$2 blackjack @ resorts

[FLASH1296]

Option ? I don't need no stinkin' option !

If the two-bit fee is for bets of $5 or less, one can bet $6 at disadvantageous True Counts.

Am I missing something here ?

 

[Blue Efficacy]

I think this will be a great option for Joe Gambler with his $40-100 bankroll. To him 25 cents a hand is a small price to pay to not have to bet 10-15 on a single hand.

Edit: also this game could be very easily made unplayable for AP should they decide to impose $2-20 limit, lol.

 

[bj bob]

You guys reading this whole thread?
The 25 cent fee doesn't apply to bets over $5. You can bet $2.00 in negative counts and pay .25 cents ante, but spread to higher bets with no ante when the count is good. Would you rather be betting $10/15 with the negative counts or $2 and an extra .25cents?

Yes, we did read the whole thread, Shad but I was commenting on only one aspect of it, i.e. the negative influence of the ante. For the $2 flat betting ploppy it would be a quick death. On the other hand, for the sophisticated AP that's another matter. First of all we would definitely stay away from any bet under $5, thus establishing our minimum unit. From there we would establish an optimal, realistic spread which, at say $75 max would equate to 1:15. That scenario would actually be pretty profitable given the stakes, assuming decent game rules.
So we're actually talking two different animals here, one with a favorable expectation, the other exactly the opposite. In either case you'll be very fortunate to even find an empty seat.

 

[shadroch]

Why spread 1-15 when you might be able to spread 1-50, or even 1 to 2 hands of 50?
At a full table that generates 50 hands an hour, even if half you bets are $2 with a quarter ante, we are talking about $7.50 an hour. That could easily be overcome by your larger bets.

 

[bj bob]

Why spread 1-15 when you might be able to spread 1-50, or even 1 to 2 hands of 50?
At a full table that generates 50 hands an hour, even if half you bets are $2 with a quarter ante, we are talking about $7.50 an hour. That could easily be overcome by your larger bets.

That's a legitimate question; however I'm thinking that a 1-50 spread may be very suspicious in any house and, without crunching the numbers I would assume that a significant number of your bets (play all) would be subject to the .25 ante. Just guessing here, but would the frequency of the higher bets offset those placed at neg. or neutral counts?

 

[shadroch]

It remains to be seen how liberal they allow the bets. It's all conjecture, but if you could get away with a spread from $2 to two hands of $50 or $100, I'm thinking it's an opportunity.

 

[bj bob]

It remains to be seen how liberal they allow the bets. It's all conjecture, but if you could get away with a spread from $2 to two hands of $50 or $100, I'm thinking it's an opportunity.

Assuming those spreads were allowed, I'd tend to agree.