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!
…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?
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.
If women want better odds they are perfectly free to play black jack with the guys.
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?
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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?
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?
Possibly someone should examine the ergonomics of slot machines, too, while we’re at it.
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?