Blackjack poll

[StudiodeKadent]

Sorry to be counter-contrarian, but I don't deal in trade-offs for eye candy as you call it. Also, I don't find any CSM game an acceptable trade-off for any purpose unless there are other AP possibilities there. I may want to have a good time while I'm at the table, but I don't believe it wise to trade off winning possibilities for entertainment. In fact, I know for certain that I will not feel entertained if I lose my money in the process. Any AP who does, is in reality a DP IMHO.

Well that's because you are an AP and hence have a specific set of priorities. I was simply stating that there are many different kinds of players, with different sets of priorities.

Not everyone that plays Blackjack plays to make a long term accounting profit. Some people are more than happy to accept a long-term negative expected monetary value as the price for excitement derived from the game and the possibility of positive variance.

There is nothing illegitimate about gambling for entertainment.

I should clarify that I don't think advantage gambling is intrinsically immoral either, and I consider it an indispensible component of the ecology of the gambling market. I'm simply suggesting that your standards (whilst valid for your context) aren't the only ones that need to be taken into account.

Plus, as long as good games are still around, does it really hurt you to have party pits for sucker games avaliable to those that wish to frequent them?

 

[ChefJJ]

I hate to be the contrarian here, but honestly, remember that APing is not universalizable conduct (if everyone were an APer than blackjack would not be offered by casinos) and those sucker games end up subsidizing AP-able games.

As long as the sucker games don't completely replace and/or dominate good ones for APs, you are absolutely correct.

 

[StudiodeKadent]

As long as the sucker games don't completely replace and/or dominate good ones for APs, you are absolutely correct.

Thank you. And I am not advocating that sucker games replace the beatable ones. If that happens then the appeal of Blackjack has been lost. As I said I think all interests need to be catered for, and that includes reasonable-rules countable games (for APs) and good rules at low limits (for BSPs).

 

[aslan]

Well that's because you are an AP and hence have a specific set of priorities. I was simply stating that there are many different kinds of players, with different sets of priorities.

Not everyone that plays Blackjack plays to make a long term accounting profit. Some people are more than happy to accept a long-term negative expected monetary value as the price for excitement derived from the game and the possibility of positive variance.

There is nothing illegitimate about gambling for entertainment.

I should clarify that I don't think advantage gambling is intrinsically immoral either, and I consider it an indispensible component of the ecology of the gambling market. I'm simply suggesting that your standards (whilst valid for your context) aren't the only ones that need to be taken into account.

Plus, as long as good games are still around, does it really hurt you to have party pits for sucker games avaliable to those that wish to frequent them?

Much of what you say goes without saying. I was approaching it from an AP's perspective, since this is an AP Forum.

It is true there is nothing illegitimate about gambling for entertainment, but there may be something immoral about the lengths to which the casinos will go to convince the players that they have a good chance to walk away winner.

Take for example one of the very worst bets in the casino, the slotus machinus. Upon inspection it appears the reels give a relatively good chance for a stop on the higher payoffs, when in reality, the machines are programmed to yield other than what their physical appearance would suggest. Jackpot symbol---Jackpot symbol---Oops! blank--missed the Jackpot symbol by one--NOT! In fact, their were likely several virtual (unseen) blanks on either side of the Jackpot symbol, not the one on each side that appear to be there. If a person knew how slot machines really worked, only the most compulsive gamblers would play them, and that would not be a moral outcome, now would it? See http://wizardofodds.com/slots for more information.

Now in the "regular" world, when someone deceives another to enter into a deal which is designed to take their money, the judgments range from slickster to scam artist or con man, the latter often punishable by imprisonment. Ah, yes! Gambling for entertainment. Better that the casinos took only enough (state regulated of course) to cover their legitimate expenses and a fair rate of return to stockholders--then let entertainment abound! But as it is, casino gambling is a akin to a scam and the states are in collusion with them for the obvious tax skim-off.

BTW, so egregious is the deceit in the design of slots that the example I used is actually forbidden by some states--however, two Jackpots above the payline and one on the payline are permitted. I suppose the state reasons that it is okay to deceive the public up to a point, but won't go along with the worst case instance--maybe a small pang of conscience. How compassionate!

