The Casino’s Bread is Now Buttered by Slot
Players
September 11,
2009
Dear Mark: The
casino where I play has curtailed not only the
amount of blackjack games now available, but
also the comps they give to their blackjack
players. I’ve inquired to as why this is so, and
their response is that we are now catering more
to slot players than we have in the past, and he
said it was at the expense of the table games.
Does this make sense to you? I might only be a
nickel ($5) player, but I still give my fair
share to the house, even when playing smart by
using basic strategy. Gerald C.
Truth be told, Gerald, slot players yanking
handles is now the butter for casinos' bread.
Slot machines don’t take sick days, need
vacation time, and their health care coverage
consists of a slot mechanic with screw driver.
Oh, and they don’t whine when you work em’
overtime on weekends.
Let’s do the math, Gerald, to see why casinos
think the way they do, by you going toe-to-toe,
mano-a-mano against Geraldine, a nickel (in her
world a nickel is five cents, not five dollars)
slot player.
For starters, the casino is going to get a lot
more action out of Geraldine at 500 spins per
hour than the 50 hands of blackjack you might
play at a full table. But it’s not just because
of the hands per hour that they’re grinning ear
to ear when Geraldine sits in front of a nickel
machine, but the savory scent of the much higher
house edge that slots carry over blackjack. The
casino is going to keep something like 12
percent of every nickel Geraldine inserts, while
keeping only a half of one percent against you,
a basic strategy player at blackjack.
So there’s you, a $5 blackjack basic strategy
player at a full table, betting $250 per hour,
averaging roughly $1.25 in losses.
Then there’s our nickel slot player, Geraldine,
who bets one coin per line on a five-line game
-- 25 cents a spin -- wagering about $125 an
hour and averaging approximately $15 in losses.
As you can see, Gerald, Geraldine’s losing
action blows yours away. And yet, she’s
rejoicing, because she is finally being
appreciated where you play.
Dear Mark: Perfect basic strategy at
blackjack tells you to hit a 12 against a two or
three. Yet when you do, especially when playing
third base, you can get a lot of grief from
fellow players. How come most players don’t know
the difference between hitting and not hitting
on this hand? Ned F.
I know that you know, and most of those reading
this column know, the difference, so what
follows is for those other people who don’t. To
clarify, far too many players blame the
anchorman (third base) for giving the dealer an
advantage by hitting or standing in the same
manner they would. But hitting 12 against 2 or 3
is mathematically the correct move no matter
where you are sitting at the table.
Without considering depletion of deck, your
chances of not busting when you HIT a 12 are
9÷13, or 69.23076%. So why stand on that 12 when
you know that if you hit it, the odds
significantly favor an improvement of your hand?
But you already knew that, and you also know
that if you do not HIT, your only chance of
winning with a 12 is if the dealer busts, and he
has that same 69% plus chance of making his hand
as you did.
Just block out the grumbling, Ned, from players
who think that you are "taking the dealer’s bust
card.” You don’t have, nor do they, any control
over the order of cards in the deck, and by
hitting the 12, you are just as likely to take a
card that would have benefited the dealer’s hand
as one that would have busted it.
Gambling Wisdom of the Week: “The
first time I looked at a video poker strategy
chart, I thought I’d accidentally been given the
one written in Greek.” --Angela Sparks
|
