« Better to be Lucky... | Main | Airport Express Report »

The Crux of the Hit

I've thought a little about this whole Hit on Soft 17 thing these past few days, and the more I think about it, the more annoyed I get. I think I've finally pinned down why I think this is a total crock.

I used to be able to play at the same table as my friends who weren't as hard core about gambling as I am. We'd sit down at a $10 table, with either a 6 deck shoe or a 5 deck continous shuffler, and I'd play $25-100 hands while they stuck with $10-25 hands. The rules at the Bellagio and Mirage were stand on soft 17, split to 4 hands, split aces to 4 hands, no draw to split aces, double on any two cards, double after split allowed, late surrender. In the 5 deck game, this amounted to a house edge of 0.19% and in the 6 deck game, 0.25%, assuming you played perfect strategy.

By hitting on soft 17 and all else being equal, you add about 0.22% to the house edge. Any old fool can do this math: you've just doubled the house edge! So those money grubbing corporate fooks basically decided that people were going to be idiots and they could get away with this easily. The sad thing is, from what I can tell, they have.

So now the only place in the Bellagio and the Mirage where you can get stand on soft 17 is if you play at the $25 minimum (and some times of the day, $50 minimum) 6 deck shoe and the 2 deck pitch (pitch only at the Mirage; at the Bellagio the 2 deck game is dealt from the hand, but face up) games. The 6 deck shoe game remains at 0.25% since it is the same game that used to be offered at a $10 minimum. The 2 deck game is stand on soft 17, split to 4 hands, except aces which you can only split to two, no draw to split aces, double on any two cards, double after split allowed, no surrender. This amounts to about 0.19% on the house edge. It's a good game, at a $25 minimum. I don't have any problem with the casino charging more for the two deck game, because it's a higher risk, higher cost game: they have to shuffle more often, so there's less hands played per hour, and because of the threat of counters, they have to employ tighter security measures. Fine, I have no qualms with that whatsoever.

What I do have a problem with is the fact that now I have to choose to play with my friends and endure shitty rules, or play the good rules but alone. It's almost as though those marketing brainiacs got together and decided that most people who gamble at higher stakes do it alone, so they wouldn't risk alienating anyone but making this rules change. I could see it going down in the board room something like this: "yeah, those idiots who play at the $10 tables don't know shit anyway; hell they'll probably think they're getting a better game! And let's not worry about our base of higher stakes gamblers, because most of them don't care to sit at those tables with the riff raff anyway..."

I've always had a problem with marketing for this very reason. Marketing to the masses pretty much means assuming that people are idiots and if you put it in larger print, turn up the volume, and distract them, they'll love it and give you money.

An informed consumer is the bane of marketing in corporate America today. That is why this blog exists. My hope, as far fetched as this may sound, is that people will spread this word and maybe, just maybe, people will start demanding good blackjack in Vegas again. As I've always said, vote with your dollars. In Vegas, this is more true than anywhere else. I am done with blackjack at the MGM Mirage properties (Mirage, Bellagio, MGM Grand, New York New York, and Treasure Island). If I'm going to endure shitty rules just to be with friends, I'd rather go somewhere else on principle. I'm encouraging anybody that comes across this article to do the same.

PGP Signed Entry