Once again the disclaimers about the shallowness of my grasp of blackjack, blah, blah, blah. Still, I wonder things.
Video blackjack machines exist. I have seen them. I have played them at the MGM Grand while waiting for a show to start, at Ellis Island while waiting for a seat in their excellent barbecue restaurant, and at Terrible's in Primm, again while waiting for a show.
But what always puzzles me is how few and far between these units are. I was discussing this with Cardgrrl over dinner at the cafe at Harrah's the other day. She didn't seem convinced, so we wandered all over the casino floor in search of a video blackjack machine, never finding one. Perhaps there are one or two tucked off in a corner somewhere that we missed, but I'm not sure. We passed dozens upon dozens of video poker machines and slot machines (reel and video) of every variety. I checked as many of the multi-game units as I could, because I know that sometimes those have blackjack as a game option--but not at Harrah's. No video blackjack.
I don't understand this. If I were inclined to play blackjack, I would prefer a video machine to a live dealer, all else being equal. I'm assuming here that the payout schedules are the same. That may or may not be true, but it should be true that the video blackjack machines don't have worse payout than live games, because the casino logically should want to encourage people to play the version of the game that costs the casino less to provide, which is surely the electronic one. So if there is any difference, the payout schedule should favor the machine over the dealer. Still, I'm assuming that they are equal, without having put even one minute into ascertaining whether this is so. (Why would I bother with actual facts when I can form opinions without them?)
If that assumption is correct, then the video version seems to me obviously superior to the table game, if making more money (or losing less money) is your goal. You get a lot more hands per hour, and you don't lose anything to dealer tips.
But it's perfectly obvious from the scarcity of video blackjack machines and the large number of blackjack tables that very few players prefer the machines to the dealers. My question is why that would be so.
One possibility is that people counting cards can't exercise this skill at the video game. But surely that's only a small fraction of all blackjack players.
Another possibility is that people like the social interaction with the dealer and/or with the other players. I don't suppose I can say that that is clearly irrational, but it seems odd to the misanthrope in me to put that factor ahead of the financial one. Maybe if you know that you're going to lose money over the long run, spreading the loss out more slowly makes sense so you can enjoy it longer. But that frame of mind is completely foreign to me--if you know you're losing money, why play in the first place?
My best guess, though, is that the main reason that people choose the table version of blackjack is that they don't trust the machines to be playing fair. When you happily stand pat with your two 10s, and the dealer is showing a deuce with a 10 in the hole, then catches a 9 to hit 21, my hunch is that most people just chalk it up to bad luck when the pretty young lady is turning over those cards in front of her. But if the same thing happens electronically, they think they're being cheated by a crooked machine that deliberately dealt itself the perfect card.
Naturally, I can't prove that the casinos and video machine manufacturers do not conspire to make the loss rate higher than it would be if the game were fair, but I'm inclined to think that they're legit, in the absence of pretty compelling evidence to the contrary. Then again, when I see contrails from jets overhead, I think that they are what they seem--condensation from the heat of the engines in cold air, rather than seeding the sky with mind-control chemicals to enslave the population, or whatever.
So for those of you who play a lot of blackjack, enlighten me: Do you pick the dealer variety primarily because, (A) you're counting cards and you can't do that at the machines, (B) you know you're losing money and you want it to leak away more slowly, (C) you like the social atmosphere and would miss it at a machine, (D) the payouts are somehow more favorable at the table game, (E) you can't bring yourself to trust that the cards are genuinely being dealt randomly in the video version, or (F) some other reason I haven't thought of?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Blackjack question #2
Posted by Rakewell at 1:13 AM
Labels: non-poker gambling
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
That's actually pretty strange that the multi-game units didn't have blackjack. I usually see it on the "Double-Double Bonus" video poker machines. Check the machines that are at the actual bars instead of the floor machines.
I admit I play blackjack like yourself, as a time passer when I'm bored. When I do play I prefer a table to the machine for the social aspects, and will only use a machine if I'm just sitting drinking at a bar with friends.
My question is, to you, what is the difference between playing blackjack live vs. on a machine, and playing poker live vs. online? People *should* prefer electronic poker (including the Excalibur abomination) for the same reasons you outlined, and yet I know I'm not alone in preferring live poker. I'll take my 25-30 hands/hour against the 130 hands/hour.
I don't think the analogy with poker works. Live and online poker call for substantially different skill sets, even though the game is the same. Many people who excel at one cannot conquer the other. E.g., Barry Greenstein and Daniel Negreanu are two who openly admit that their live skills have not translated well to internet play. I find the same. I have become so accustomed to getting large amounts of crucial information from watching the other players that when I play online I feel like I'm blind.
As for the hybrid tables like at Excalibur, well, that's slightly more complicated. I wrote about it at some length in my initial review. Just click on the Excalibur label (lower left corner of the page) to find that post.
Think you are comparing the wrong things.
The Casino makes more money off a poker/slot machine so any blackjack machine is an unprofitable use of electricity. People prefer poker/slots because they can get a big payday off a jackpot and know profit is possible on the next spin. Blackjack doesn't offer the same possibility for instantaneous gratification - start losing and you know it is never coming back.