And yes, the growing number of sucker games does really hurt me to the extent that decent games are dwindling. In fact, it is possible they could disappear altogether. CSMs are appearing everywhere, even the highest class stores. The more the public tolerates them, the more they proliferate. Good games are more and more difficult to find, especially in lower min games. Rules have been chiseled this way and that until they only attract the weakest of the APs who do not fully understand the risk entailed. The casinos have found a better mousetrap, and that has turned me into an advocate for mice.

 

[StudiodeKadent]

Much of what you say goes without saying. I was approaching it from an AP's perspective, since this is an AP Forum.

I was under the impression that it was a Blackjack forum, although I am not disputing the proper-ness of APs being here (AP is an important element in the Blackjack ecology as well).

It is true there is nothing illegitimate about gambling for entertainment, but there may be something immoral about the lengths to which the casinos will go to convince the players that they have a good chance to walk away winner.

To an extent I actually agree with you there. I'm an economist by education and, under US terminology, a militant classical liberal/libertarian, so it pains me to have to suggest this but I do think casinos should have to honestly label the house edges of their games. This clearly is an example of "advisory intervention" rather than authoritative intervention (to use JS Mill's distinction) and also is justified by the prohibition on fraud.

But as it is, casino gambling is a akin to a scam and the states are in collusion with them for the obvious tax skim-off.

I agree. Overly regulated industries are subject to regulatory capture and you frequently end up with the worst of both worlds; the worst of big business meets the worst of big government.

And yes, the growing number of sucker games does really hurt me to the extent that decent games are dwindling. In fact, it is possible they could disappear altogether. CSMs are appearing everywhere, even the highest class stores. The more the public tolerates them, the more they proliferate. Good games are more and more difficult to find, especially in lower min games. Rules have been chiseled this way and that until they only attract the weakest of the APs who do not fully understand the risk entailed.

You make some sense. Again I do think a long-term-rational casino will allow and turn a blind eye to low level counting (I also think CSMs are economically irrational given their price; they don't increase game speed much beyond shoe+ASM and similar game protection can be offered simply by lowering penetration (and yes, I do think it is reasonable to do this; 66% pen on a 6 deck game or 62.5% pen on an 8 deck game (i.e. 5 decks dealt) is technically countable and still provides variance, and I think its an acceptable trade off for the elimination of extreme counter-countermeasures at lower limit games), and the result will be lower costs for casinos).

That said, at high limits I think casinos are reasonably justified in watching for sharp APers. And I think a CSM/1-deck Discard Tray using 5 or 4 decks, if it offers liberal rules and/or lower limits, is fair (if, in my judgment, overly expensive from a casino's perspective).

I'm not trying to defend the practices of many casinos today. I agree they are digging their own graves with gimmick games, excessive paranoia of advantage players, and the like.

I should add that the mass market are not very informed about blackjack odds at all; educating the mass market is the primary way to encourage competition between casinos in terms of offering better games.

I guess my primary point is one of balance, and I do believe that my own approach is best from a long-term-rational-interest perspective for the casinos. Of course, I am not a casino executive, although I think after reading this some people may wish I were one.

 

[aslan]

I was under the impression that it was a Blackjack forum, although I am not disputing the proper-ness of APs being here (AP is an important element in the Blackjack ecology as well).

This is a Blackjack forum, open to all, but I think I am understating it if I say "with a slant toward advantaged play." The site in fact caters to all who are APs or who aspire to become APs. It clearly espouses AP principles, rendering all else to the VooDoo thread. It has no Basic Strategy thread, I assume because basic strategy alone is a -EV strategy, and in fact, is subsumed into the discussions of card counting and other AP techniques.

 

[aslan]

To an extent I actually agree with you there. I'm an economist by education and, under US terminology, a militant classical liberal/libertarian, so it pains me to have to suggest this but I do think casinos should have to honestly label the house edges of their games. This clearly is an example of "advisory intervention" rather than authoritative intervention (to use JS Mill's distinction) and also is justified by the prohibition on fraud.

