Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

I have a question.

August 25, 2014 By johntmay 12 Comments

How about asking the candidates that support casinos this simple question: It is well known in the “gaming industry” that the games that men are attracted to (Black Jack)  have much better odds for the player than games that women are attracted to (Slots). As our next governor, should the repeal of casinos fail, would you push for legislation that requires the same odds for all games at casinos or do you support the current practice of better odds at games that men typically play and worse odds for games that women are most likely to play?

Please share widely!
0
0

Filed Under: User

12
Leave a reply

Please Login to comment
3 Comment threads
9 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
theloquaciousliberalkbuschkirthjohntmaywhoaitsjoe Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

newest oldest most voted
Christopher
Member
Famed Member
Christopher

…but I have said all along that odds should be prominently posted. I don’t think you can artificially change black jack odds so are you suggesting slots with fewer possible combinations?

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote
5 years ago
johntmay
Author
Noble Member
johntmay

But I am sure there are some mathematicians who can make it so. I took statistics way back in college and I recall figuring out the “expected return” of games and contests.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote
5 years ago
Christopher
Member
Famed Member
Christopher

If women want better odds they are perfectly free to play black jack with the guys.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote
5 years ago
whoaitsjoe
Member
whoaitsjoe

Wouldn’t hurt to have some babes at the blackjack table with us.

“18”
“Hit me”
“20”
“hit me”
“21”
“hit me”
“…..31”

Ladies? Ladies?

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote
5 years ago
kirth
Member
kirth

I don’t think you can artificially change black jack odds …

Of course you can. There are numerous ways to change the odds. In fact, the way Blackjack is payed in casinos is already “artificial” in order to increase the odds for the house and different casinos use different rules.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote
5 years ago
Christopher
Member
Famed Member
Christopher

At least the way I play it is literally the luck of the draw. It’s up to the player to decide whether they are close enough to 21 to chance not going over with another hit.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote
5 years ago
theloquaciousliberal
Member
theloquaciousliberal

A great player (one who has memorized the odds of any particular hand beating any particular dealer’s up card) has literally no decisions to make. Depending on the dealer’s up card and the total count of the player’s cards, a great player can make the “correct” decision (the decision that gives them the best odds of winning) on whether to hit, stay, double or split under any circumstance.

Meanwhile, the dealer makes absolutely no decisions whatsoever. They may not double and may not split. They hit until their cards total 16 or less (always hitting 16s) and stay if and when their cards total 17 or more. Again, the dealer is a robot, paying the player when they their either go over 21 or stick on 17-21 and beat the players hand.

All that said, there are two relatively simply ways to change the odds for Blackjack and to (as proposed) increase the house edge to match the house edge on slot machines:

(1) As kirth points out, one way to increase the “house edge” (to reduce the average amount a player wins) is simply reducing the amount that the casino pays the player for getting dealt a “blackjack” (an Ace and a Ten or face card totaling 21) in their first two cards. This doesn’t really “change the odds of winning” (which is probably why you found it confusing) but it does decrease the average amount that a player will win. Since the odds of getting dealt a blackjack are about 5%, cutting the amount paid out upon getting a blackjack in half (say from 2-1 to 3-2) increases the “house edge” by about 2.5%. With the average game playing roughly 80 hands and hour, even small changes in the amount paid out for blackjack can have a big effect over time.

2) The second and most common way that casinos increase their “house edge” is by limiting the options for the player by changing the basic rules of the game. There are 6,912 different types of commonly played blackjack each with subtle combinations of different rules! The “house edge” can be increased not allowing players to double their bet after a split or with a hand other than a 10 or 11, not allowing players to split Aces or to re-split already split hands, etc. These are all very subtle changes (each changing the “house edge” by less than 1%) but they certainly *do* effect the odds that a player will win or lose money over time.

This is probably more than someone who mistakenly thinks blackjack is “literally the luck of the draw” wants to know. But hopefully this helps you understand that you certainly can and the casinos certainly do “artificially change blackjack odds”.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote
5 years ago
whoaitsjoe
Member
whoaitsjoe

As opposed to a slot machine, where you tug on the one-armed bandit and they could change the odds with a click of the mouse and who in the world would know?

The moral of the story is to just the the heck away from slots and learn a card game or two. Besides, nobody looks cool wearing a charcoal suit, a derby hat, and puffing on a clove cigarette while playing slots.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote
5 years ago
whoaitsjoe
Member
whoaitsjoe

Aren’t there enough good reasons to oppose casinos that we don’t have to summon, from the 8th Circle of Political Hell, this question?

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote
5 years ago
johntmay
Author
Noble Member
johntmay

The question I have is if casinos are not ones first choice and not something one would want anywhere nears ones community, why would one run for a position as a community leader and not be vocal in opposition casinos as the first and only choice?

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote
5 years ago
kbusch
Member
Active Member
kbusch

Possibly someone should examine the ergonomics of slot machines, too, while we’re at it.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote
5 years ago
johntmay
Author
Noble Member
johntmay

The effect on a city that already had an unemployment rate of about 13 percent will be seismic, said James W. Hughes, the dean of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. After the pending layoffs, the number of casino jobs will have been cut in half in just eight years, about three times as fast as the state’s manufacturing industry declined, Mr. Hughes said.

“I don’t think we’ve seen a shrinkage of that magnitude in any industrial sector in New Jersey in that period of time,” he said. “It really is unprecedented.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/nyregion/uncertainty-for-workers-losing-jobs-at-atlantic-city-casinos.html?_r=0

Why are Martha, Steve, and Charlie still supporting this approaching train wreck?

