Table Games What if all BJ were 6:5?

How would you react?

 

I find an investment group willing to fund the opening and operation of a 3:2 blackjack casino in Vegas...and then I'd invest in it.

I can see the marquee now - "Come in for the Only TRUE Blackjack Left in Nevada! - Every Table Pays 3:2 on Blackjack!"

 

I'd stop playing BJ.

It would suck, but I think I'd be okay with just VP and craps (provided those games hadn't been similarity "downgraded"). I probably wouldn't make as many trips, but it wouldn't cause me to stop going to Vegas.

 

I certainly would not play. It would be very easy to get rid of 6:5--if nobody played it, it would go away. Unfortunately, people do play it, and it is not going anywhere.

 

Short answer- I would quit playing.

I would only be a player if I was able to exploit some other advantage- hole carding, etc.

 

What if I gave a hypothetical answer? What would you do then?

 

I don't play BJ but that said ( and this is coming from a dice player)ya might see some of the players move over to craps at the places that have at LEAST 5x odds.

 

Considering I've only played 6/5 for one hand(cause I didn't notice), if they all were 6/5 i would never play again.

 

WE HAVE A WINNER FOLKS! *ding ding ding ding ding*
As posted earlier, we the people HAVE THE POWER, but when we are divided in decision making (people willing to still play BJ at 6:5 BJ payouts), the power is too small to make a change for the better.

 

For how little we play it really wouldn't make a difference.

 

i would play more baccarat instead.

 

It wouldn't affect me much since I mostly play VP instead.

My g/f and I last trip had a $10 match bet coupon at Bally's last trip. First table we sat down at, I didn't see 3:2 on the felt and asked, she said it was 6:5, but was kind enough to point at the 8 deck? shoe game next to her was 3:2, and that was enough for me to move. So we moved, waited for the hand shuffle to complete, dealer let my g/f place the cut card for the first time in her life...and then proceeded to lose our match bet coupon with a dealer 21...d'oh.

 

I'd stop playing BJ and learn VP.

 

For the small amount i play
I prefer crossing the street to play 6:5 at ceasars than having to walk to MGM to play 3:2

 

THIS^^^^^^

If high limit BJ (table minimums at $500 / hand or higher) ever went to 6/5, I would switch games.

 

"I'd stop playing BJ and learn VP." Payouts are changing from 9/6, to 8/5, you know.

"i would play more baccarat instead." What if commisions/payouts changed here too?

"I prefer crossing the street to play 6:5 at ceasars than having to walk to MGM to play 3:2 " This is why it works.

Frankly, I think it is simple inflation. There used to be $3 blackjack and craps, and before that, $1. And before that, $.50.

You will be able to repost this thread five, ten, and fifteen years from now simply by changing the numbers.

 

There is no more $3 blackjack due to inflation, which makes sense as the price of everything rises over time. 6:5 is completely changing the rules of the game, not just raising the minimum stake.

 

Yes and no. There aren't many 6:5 BJ tables that are above $5 minimums (there are some $10 6:5 but the majority are $5).

If the casino wanted to raise the minimum as an "inflation" measure, they aren't going to go to $6, $7, etc. It's going to be a 5 dollar increment. So in order to simply raise the min, they'd have to double it to $10. That means that theoretically, you'd have to double your bankroll or cut your gambling time in half if you were a 5 dollar BJ player.

Altering the rules (specifically making the BJ payout 6:5) allows the casino to increase their hold on a $5 table without having to double the minimums and therefore requiring gamblers to double their bankroll. It's sort of the "in between" instead of just raising the tables to $10 across the board.

Every time this topic comes up, I bring this point up. There are too many people that think $5 BJ with excellent rules should continue on in perpetuity, despite the fact that the casino's overhead goes up, the dealers pay goes up, the cost of the free booze people are drinking goes up, etc.

For those who are constantly complaining about this, I pose this question:

Would you rather see all table minimums be raised to $10 across the board, but have good rules (including 3:2), or keep $5 minimums but have the rules altered so the casino can keep the game profitable?

 

This was the argument that 6:5 defenders had several years ago when it first started creeping around. But its been proven wrong. 6:5 is apparently at a lot of green chip tables and in another thread it was posted that its even at some $50 and $100 tables at Cosmo. It's not just creeping outwards, its creeping upwards.

I agree with dankyone, this is a fundamental change in the game itself. I wouldn't play it, obviously the high edge is the main reason but just as big of a reason is it feels unsportsmanlike to me. It just feels cheap, like walking around wearing a gaudy fake Rolex.

I basically choose how much I'll gamble based on the cost of the game I want to play. If I can play a good DD game at a good casino for $50 I'll play for $50. It its a $200 min, I'll play $200 min. But if I can't find a good game I don't have that compulsion to gamble just for the sake of gambling.

 

well if the few dozens of people visiting the chats (on a regular basis) were able to turn around an industry like the gaming one, then a lot more important issues would have been solved by now, like the end of wars, food, education and health care for all... but even if we were a few hundred...it stil wouldnt work, boycoting the casinos..maybe if we all were on shifters level...

anyway...back to the Q of the OP... I wouldnt play..