Ah, John Stuart Mill, a most Christian-like atheist, if you don't mind me saying so! For me he was a clear articulator of American [representative] democracy sans Christian principles, which may provide future guidelines for our increasingly pluralistic republic. I learned long ago that religion is religion and government is government, and there are certain universal truths that permeate both. Nuf said.

Advisory vs. authoritative intervention--Leave it to JSM to see this distinction! The man was a genius.

I agree. Overly regulated industries are subject to regulatory capture and you frequently end up with the worst of both worlds; the worst of big business meets the worst of big government.

Being a former "regulator" myself, I was always revulsed when government gave away the store. Especially when the rank and file labored long hours in the opposite direction.

You make some sense. Again I do think a long-term-rational casino will allow and turn a blind eye to low level counting (I also think CSMs are economically irrational given their price; they don't increase game speed much beyond shoe+ASM and similar game protection can be offered simply by lowering penetration (and yes, I do think it is reasonable to do this; 66% pen on a 6 deck game or 62.5% pen on an 8 deck game (i.e. 5 decks dealt) is technically countable and still provides variance, and I think its an acceptable trade off for the elimination of extreme counter-countermeasures at lower limit games), and the result will be lower costs for casinos).

What they should do and what they do do are two different things. The irrational emotion accompanying greed apparently does not like seeing even a scintilla of potential profit finding it's way into the low level counters' pockets. This often leads to extraordinary measures, something like using a cannon to destroy a common housefly, where a fly-swatter, as you suggest, would be eminently more practical.

Far greater revenues would be collected with just barely playable games, games that professionals would likely pass by, but which fledgling and inexperienced APs might foolishly invest their time and money, many of them going bust before reaching that [in this case] very long run.

That said, at high limits I think casinos are reasonably justified in watching for sharp APers. And I think a CSM/1-deck Discard Tray using 5 or 4 decks, if it offers liberal rules and/or lower limits, is fair (if, in my judgment, overly expensive from a casino's perspective).

I'm not trying to defend the practices of many casinos today. I agree they are digging their own graves with gimmick games, excessive paranoia of advantage players, and the like.

Far from digging their graves, they appear to be filling their seats [and pockets] even in these days of economic decline and proliferating table games (9 new in PA, 3 new in DE, and 1 new in W VA, with applications/construction/openings pending in W VA, PA, MA, and MD, just speaking from my east coast vantage). From an AP point of view, they do indeed seem to be digging their graves, but they will only be dead to APs. For the living dead, the ploppies, they will remain live and well.

I should add that the mass market are not very informed about blackjack odds at all; educating the mass market is the primary way to encourage competition between casinos in terms of offering better games.

Mass media exposure, consistent and relentless, of what casinos are really all about might spell the demise of many of them. Who wants to run a casino where only a reasonable rate of return is feasible? Wholesome gambling? Sounds almost like an oxymoron. Churches have been doing this for years [Bingo, Casino Night]. The help works for free, and the proceeds above expenses go to charity.

Once people understand they are being ripped off, and once they have the measures to evaluate whether they have a fair chance of winning and what level of house edge is reasonable, only the gambling addict and those who are entertainment-starved will find a losing proposition attractive [losing beyond a reasonable ROR, that is]. On second thought, I may be attributing more common sense and rationality to the general populace than they deserve.

I guess my primary point is one of balance, and I do believe that my own approach is best from a long-term-rational-interest perspective for the casinos. Of course, I am not a casino executive, although I think after reading this some people may wish I were one.

Casinos with a long-term-rational-interest perspective--now that's something to ponder. I don't think casinos in this country think much further that this year's profit and loss statement.

 

[jaxwild]

I am forwarding this idea, originally posted over at BJ21 to this site because there is the slightest chance we could all benefit by participating.

Las Vegas sun has an article about BJ games in vegas complete with a reader poll about whether players prefer party pit atmosphere blackjack paying 6-5, traditional blackjack paying 3-2, or no blackjack. Currently traditional blackjack has about 80% of votes. It only takes a second to vote and no registration or anything is required and just on the off chance that some casino exec could take note, please vote.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/26/blackjack-payouts-drop-oh-those-dancers/

Tried to vote three different times. Site would not record my vote it said.