the high-roller rooms.

Experts say the move will pour millions of dollars a year into the casino's coffers at the expense of battling punters."


A quick check on Crown's website reveals that rules online are still those approved in October 2008 that stipulate Blackjack pays 6 to 4.

http://www.crowncasino.com/Assets/Fi...ersion11.0.pdf
VCGR Approved 28/10/2008


The Telegraph article goes on to detail other rule changes including allowing the house to hit soft 17 and a second zero being permitted on Roulette which as most of you will know takes the house the edge from 2.7 to 5.26%.



Two of the three are remarkable changes and with their implementation being permitted one has to question who exactly the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation is trying to protect ?

IMHO it's certainly not Joe Punter.


What do you think ?

Ian

[Victoria]

Hi Ian

I will take a guess that the 6/5 blackjack is on the CSM's and the shoes and not like Vegas where it is on single deck with very few exceptions. Either way, it is the casino saying, "how fast can we fleece our remaining punters." Pure greed that hopefully will backfire on them but if the punters are stupid enough then they deserve what they get.
I have little pity for those who play those games but hope for the worst for those greedy management types.

Victoria

[steveyb]

I would hazard a guess and say we have not heard the last of this, I should imagine there are some very nervous bodies in the Gaming Board shuffling papers around to make sure their signature is not to be found....
Or is this just a ploy to send the message to punters that you should play the slots!

[Victoria]

I know nothing about the Victorian Gambling commission and my statement here is based on similar type commissions in the U.S.

No matter what kind of spin is put out to the public the number one job of all gambling commissions is to make sure the state gets it share of the profits.
Many years ago when most U.S. casinos were owned by gangsters the owners game was to steal from the state and offer the punter a decent gamble. The result was the commission and the casino were at odds always.

Today the game has reversed itself completely for the most part. The casino owners are corporations that do not skim on their taxes but make up for that loss of income by taking the good gamble away from their punters. The result is that the gambling commission and the casino are in a partnership with the casino interests calling the shots.

There is no one looking out for the interest of the customer unless the casino really steps out of bounds and I think in most cases of that happening it is an individual and not the corporation itself.

In Nevada the gaming board is totally owned by the casinos. I believe nearly every single gaming board past member when leaving has had a cushy casino job waiting for them to step into in the past 15-20 years. People on the board tend to come from casino friendly businesses, law firms and other legal areas. You might get some help from these people if you are falsely imprisioned by overzealous, untrained security types but when it comes to changing the games in order to increase casino profits, the commission only sees a happy boss (the casinos) and increased tax revenue.

Victoria

[ian]

What I find most disturbing about such a rule change (that for a A$100 bet will see the house retaining A$30 that would have formerly been paid to the player) is that it's the kind of move one would likely get at a basement clip joint after the owners have had a couple of bad nights.

It seems completely inappropriate to see such a rule change occur at a billion dollar operation with multiple casinos and listed on the Australian Stock market.

Perhaps it's because there's an almost complete lack of player advocacy groups ?. Punters are unlikely to start demonstrating outside with placards or go on strike and where else can they play ?. In Melbourne, Crown has the only game in town.

That's perhaps the problem ?



More news at the Herald Sun...


Card jackpot for Crown
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/...-1225793655097


"The latest rule changes were quietly introduced just in time for the Melbourne Cup carnival crowds and in the same week casino boss James Packer boldly declared the vast gambling house a vital national asset."



Ian

[steveyb]

I was under the impression that the gaming board's prime function was to ensure a fair deal for punters!
Punters will have to vote with their feet, if they don't play double zero roulette and BJ at 6to 5 then management will have to change the rules again. I agree with you ian it does sound more in keeping with the business practices of a joint rather than a listed company.

[mac 1960]

I don't think it would be a problem if these new rules were approved for a new game I.E single deck where the BJ odds and soft 17 hit are almost standard. It is unfair to fleece the masses by applying these rules to regular,existing games. The punters should get together and make their case heard ! Or maybe they don't really care as the expectation is that you are probably going to lose your cash regardless !!!

[saintpeter]

G'day Ian, you hit the nail on the head- when you're the only game in town you can do what you like.
In this case i think you'll find that new laws were not approved, but that Crown applied for, and received permission for, double zero AR and alternative payouts on other games way back when the initial rules and procedures were ratified. This means Crown only have to inform the gaming commission of intent to apply those pre-approved rules, not actually get new rules passed.

[ian]

Here's a cautionary tale for those thinking that changing Blackjack rules in favour of the house is a no brainer for padding out a casinos bottom line.


Strip gaming win sees smallest decline since June 2008
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009...rcent-in-sept/


"But winnings on the 21 game dropped 26 percent. It was the 17th straight month that 21 gross win has declined."


Blackjack win on the Las Vegas Strip down 26% in a month when...


"winnings on the craps tables rose 44.9 percent; roulette was up 34.8 percent and the baccarat gain was 30.4 percent. The sports pool jumped 23.4 percent."



Surely it's only bean counters who spend their time behind a desk rather than down on the gaming floor who can come up with such dumb rule changes ?


Ian

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by ian

Surely it's only bean counters who spend their time behind a desk rather than down on the gaming floor who can come up with such dumb rule changes ?


Ian

The so called bean counters and their cohorts, managers with plenty of gaming experience but who always do what those bean counters will approve, had a great run when the economy was expanding like crazy on borrowed money.
I would think that people with Harvard MBA's would have the ability to reverse direction but perhaps the subject of what to do when the economy is in the crapper was never broached by them at school or imagined at all. Instead of reversing the deterioration of games, a plan that brought them extra profits in a good market, they are increasing the speed in which games deteriorate at a time when they have a shrinking customer base. In effect, as they take the money from the remaining punters faster, this should do nothing but increase the speed that the customer base shrinks.

