Another reason I hate blackjack players.

[Blue Efficacy]

I knew it would happen eventually, but a fine single deck game at a local casino is no more.

Whenever other players and dealers were talking about it, it was always negative. They hated the doubling restrictions, which I can somewhat understand. You have to do your homework to know that even with those restrictions it was the least advantageous game for the house offered. The average player has no way of knowing that if they allowed free doubling the casino couldn't make money off of someone who knows basic strategy.

However, they had a lot of other reasons to complain. Frequent shuffling, fewer aces (hello, the ratio of aces is the exact same regardless of decks) fewer blackjacks (WTF), and various other things that make absolutely no sense.

The good news is the few times I did play it, even though it is somewhat beyond my bankroll, I got to play heads up. The bad news is it was unpopular to the point where a significant percentage of the people who played it were APs. So I really cannot fault the store for pulling the plug.
The penetration was always fair to more than fair.

So to sum it up, the casino tried to offer a fair blackjack game. And in return the casino patrons turned up their noses at it.

 

[tensplitter]

Maybe if they lowered the limit the ploppies would play it a lot more. Instead they had the limit high enough to scare away the ploppies, piss off the high rollers, and attract the card counters. They probably lost money on the game.

 

[Blue Efficacy]

Maybe if they lowered the limit the ploppies would play it a lot more. Instead they had the limit high enough to scare away the ploppies, piss off the high rollers, and attract the card counters. They probably lost money on the game.

It was only $25 and plenty of people play the DD game for the same price.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

It was only $25 and plenty of people play the DD game for the same price.

That's not a bad limit at all, being your max bet is only going to be $100 with a $25 min. 1-4 is more than enough to beat SD.

 

[ArcticInferno]

Hey Blue Efficacy your quote,
"... a significant percentage of the people who played it were APs."
I often see similar statements elsewhere.
My understanding is that less than 1% of the blackjack players are card counters.
Also, most of the card counters are fledglings without proper skills or bankrolls who will eventually fail in the long run, so not a legitimate threat to the casinos.
Also, most of the successful card counters are low-ballers, so they will win less than $5k per day on average, which is negligible to the casinos.
Would a casino pull a game because of card counters?
My guess would be that a casino would pull a game if they can’t make enough money on ploppies.
I really doubt that the winnings by the card counters would significantly take away from the winnings from the ploppies, to the point of closing a game.

One argument that I read is that a card counters takes up space. A card counter occupies a seat at the table, and if he spread to two hands, then he prevents ploppies from betting in those spot.

 

[21forme]

Also, most of the successful card counters are low-ballers, so they will win less than $5k per day on average, which is negligible to the casinos.

$1.5M+/year isn't bad for a "low-baller" :laugh:

 

[Blue Efficacy]

Hey Blue Efficacy your quote,
"... a significant percentage of the people who played it were APs."
I often see similar statements elsewhere.
My understanding is that less than 1% of the blackjack players are card counters.
Also, most of the card counters are fledglings without proper skills or bankrolls who will eventually fail in the long run, so not a legitimate threat to the casinos.
Also, most of the successful card counters are low-ballers, so they will win less than $5k per day on average, which is negligible to the casinos.
Would a casino pull a game because of card counters?
My guess would be that a casino would pull a game if they can’t make enough money on ploppies.
I really doubt that the winnings by the card counters would significantly take away from the winnings from the ploppies, to the point of closing a game.

One argument that I read is that a card counters takes up space. A card counter occupies a seat at the table, and if he spread to two hands, then he prevents ploppies from betting in those spot.

I am speaking in relative terms here of course. You take a game the ploppies hate and an AP would love and obviously the percentage of people playing this game with skills goes up.

I never blamed APs for burning out this game, the whole point of the post is a great game for the player was very unpopular with the local players, and therefore the plug was pulled. The fact that people who did play this game were more likely to be smart simply added fuel to the fire. An intelligent non-counter would often know to raise his bets if no aces have come out after a few hands for instance.

Also it was face up, so any civilian who makes insurance calls based on how many tens are on the board would actually be making the right play more often than not!