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote
5 years ago
wpdiscuz   wpDiscuz

Election Day 2020 Countdown

Election Day 2020Countdown

Recommended Posts

  • The Squirrely Arguments Against Impeachment (4)
  • Biden's Foreign Policy Experience: An Unexpected Trump Card For 2020 (3)
  • My "I know Joe" new button idea (3)
  • The Press Lets Our Polity Down Yet Again (2)
  • Time to play hardball with fascist pukes (2)

Recent User Posts

Time to play hardball with fascist pukes

December 14, 2019 By fredrichlariccia 2 Comments

Attend a DNC Caucus Training Near You!

December 13, 2019 By Christopher Leave a Comment

The Squirrely Arguments Against Impeachment

December 11, 2019 By terrymcginty 18 Comments

My “I know Joe” new button idea

December 11, 2019 By fredrichlariccia Leave a Comment

No One is a Progressive Angel, So Let’s Stop Pretending

December 11, 2019 By BKay 48 Comments

Biden’s Foreign Policy Experience: An Unexpected Trump Card For 2020

December 10, 2019 By terrymcginty 43 Comments

Recent Comments

  • Christopher on The Squirrely Arguments Against ImpeachmentRecused himself from what? VPs don't have any power exce…
  • fredrichlariccia on Time to play hardball with fascist pukesThe Russiapublicans installed that urine soaked orange c…
  • SomervilleTom on Time to play hardball with fascist pukesThe historical "solution" most often turned to in cases…
  • SomervilleTom on The Squirrely Arguments Against ImpeachmentExchanges like this — not to mention the entire GOP mant…
  • SomervilleTom on The Squirrely Arguments Against ImpeachmentHere are your exact words (emphasis mine): Trump is cash…
  • SomervilleTom on The Squirrely Arguments Against ImpeachmentIt appears to me that "they" are a projection of you, ev…
  • Christopher on The Squirrely Arguments Against ImpeachmentYou made the comment about a distinction without a diffe…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

Blue Mass GroupFollow

Reality-based commentary. Necessary but not sufficient. Doing the other things. Massachusetts and beyond.

Blue Mass Group
Retweet on TwitterBlue Mass Group Retweeted
jglarussoJoe LaRusso 🔌 🕳🐇@jglarusso·
6h

Great threaded summary by @ssteingraber1 of remarks by @howarth_cornell relating fracking to rise in quantities of methane released into the atmosphere. https://twitter.com/ssteingraber1/status/1205901002467106816

Dr. Sandra Steingraber@ssteingraber1

1/ FRACKING THREAD. I’m here at the Ithaca Community School for Music and Arts to hear world methane expert @howarth_cornell present new science on #fracking and the climate crisis. Will try to live tweet. Full house! Lots of legendary grassroots leaders here.@MothersOutFront

Reply on Twitter 1206212676357099520Retweet on Twitter 12062126763570995204Like on Twitter 12062126763570995201Twitter 1206212676357099520
Retweet on TwitterBlue Mass Group Retweeted
Curt_Nordgaard⛰🏔⛰@Curt_Nordgaard·
8h

The Massachusetts coastline flooded yesterday.

What happened? A high tide around the full moon. That's all.

Tell people around you that the global humanitarian and ecological crisis of climate change has already started. https://twitter.com/dotmalo/status/1205936919944847363

Dot Malone@DotMalo

It’s fine, I’ll wait til low tide to leave the house #Dorchester

Reply on Twitter 1206190924654624768Retweet on Twitter 120619092465462476839Like on Twitter 120619092465462476871Twitter 1206190924654624768
Retweet on TwitterBlue Mass Group Retweeted
AlexSteffenAlex Steffen@AlexSteffen·
12 Dec

Our entire public debate is decades behind the realities we know we face now, and as we understand those realities better, most of our findings will reveal our problems to be even more pressing than we thought they were.

That's just what the 2020s are going be like. https://twitter.com/DrNoelHealy/status/1204204976953626624

Noel Healy@DrNoelHealy

This final slide from @MichaelEMann is devastating. The time for incremental climate policy is over.🚨He estimates annual emissions may have to drop by 15% a year (rather than 7.5%)🚨. In other words we have zero years to tackle climate change. We need a #GreenNewDeal now #GND

Reply on Twitter 1205201555386814465Retweet on Twitter 1205201555386814465213Like on Twitter 1205201555386814465361Twitter 1205201555386814465
Retweet on TwitterBlue Mass Group Retweeted
TPMTalking Points Memo@TPM·
19h

Terrible, Terrible, Terrible https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/terrible-terrible-terrible

Reply on Twitter 1206017639035867136Retweet on Twitter 12060176390358671366Like on Twitter 120601763903586713614Twitter 1206017639035867136
Retweet on TwitterBlue Mass Group Retweeted
TheViewFromLL2Susan Simpson@TheViewFromLL2·
23h

The take away of this story doesn't seem to be that impeachment is bad for Democrats. It's that opposing impeachment is so bad for Democrats they can't remain Democrats. https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1205949264515481600

Andrew Desiderio@AndrewDesiderio

NEWS: Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a Democrat who opposes impeachment, plans to switch parties and become a Republican.

Staff were informed today. Question now is when, not if, he makes it official.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/14/jeff-van-drew-change-parties-085036

Reply on Twitter 1205961091282604034Retweet on Twitter 1205961091282604034541Like on Twitter 12059610912826040342115Twitter 1205961091282604034
Load More...

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2019 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.

wpDiscuz