the opposite effect

[RingyDingy]

Ok, there is lots of talk from lots of different angles about the many different games of BJ around, games which are good for players, games which are good for the house, games which stink etc etc.

so that leads me a question.

If we all lived in a perfect world (HA!) what would be the ideal game as far as the house goes (i.e. a good take % AND one which will entice players etc)

basically what would be the ideal compromise for both to come to, what would players feel is still a good enough game to play, versus, what is a good game for a casino to take thier share on.

Id like to know the pro's thoughts

cheers

Ringy

 

[kewljason]

I think 6-8 deck games paying 3-2 blackjack, stand 17 are fair. Gives the house in the neighborhood of .5% advantage. They should also tolerate counters more. especially small counters. unless you are spreading 10-500 or some ridiculous amount. They advertise when someone hits a slots jackpot so why not welcome counters. The public likes to know that it IS possible to win at a game. Deal deeper into the shoe. The more hands per hour played by 99.99 ploppies and BS players will way more than offset what the AP's can make. I think they over estimate number of AP's and how much it really effects their bottom line. When they run into team or big time counters spreading 500-5000 thats another matter. I think they should have some right to protect themselves a bit. Of course I'm still hoping for peace on earth as well.

 

[EasyRhino]

Keep rules fairly poor while not saying "no" to the player. Allow DAS and maybe RSA, but make it H17. 8 decks (sigh), but dealt deeply. Definitely allow surrender.

Actually, if the casino could figure out a way to no-peek more common, without causing a riot, then they probably would, because that would possibly speed up the game.