aslan said:
I keep saying, it's because of the accountants. They meet with other management and tell them that the earnings per table has been going down. Their answer is to make the games harder to beat, thereby raising per table earnings. The only trouble with their reasoning is that they are losing players with their poor rules, CSMs, poor pen, and 8-deckers. So what they get is better earnings per table and fewer tables, which translates to lower overall earnings.
What they need is to turn the table decisions over to the marketing people. They can then advertise no CSMs, the best rules in town, and 6-deck games. You don't advertise pen, but the news gets around.
Part of the trouble at Borgata may be related to the dropping out of MGM from casino ownership. MGM resorts is a very customer-friendly organization. They do have a glut of CSMs in Vegas, but they also do have hand-shuffles and ASMs, 6-deck games, S17, and decent pen. Boyd Gaming (Orleans, Suncoast, Gold Coast, Sam's Town, California, Fremont, Main Street Station, et al), I would argue, while they have beatable games are not as customer friendly as MGM properties. I believe this is carrying over into the Borgata. The next move would be to H-17 games like practically everyone else in AC. We'll see if they go that far.
Aslan,
As much as I would like to agree with you, there is a SLIGHT problem with your reasoning.
You are assuming most players of blackjack actually understand the effects that BJ rules have on the game. In short, you're assuming they are reasonably rational and informed about the game of blackjack and what the optimum conditions for a player are.
This is not true for the mass market (broadly speaking, red chippers). Most of them do not know much about the game.
There is a market segment which DOES understand what rules are the best for players; Advantage Players and Basic Strategy Players. The former, over the long run, are NOT profitable for the casino (by themselves, although in small quantities they generate a positive externality that attracts more Ploppies) and the latter are the Scottish gamblers that are the hardest to squeeze money out of.
If a casino markets itself, sincerely, as "best for the player" and actually has the best rules; it is these INFORMED gamblers that will flock to the casino first.
So, to use game theory terminology, there's a "first mover disadvantage," i.e. if only one casino goes for good rules there's a significant chance it will attract the least profitable players (and even those that cause losses to the casino) as opposed to ploppies.
I admit, I haven't done any quantitative analysis on this so I am only speculating about which effects will dominate. It is quite possible that I am wrong.
If the more informed players are, on average, higher betters (I think this is a reasonable speculation to make), then this would imply a casino with the best rules that markets itself accordingly will attract a very strong slice of the high roller market.
Additionally, genuinely competent advantage players rare indeed rare, but again if it is just one casino that goes for good rules, that one casino will have the entire AP market flocking into their property.
Finally, penetration is one area where AP's interests and the interests of both BSP's and Ploppies genuinely conflict. AP's want deep pen for counting purposes, but BSP's and Ploppies benefit from lower-pen shoes because it means more frequent shuffling and thus fewer hands per hour (and thus more Free-Drinks-Per-Hand-Played).
I think that if the populace in general were more intelligent regarding finding a good game, you'd absolutely be right that "we're the best chance you have" promotions would make killings. But I think in real life, that's less certain.
It is, however, a possibility that if casinos market as "lowest house edge, best blackjack rules," this advertising MAY encourage prospective players to analyze their chances more intelligently and thus, in effect, help the market get more educated. So I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong... just that as much as I wish you were absolutely correct, I don't think you necessarily are (although you may be).