You can't beat the House!

[Southwind17]

I'd be interested to hear what members here feel about Crown Casino's in Melbourne, Australia, recent rule change on their low-stake Blackjack tables making it now a game of 22 instead of 21, arguably.

Of course, the rule change makes it more advantageous to the House! What else?!

 

[This is The End]

It appears this is just for a new game they offer called Blackjack Plus:

Blackjack Plus was approved by Victoria's gambling regulator in December and has been introduced to low-bet tables, often used by recreational gamblers and tourists - not high rollers flown into Melbourne.

I can only assume that they will still have normal Blackjack too...

If they don't, people can take their money to a casino that offers normal Blackjack.

 

[lionking]

I saw that. What a joke. You can bet other casinos in Australia will follow suit (if you'll excuse the gambling parlance).

 

[lionking]

If they don't, people can take their money to a casino that offers normal Blackjack.

Not in Melbourne you won't. There's only one.

 

[angrysoba]

I saw that. What a joke. You can bet other casinos in Australia will follow suit (if you'll excuse the gambling parlance).

Are these casinos run by a pack of jokers?

 

[theprestige]

What I find hilarious is all the butthurt punters saying things like

''The finger is now pointed at the [Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation] to explain how they are acting in the public interest

"Please, massa government, please save me from my lazy idiocy! I's a good house ******, yes I is!"

 

[angrysoba]

What I find hilarious is all the butthurt punters saying things like
"Please, massa government, please save me from my lazy idiocy! I's a good house ******, yes I is!"

Is this to do with the "black" in "Blackjack"?

 

[theprestige]

Is this to do with the "black" in "Blackjack"?

No, it has to do with people turning over to the government their responsibility for knowingly betting against the house.

"How dare the government allow casinos to tell me the odds and then let me bet against them anyway?!"

 

[Southwind17]

Are these casinos run by a pack of jokers?

A joke of Packers, actually (only some of you will get that one).

Not a bad collective noun that for the family, I'd say!

 

[rjh01]

Not in Melbourne you won't. There's only one.

And it is not worth going interstate because if you want to gamble big they will still give you the old game.

Best yet is do not go into the casino at all. It might be cheaper for most people to go see a top show.

 

[Southwind17]

And it is not worth going interstate because if you want to gamble big they will still give you the old game.
Best yet is do not go into the casino at all. It might be cheaper for most people to go see a top show.

Isn't that analogous to suggesting that people listen to the radio rather than read a book? One's hardly a substitute for the other, if it's a gambling 'hit', or a gripping action thriller, for example, that one's desirous of.

 

[psionl0]

Burswood Casino (in Western Australia) also has "blackjack plus". It's mainly used in low stakes tables so the casino makes as much money from the low stakes players as they do from the other players. In a similar vein, they introduced roulette tables that have a 0 and 00 for the low stakes players.

One of the more outrageous moves Burswood introduced was the scrapping of the "vig" in Baccarat and replacing it with a 50% charge on all banker wins where the banker scores a 6. This turned baccarat into a mugs game.

The problem is that casinos in Australia have a government sanctioned monopoly and can do whatever they like. Don't even think about playing slot machines at Burswood.

 

[angrysoba]

A joke of Packers, actually (only some of you will get that one).

Not a bad collective noun that for the family, I'd say!

Ah! I remember Kerry Packer.

So, his mischievous ghost is trying to do for poker what his mischievous person once did for cricket.

 

[Damien Evans]

It appears this is just for a new game they offer called Blackjack Plus:




I can only assume that they will still have normal Blackjack too...

If they don't, people can take their money to a casino that offers normal Blackjack.

The next nearest Casino is 600 km away and across Bass Strait.

 

[Damien Evans]

Burswood Casino (in Western Australia) also has "blackjack plus". It's mainly used in low stakes tables so the casino makes as much money from the low stakes players as they do from the other players. In a similar vein, they introduced roulette tables that have a 0 and 00 for the low stakes players.

One of the more outrageous moves Burswood introduced was the scrapping of the "vig" in Baccarat and replacing it with a 50% charge on all banker wins where the banker scores a 6. This turned baccarat into a mugs game.

The problem is that casinos in Australia have a government sanctioned monopoly and can do whatever they like. Don't even think about playing slot machines at Burswood.

And guess who owns Burswood.

That's right, Crown. They're even going to change the name.

 

[Damien Evans]

And it is not worth going interstate because if you want to gamble big they will still give you the old game.

Best yet is do not go into the casino at all. It might be cheaper for most people to go see a top show.

Or if you must gamble go down to your local on poker night.

 

[Psi Baba]

If a casino somewhere set up a game called "Heads We Win, Tails You Lose," I'm sure there would be plenty of people stupid enough to play.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Regular blackjack is one of the few games where the player who knows what he or she is doing can, if not win a lot, at least not lose a lot. The house advantage is minimal (~99%+ mainly because of insurance). Dropping that down to ~97% makes it a suckers game and I sure wouldn't play it.

 

[Southwind17]

Ah! I remember Kerry Packer.

So, his mischievous ghost is trying to do for poker what his mischievous person once did for cricket.

By which I assume you mean James!

 

[Southwind17]

Regular blackjack is one of the few games where the player who knows what he or she is doing can, if not win a lot, at least not lose a lot. The house advantage is minimal (~99%+ mainly because of insurance). Dropping that down to ~97% makes it a suckers game and I sure wouldn't play it.

I believe your house edge figures here are wrong. 99% might be theoretically possible with a strategy that includes counting (which, as I'm sure you know, is cheating). But a six-or-more pack shoe with a split put paid to that long ago. I'm guessing, but I suspect the greatest one can reduce the house edge to with the best strategy (including counting) would be around 4%.