The sad thing is that, as in just about any other short sighted business, good, loyal and hard working people land up jobless.

Another sad thing is that I know a few people who have positions such as casino manager and table game manager. They agree with my view but can never seem to impliment positive changes for their players. I know of a table game manager who felt he had the power to buy some promotional chips and impliment a program offering some of the higher betting customers these chips upon their return to the casino. There may have been other problems between he and his bosses but when those promotional chips arrived he was shortly fired and the casino still has no promotions for table game players.

[mac 1960]

The casino where I work decided to jump on the single deck bandwagon a few years back,the hold is better for the house so obviously it will make more money, not so as it turned out. They took out regular multi deck BJ tables to accommodate the change, It turns out that although busy most of the time the single deck games drop was half of its predecessor. The hold was higher but at the end of the day it still won less money for the house. Also no saving no staffing costs. It looks good on paper to an accountant but in reality it actually ends up costing the company potential earnings.

larger drop-smaller hold v's smaller drop -larger hold - which would you choose ?

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by mac 1960

The casino where I work decided to jump on the single deck bandwagon a few years back,the hold is better for the house so obviously it will make more money, not so as it turned out. They took out regular multi deck BJ tables to accommodate the change, It turns out that although busy most of the time the single deck games drop was half of its predecessor. The hold was higher but at the end of the day it still won less money for the house. Also no saving no staffing costs. It looks good on paper to an accountant but in reality it actually ends up costing the company potential earnings.

larger drop-smaller hold v's smaller drop -larger hold - which would you choose ?

In observing 6/5 tables in Vegas for a long time, what you see concerning the hold and drop is so obvious, that I actually think so casinos do understand this.
Simply as you look at players, the more their average bet is the fewer of them that will play a 6/5 game. Overall, the result is the 6/5 tables are often filled with the lowest betting customers and the worst playing customers, so the hold can be very high.
Many casinos here offer better games to higher players, sacrificing hold for a big increase in drop.

What I mean by casinos getting it is that on many 3/2 tables with $5 or $10 minimums, the casino can not generate enough profit to make that table profitable, so they go to 6/5, increasing their edge and in effect charging their low betting customer a higher amount.

Anyone in management who really thinks that their drop will remain the same at 6/5 as it was at 3/2 and also thinks that a significant percentage of their $25 and up players will play 6/5, needs to find a different vocation.

Victoria

[Tony Mc]

Anyone who plays this needs their head testing IMO. To also hit soft 17 is adding insult to injury.

I would hope customers would vote with their feet, even if there is no other casino in Melbourne. And to get the double zero in on roulette is a piss take. Any sound minded gambler doesn't mind losing some money, if you have a bit of fun and a good night out then it is ok. But 6 to 5 BJ and 00 roulette is just theft in my view, pure and simple. I really hope this backfires.

[willy]

The VCGR has the ability to restrict the number the availability of each game type and rule configurations. Which I believe it has by limiting the number of 6:5 tables to certain price points. 6:5 was introduced on $5 BJ tables which had not been available to customers for over 5 years.

It's an interesting strategy of introducing low price point at higher edges. Does it provide a low entry point for wallet constrained patrons while maintaining profitability for the casino or is it a blatant cash for grab?

[punter007]

In the US roulette is offered at 00 but for higher minimums it is offered at single 0. the difference between the two games is far greater than the spread between 3-2 and 6-5 single deck.

Even 6-5 single deck h.a. is roughly 1.5% which outrages people yet single zero is nearly twice the house advantage and double zero is nearly double the house advantage of single zero!

If the logic is to offer a lower priced game but make the same profitability this makes sense and is no different than slots: If you play penny machines the house edge is upwards of 15% the house edge decreases as the denomination increases and $5 slots only hold 4-5%

other examples are blackjack having more decks on lower priced games and fewer decks on higher priced games OR hit soft 17 on lower priced games and stay soft 17 on higher priced games ALSO surrender not being offered on the main floor in blackjack but is available in high limit blackjack

A new extreme was recently introduced in atlantic city, where $2 blackjack was introduced in a city that generally never offers blackjack under $10, the catch is that the player has to wager the $2 plus cough up a $.25 ante or collection to play. Rip off? YES! but for someone that wants to try blackjack for the first time for the experience can do it with a $20 buy in and get some play time. At a $10 minimum the same person may not feel comfortable playing with a two unit bankroll.

Food for thought!

[ian]

Hello Punter007,

Thanks for pointing out those examples of anomalies in casino rules designed to give a more generous return for players prepared to play for higher stakes.

Another one I coiuld mention is having $1 crap tables with no 20 cent chips in the float. So odds are rounded down on pass line and place bets. I've played on these tables in Las Vegas and never have I seen a single sign that the payouts are modified accordingly.

What I dislike about the practice of having different rules and payouts on lower stake games is that the casino is effectively saying to it's customers that your custom isn't really welcome unless you put some serious money down on the table. In other words Mr and Mrs Jo Punter who could be regulars at the penny slots and $3 Blackjack tables should not have the same entitlements as someone who may occasionaly show up and play greens.

Why not ? Everyone should be treated with respect IMHO.


Also casinos having to change rules to try and maintain their margins (BJ hold in the U.S. is now circa 12%) confirms that dealing standards have declined. Disciplined and accurate card pitchers being replaced over the years by pudgy fingered individuals who often cannot hold a stack of 20 never mind quickly and accurately cut them down into 4 5's.

Time is money in the casino business.
That however is a topic for a new thread


Ian