For those of you playing the $15 and $10 tables at the Borgata, beware. They have this annoying new sidebet on most of the games where if the dealer's up card is a card whose value is in between your two cards, you win. For example if you have a 6 and a 10 and the dealer has 7, you'd win. The dealers have no clue what they're doing, so it takes forever to play a hand.
Annoying new side bet at the Borgata
- Thread starter Thunder
- Start date
plainplayer
Active Member
Automatic Monkey
Banned
A,2 = +2Thunder said:
K,3 = +1
Q,4 = 0
J,5 = -0.5 (count red, black is OK)
6-10 = -1
It goes +EV somewhere between TC = +5 and +6. Count this if you really want to be annoyed! :juggle:
I, too, played this at the $5 table at Mohegan. The dealer was completely lost when it came to pay-outs and the concept of the side bet.kewljason said:
What I don't understand is the discrepancy in pay-outs between a "double match" in this bet as opposed to the "suited double match" in the regular match-the-dealer side bet option at the other tables at Mohegan.
In this "in between" side bet at the $5 table, if your two cards match the dealer's up-card (and mind you, they don't all have to be suited, the pay-out is 30:1)
In match-the-dealer, a double non-suited is 8:1, a double where one card is suited is 15:1, and a double suited is 22:1
I'm curious as to why they raise it to 30:1 on the "in between", where you don't even have to suit the dealer??
I wonder if this is a trial game which is why they offer it only at the $5 dollar tables.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
Because if you only match one card, you lose. It's not a very good sidebet.Morini77 said:
Zero
Well-Known Member
Then you need to read it again.Morini77 said:
If there were a coin flip game where you won $0.99 every time it was heads and lost $1 every time it was tails, but won $9.99 if there were 10 heads in a row, and there was another coin flip game where you lost $1 every flip no matter if it was heads or tails, but won $100 if there were 10 heads in a row...
0
Zero
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure why this still seems strange to you. Do you find it strange that a blackjack will pay 6:5 on one table, yet pay 3:2 on another table in the same casino? I'll try one more time. The rules of a game determine the house edge. The house can increase their edge by lowering the payouts, or decrease their edge by increasing the payouts. The house decided to set the payout at 30:1 instead of 8:1 to achieve a desired house edge on the side bet. This is the same reason many casinos offer SD that pays 6:5 for a blackjack. The house wanted to offer a SD game but wanted a higher house edge than a SD game that paid 3:2 would give them. Does this help?Morini77 said:
0
You do realize that a leap from 8:1 to 30:1 is a bit different than your blackjack pay-out example, yes?Zero said:
The other "weird" trait of this game is that the 30:1 pay-out involves an outcome completely unrelated from the "in between" aspect of the game.
Believe me, I understand what you're saying. My only point is that 8:1 to 30:1 is a staggering disparity. We're talking a near 300% increase in pay-out for the same outcome.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
Yes, but what about all the other outcomes? The return on the bet is the sum of all the possible outcomes weighted by the payoff.Morini77 said:
Agreed. Anecdotally speaking, people seemed to be doing fairly well (at least compared to the typical Match the Dealer side bet) with in-betweens to where it seemed like the 30-1 was an over-compensation by the house.Automatic Monkey said:
Granted, the lowest pay-out on Match the Dealer is 4:1 (single, non-suited match) compared to the 1:1 (in between that isn't within 3 cards)
I'm not crazy enough to think Mohegan (or Borgata) would introduce a game that put them at a disadvantage but then again, Mohegan is the same place that had that "triple down" day a few months ago...lol.
I think putting it at the $5 dollar table only with a $50 max is indicative of a trial run.
