Table Games Is 6:5 REALLY that big of a deal?

I am a low roller. I’ll play $10- MAYBE $15 a hand if I’m properly lubed.

I’ve been playing BJ for close to 20 years, and maybe I have crap luck, but in a two hour session, I MAYBE average one blackjack, most times none.

At $10 a hand, 3:2 would pay $15. That same winning hand at a 6:5 table: $12. So assuming I am dealt one BJ, I lose ( miss out on) $3 by playing on a 6:5 table.

Is it really worth it to keep searching for a low limit 3:2 table when I’d rather enjoy my time sitting and playing?

Yes, I am aware that the “cost” of entertainment, and what each person considers to be value of that cost differs. Just wondering if the $3 variance really stops YOU from sitting down at a 6:5 table?

 

Me too am wondering about this, how much of a % house edge difference does this make?

 

I remember years ago when the strip properties went to 6:5, there was a huge outcry. They effectively lowered the “value” of getting dealt a 21. But, the initial sting is gone, and that’s just the way it is now. 6:5 is the rule, where 3:2 is the exception. So, other than sticking it to the man by refusing to sit at the table, and that whole $3 thing, I can’t figure out the big deal. I guess on a $100 hand I can see it, as we are talking a $30 difference, but for a $10 or $15 table, I’d rather drink, socialize and have fun than spend time searching for a black cat in a dark room that isn’t there.

 

and those tables also have some terrible rules.

 

I’m using a dealer hit soft 17 example.

 

I think some think of the saying, "Give them an inch, they'll take a mile."

 

Agree. No big deal.
When it first arrived people were angry. Boycott those casinos. LOL, you would need to boycott LV.
Just enjoy your time in LV.

 

I just found this site “https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/calculator/” you can calculate house edge on specific rules. Not sure how accurate this is

 

Yes it is...think of it this way, it is big enough of a deal for Vegas casino's to go in droves to it the last 5-10 years ....look at it that way!

 

Yes. It lets the casino know you don't mind paying more money for the same product.

Actually, you would be paying more for a worse product

 

Odds of a blackjack is roughly 1 in 21, or 4.83%. At a 5-person table, you'll get about 70 hands per hour, so that translates to 3.38 blackjacks per hour.

At a $10 table, you lose $3 per blackjack, so your total cost is $10.14/hr to play at a 6:5 table.

At a $15 table, you lose $4.50 per blackjack, so your total cost is $15.21/hr to play at a 6:5 table.

Over the course of the weekend, this adds up fast. At a $10 table, 4 hours of play per day, 3 days of play, that's $120 you've lost. That $120 is usually a very relevant percentage of people's budgets for a trip.

 

yes, it is incremental. conditioning. slowly but surely, they take away more.

 

getting only 1 blackjack in 2 hours of play would be unusual.

 

That said, most players are dreadful at blackjack so the extra ~1.5% house edge by playing 6:5 is a drop in the bucket compared to the 10-15% edge they give up with their dumb splitting 10s, playing never-bust "strategy", never doubling, etc.

 

if you dont mind throwing $3 away here and there, ill shoot you my paypal info and you can send it to me

 

Whether 6:5 is a "big deal" is an individual decision. is it a big deal to you? Clearly not. Is it a big deal to other person? Yes. Scorcho laid it out pretty well. I won't criticize someone if they want to play 6:5. Its their money. There are lots of things other people do with their money that I would never do. But I also wouldn't expect overwhelming sympathy for your belief that it is not a big deal

 

Un uh. We land at McCarran once per year. We're tourists. Just passin' through. And unless my memory is fading alarmingly fast, I don't think I have ever hit a table rich in aces-n-tens. They seem to be somewhat rare, so the "loss" is not noticed. I've outright lost more hand$ than I have been 'new rules shorted'..

 

Just play at the Cromwell and enjoy 3/2 along with the the wunnerful atmosphere and swift cocktail service

 

Also, if people, even casual players, refused to pay for 6:5, or triple zero roulette, or shitty video poker paytables, or absurd resort fees, or $17 poolside cocktails, etc. then none of those lousy things would exist. So casual players that don't care about the premium being charged against them at 6:5 are basically hurting everyone.

That is to say, if every casual player simply refused to play 6:5 and left all tables completely empty, then the casinos would relent and move back to 3:2. Yes, give them an inch and they'll take a mile. But it's a no-brainer for them considering how gladly you handed over that inch in the first place.

 

I've posted about this time & time again... it is literally better to play a $25 3:2 than it is to play a $10 6:5 table, assuming you're going to play more than just a few hands.
The math is inarguable.
But to make the point more clearly, let's just take a look at $10 play - 3:2 versus 6:5... the "$3 per blackjack" mentioned above by the OP.
While variance may cause somebody to only get one BJ every 3 hours for a single 3-hour session, in the long run, that total will end up averaging about 3 to 4 blackjacks per hour.
So, let's be conservative and say that it's only 3 per hour.
$9 an hour difference between 3:2 & 6:5.
If you play blackjack 10+ hours a day, as I do, for 3 days per trip, that's $270 - which, for a $10 player, can easily be the difference between a winning trip & a losing one.
But even the 5 hour per-day player is giving away $135 in 3 days... no, not betting it & losing - literally GIVING away $135.

And - this notion that it's the exception and not the rule? That's only true on the Strip. Off strip? You'd be hard-pressed to ever even see a 6:5 table....Downtown? Well, stay away from Binion's & 4-Queens, and you'll likely never see one downtown either.