Table Games 6:5 Blackjack

I read posts consistently addressing 6:5 vs 3:2 blackjack.

How many dollars does this actually affect you?

As in, how many blackjacks do you get in a trip and what stakes do you play?

 

Well you will get a blackjack from a 6-deck shoe...

24*96*2/312*311 = 0.047489488 = 4.75% of the time or 1 in 21.06 hands on average.

So this means you will likely get somewhere between 2 to 3 blackjacks an hour on average when you play at a full table. It will be closer to three with a decent dealer.

So about 3 times an hour on average you get shorted on blackjack.

If you play $5/hand, that's ($2.50 - $1)*3 = $4.50/hr
If you play $10/hand, that's ($5-$2)*3 = $9/hr.
If you play $25/hand that's ($12.50 - $5)*3 = $22.50/hr
If you play $100/hand, that's ($50-$20)*3 = $90/hr

and so on...

Only an idiot would play 6:5 BJ for $100/hand though.

 

Good question. No idea how many blackjacks I actually get but using 5% to approximate...

Last trip I had about 20 hours played on fairly empty DD tables, estimating 100 hands/hr, that's 2000 hands. So about 100 blackjacks. At $200 avg bet I'd get $300 on 3:2 and $240 on 6:5 so a $60 difference.

That would be $6000 over the course of the trip. Pretty huge. I knew it sucked but hadn't really thought about it in terms of my actual play before.

 

Not the nicest thing to say! I've been drunk off my ass, at a fun table, and ended up hitting a good shoe and betting big. Yes, it wasn't the best way to spend my $100+ a hand, but I was winning, and having fun doing it! It is a good rule of thumb though, and an eye opener when you take the time to do the calculation.

 

I probably should have added drunk to that too, my apologies. But at that betting level, you obviously should never need to play 6:5. And as you can see, it does get costly. But if I knew ahead of time I would run hot at a 6:5 table, I'd play it too. :evillaugh

 

I agree, but people play $100 chips and far more on roulette games, which is even worse. The whole reason 6:5 even exists is that people are willing to play it, which no $100 player ever should.

 

Nice post.
So it is easy to remember that playing 6:5 vs 3:2 costs you just about the amount of one extra lost hand per hour.

I always say that gambling is an entertainment expense. I don't have that big of a problem with people playing 6:5 as long as they are educated as to the cost of that entertainment. For example, in the past I have paid far more than the equivalent of one hand at $25/hour to look at boobies. :evillaugh

I use to have a big problem with people playing at 6:5 tables because I knew that if people continued to play it, the casinos would make it more prevelant. This has come to pass and I don't see it ever reversing.

 

This is how I look at it. Just under 1 bet an hour. That really adds up if you play a lot of blackjack on your trip.

If everyone adopts this stategy and quits playing the 3:2 tables then the trend will move faster. If a segment of the educated population insists on "normal" tables the casino will still offer them (even if they will die at some point).

 

You might have misunderstood me. I will NEVER play at a 6/5 table, EVER, regardless of what distractions the casino might dangle in front of me to entice me to do so.

By me saying I don't have such a big problem with it now I meant a problem with OTHER people playing it. I use to be a crusader against it. I would say things as I walked past a 6/5 table. Or I would purposely sit down at a 6/5 table full of people and buy in for $1000, then "notice" that it was a 6/5 table, and make a stink, then color up. "This is a rip off 6/5 table." Anything to try and educate others.

I still do things for the anti-6/5 cause, but not nearly as much as I did before.

 

I did not understand you correctly.

I LOL'ed the sitting down and buying big. That cracks me up. I remember sitting down and buying in at a table, playing a few hands, and then realizing it was a 6/5 table. I questioned the dealer, got upset, and requested an immediate cash out. I got some strange looks from the other players at the table. I don't think they had a clue what I was upset with. This was right in the beginning when 6:5 started showing up.

 

+1, my thoughts exactly.
I have seen the casinos continue to change the game to where the average ploppy is meat in the gristmill and the game is far removed from real blackjack. Many years ago the old Maxim deal SD through the whole deck, s17, rsa etc. I guess it's all Thorp's fault.

 

Eh, Thorp just sped up the inevitable. If he didn't do it, someone else would have within a few years likely. Now people with computers millions times faster than Thorp are now giving out strategies for Ultimate Texas Holdem instead.

 

That seems high but the math is correct. :shrug:

For a $5 player with the same number of hands the difference is $150. Doesn't seem quite as bad for some reason.

 

Pffft....I stab anyone I see who plays 6:5 blackjack. That's what a true crusader does.

 

:evillaugh

excellent.

 

Sure, only a $150. But the $5 player is probably buying in for $100 each session. And maybe the $5 player only has a $500 budget. So he goes home 1 1/2 buyins further down than if he played 3/2 instead of 6/5. It's all relative.

 

I agree totally. I think, in fact, that that was my point. The 'doesn't seem as bad' comment notwithstanding. I guess I meant that the $150 doesn't seem as surprising as the $6,000 did before I did the math.

By playing 6/5 instead of 3/2 you are losing $150 of your $500 budget before you even sit down to play. That is pretty huge.

 

Mark Pilarski addressed this very issue in his column today. Bottom line, perfect blackjack with single deck gives the house a 0.15% advantage in a 3:2 game, but in a 6:5 game it increases tenfold to 1.45%.

 

I always bring this up whenever 6:5 is discussed, but the reality is that 6:5 is a way for the house to increase it's profitability on low limit tables, without raising the limits themselves. I realize that 6:5 isn't exclusive to $5 tables, but it's quite easy to find 3:2 at tables that are $10-15 and up, and it's rare to find $25+ tables that have 6:5. IMO it's a "half-step" towards increasing the table limit. The casinos know that completely getting rid of $5 tables for $10 tables would be tough to pull off, and $7.50 tables aren't real practical. 6:5 allows the low limit games to still be profitable for the casino by offsetting the fact that their operating costs for that table have increased and will increase every year.

I'm not defending it, just providing a different point of view. For me personally I'm rarely affected as I play at limits where 6:5 is VERY rare (although years back I was playing at the level that forced me to avoid 6:5 in its infancy), but I pose this question, mainly to $5 players - If you had to choose between keeping $5 limits with 6:5 payouts, OR the lowest limit tables being $10 and $15 at night/busy times, but all tables play 3:2, which would you choose? The $10 game is obviously the better game, and you're theoretically going to "lose less" per wager, but you've also doubled your bet, which means either you double your bankroll or double your risk of ruin. If forced to choose which would you pick?

 

I remember the signage the Flamingo had proudly displayed advertising "single deck blackjack". I remember that it caught my eye and got me into their casino. I also remember doing the math over and over in my head trying to figure out what I was missing. What I thought was a "loss leader" of sorts was actually highway robbery. Worse yet, the table was full. I still can't believe how fast 6/5 took over the strip. I figured they would take over the front of the casinos. They'd be the first table people saw and the uneducated would sit down because it was easy. I figured deeper in the casino, the 3/2 games would still prevail.

I still get amazed that it seems most people just don't care. I guess most people think it's still better then the slots, so who cares?