True that there is a significant difference between live and online poker play, but I would say that this is only so for experienced players. Inexperienced players are likely too involved in what their own cards and odds are to pay attention to reads.
I would say that the average person isn't very adept at blackjack. I'm probably more adept than average, yet I don't even have basic strategy memorized. This unfamiliarity would explain a tendency to play the live games. They don't care about getting the best payout percentage and hands/hour. For the same reason, you won't find inexperienced poker players going online so they can get more hands in and increase their $/hour. They go because you can't get $0.01/$0.02 NL tables at Bellagio. ;)
Payouts on machines vs live table games are not the same. Video blackjack machines pay even money on a natural blackjack, unlike 3:2 on tables. Thus the house edge on the machines is massive compared to live tables.
I think you're not realizing how terrible video blackjack's rules and pays differ from live blackjack --- essentially, look at the worst games in Las Vegas, Harrah's live blackjack tables where a natural blackjack plays 6:5 instead of 3:2. It's even worse than that.
Blackjacks pay 1:1 on video blackjack machines, and they highly restrict when you can double down (normally at a table an A6 versus a dealer 6 is an instant double down, you get "Hit" or "Stand" as options on video blackjack.
If you know what you're doing at a blackjack table, you can be gambling at a 99.5% return rate. Video blackjack, you're lucky if you're getting 95%.
Stick to 9/6 Jacks of Better.
Rakewell,
Like you, I do not play a lot of blackjack, so when I decide to play, I take many factors into consideration. I sometimes walk around for quite a while before I select a table, but the major criterion is always the same. It is the dealer with the biggest tits.
Unaha-Closp has it correct. Slots pay the casino more money than a video blackjack or video poker machine. It's also much easier for someone to sit down at a slot machine and pound a button repeatedly to see their results than it is for someone to make decisions in a video poker or video blackjack game.
Slots = more profit. Simple as that.
Last time I was in Vegas I played a little video BJ. One thing I noticed: a dramatic difference between video BJ in MGM-Mirage vs. Harrah's casinos.
MGM-Mirage video BJ played like standard BJ with all your options (split, DD, even surrender on some). There was even a machine at MGM Grand where you could play 6 hands at once. I played 2 rounds and won $50 while my sister-in-law sat at the next machine lost her $20 in 2 rounds. Yeesh, what a swing.
But in Harrah's (at least in both Paris and Bally's, from my memory) the video BJ often eliminated DD and split options! I ran away when the first time I had AA I couldn't split. Losing those options must increase the house edge by several points.
I stick to poker, but branched out when we were there with a family group and couldn't often get 4-5 hrs to myself for a decent session/tourney. But my brother and sister in-law play BJ when they go 2-3 times a year and they always go sit with the same dealer in NYNY when shes on shift. Known her for years now. My brother-in-law prefers single-deck tables for those 3-4 times a session where the hot deck is obvious. Though the 6:5 BJ re-balances the edge.
You hit on the reasons that account for the motivation for the majority of people who play recreationally. On vacation, some people like to socialize and prefer a table game for that reason. Liking the idea of the possibility of winning money, but understanding the odds favor the house, they prefer to have fun at a game played at a pace that lets them enjoy more gambling time on their set vacation gambling budget.
The video version of Blackjack does have a worse payout than the live version. The live version pays 3/2 on a natural, while the video version pays 1/1. It makes the video blackjack version unplayable to anyone knowledgeable by turning that machine into nothing better than a reel game.
But one should not underestimate the social aspect of a live table. Most people are casual gamblers. They expect to lose, but they want to have a good time doing so. Its no fun sitting at a machine by yourself while it sucks you dry. At least at a table, if the ship goes down, everyone goes down with it, and that breeds some comraderie.
I'm not sure Rakewell's comparing the wrong things. Penny and nickel slots abound, not always filled with customers. If there were enough people who really wanted to play video blackjack, there would be floorspace for it somewhere.
I think a real comparison is live poker vs. live poker via one of those "PokerTek" tables. No dealer, just screens in front of each player. There is a smaller rake and no tips, but players prefer to handle real cards and rake real pots of chips. It just doesn't "feel right" playing in a casino, but on a computer.
A video screen is not a real alternative to someone looking to have a good time. I think "pros" may prefer a video blackjack machine in theory, but these people are the ones who rely on the count of the deck making a video machine not a viable option either.
Fred posted it, and he's correct, Video BJ pays worse then table BJ. It's actually 2 to 1 (which looks better, but gaming law requires your bet to be taken in video, so it's only a 1 unit win).
In addition most of the video version have been programmed with strict rules, no splitting on some, doubling only 10 and 11s or no doubling etc, etc. It's a nice way to pass the time and probably a lesser house edge then many table games (LIR, roulette, etc) but it's also much faster paced.
The other point is you probably didn't see them, as they are typically on the multi game machines now (VP). Most have it as an option, but not all do, they used to have a lot more stand alone BJ machines, but then again those had better rules too.
Do sense a bit of cynicism towards all other forms of gambling other than poker?
Being a faithful reader of The Poker Grump over the past couple of years...I think I do.
Post a Comment