What can the Blackjack dealer say?

Originally posted by: O2bnVegas

OK, back to the topic, though I'll divert a little.

 

Why I thought Tim's post was almost humor in uniform, like the Reader's Digest section:  His first and third examples were cute, never have heard these said in all my many times at tables, while "It's your money, sir" is a classic, said quite often, probably to keep things moving, or by the 'nearly out of patience' dealer tired of being asked by the same player over and over. 

 

I believe it is expected of dealers to give assitance to a player who asks for it, and I've seen it done hundreds of time in the spirit of helping the unskilled.  I've seen dealers stop, lean toward the questioning player, and give a 'clinic' as to why one option might be more advantageous than another in the particular situation at hand.

 

What I do know happened to one of my favorite dealers, at a Strip casino 20 or so years ago, long time dealer.  She wasn't flighty or unfriendly or anything, just a good dealer.  Someone, boss or surveillance or somebody admonished her, accusing her of turning away from her chip tray, a big no no.  She maintained this was not true.  She said she went home and cried that night, it hurt her so badly to be scolded about something she didn't think she'd done.  Far as I know she wasn't disciplined or anything. definitely not fired.  I played at her tables often, and she liked me, so we had gotten conversant over the years when I would be solo at her table, the reason that she shared this with me, probably a no no as well.

 

Mostly what I've observed is good camaraderie between bosses and dealers.

 

Candy

 

 

 

 


I was never told to give or not to give advice to players. It was discussed informally, and the general advice from the suits in charge was, "Do so at your own risk." They said, many times, that if you give advice and it turns out to be "wrong" (as in, results, not the correctness thereof), you might get blamed for it by the player. So I, and many of my fellow dealers, would answer such a question reservedly, such as, "Well, the book says you should hit." Toss the weight of the decision back upon the player.

 

I did offer the hit/stand rule advice quite a few times, when asked: look at the dealer's upcard before you even look at your own hand. Dealer 7 or higher, red zone. Hit until you have hard 17. Dealer 4,5,6: green zone. Do not bust. Dealer 2 or 3: yellow zone. Hit until you have hard 13. I only went into soft hands, doubling, splitting and insurance when specifically asked. I learned to avoid those areas of Basic Strategy, because no one would believe my advice. Hit with A7? Are you NUTS?? And so on.

 

Like with your dealer friend, there were always several postures, gestures, etc. we had to rigorously observe, such as the hand clap and palms-show when we left the table. making sure our aprons covered our pockets, and yes, never turning away from the table. Rigid protocols on handling chips and player cash, making sure the eye in the sky can see everything, etc. etc. How gently or savagely we were admonished when we made a booboo was a function of the personality and mood of the pit boss, just like in many other types of jobs. But we knew we had no rights and no recourse if we did screw up and got booted on the spot.

 

In Vegas, at least, unions have made some inroads on employee rights, and the big locals' chains, Stations and Boyd, are pretty good places to work: dealing there is almost like a normal job. My experiences were in another time, back when we were infinitely replaceable and disposable and had no more rights than an ashtray.

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

I was never told to give or not to give advice to players. It was discussed informally, and the general advice from the suits in charge was, "Do so at your own risk." They said, many times, that if you give advice and it turns out to be "wrong" (as in, results, not the correctness thereof), you might get blamed for it by the player. So I, and many of my fellow dealers, would answer such a question reservedly, such as, "Well, the book says you should hit." Toss the weight of the decision back upon the player.

 

I did offer the hit/stand rule advice quite a few times, when asked: look at the dealer's upcard before you even look at your own hand. Dealer 7 or higher, red zone. Hit until you have hard 17. Dealer 4,5,6: green zone. Do not bust. Dealer 2 or 3: yellow zone. Hit until you have hard 13. I only went into soft hands, doubling, splitting and insurance when specifically asked. I learned to avoid those areas of Basic Strategy, because no one would believe my advice. Hit with A7? Are you NUTS?? And so on.

 

Like with your dealer friend, there were always several postures, gestures, etc. we had to rigorously observe, such as the hand clap and palms-show when we left the table. making sure our aprons covered our pockets, and yes, never turning away from the table. Rigid protocols on handling chips and player cash, making sure the eye in the sky can see everything, etc. etc. How gently or savagely we were admonished when we made a booboo was a function of the personality and mood of the pit boss, just like in many other types of jobs. But we knew we had no rights and no recourse if we did screw up and got booted on the spot.

 

In Vegas, at least, unions have made some inroads on employee rights, and the big locals' chains, Stations and Boyd, are pretty good places to work: dealing there is almost like a normal job. My experiences were in another time, back when we were infinitely replaceable and disposable and had no more rights than an ashtray.


  Well said.

Originally posted by: David Miller

  Well said.


As a dealer, it's pointless to give "good" advise or bad advise to the gambler. Giving zero advise when a player is asking you what to do will probably have a negative effect. IT's because most of the gamblers that ask for advise are too much single-result-oriented. The thing is that I personally would try to lead the conversation into a different direction and instead try to give the player the message that luck is more dominant in the short run (1 session) than good play could make a difference. 

Instead, I changed my way of view completely. In the long run, the house wins, no matter what. Even if you win, or if the house loses today. The house will be ahead after a certain period (when theo hits effective). It's just like what it is. Everything else is a non-sense-talk that leads to nowhere. Trying to give good advise to an ignorant gambler who doesn't understand the rules of the big numbers will lead to knowwhere.

 

I used to work as a dealer myself before changing the department. I know how hard it is when you have to be friendly and nice to a player and at the same time take his money. When the player loses, he may get frustrated but it is to the benefit of your employer. When the player wins, and if he wins big, then it is to the disadvantage of the house. But in the long run, the house wins anyways. So then it's a question of whether or not the casino is profitable enough to have the coolness and accept the fact that sometimes people win money. If the casino is suffering and the total bankroll of the house is in danger because of the overall conditions, then even one bad comment to the wrong player at the wrong time which the pitboss could hear may have consequences for the dealer.  

As a generale rule of thumb: If a player seeks convesation, then it is not helpful to refuse advise because the dealer is afraid of losing his/her job because of the wrong answer. I would then try to find out a way of communication with the guest in a normal way.  It's because no advise, neither right nor wrong, can change luck in the short run for the player, nor the house.

 

From Switzerland

 

Boris

Originally posted by: Boris Radtke

As a dealer, it's pointless to give "good" advise or bad advise to the gambler. Giving zero advise when a player is asking you what to do will probably have a negative effect. IT's because most of the gamblers that ask for advise are too much single-result-oriented. The thing is that I personally would try to lead the conversation into a different direction and instead try to give the player the message that luck is more dominant in the short run (1 session) than good play could make a difference. 

Instead, I changed my way of view completely. In the long run, the house wins, no matter what. Even if you win, or if the house loses today. The house will be ahead after a certain period (when theo hits effective). It's just like what it is. Everything else is a non-sense-talk that leads to nowhere. Trying to give good advise to an ignorant gambler who doesn't understand the rules of the big numbers will lead to knowwhere.

 

I used to work as a dealer myself before changing the department. I know how hard it is when you have to be friendly and nice to a player and at the same time take his money. When the player loses, he may get frustrated but it is to the benefit of your employer. When the player wins, and if he wins big, then it is to the disadvantage of the house. But in the long run, the house wins anyways. So then it's a question of whether or not the casino is profitable enough to have the coolness and accept the fact that sometimes people win money. If the casino is suffering and the total bankroll of the house is in danger because of the overall conditions, then even one bad comment to the wrong player at the wrong time which the pitboss could hear may have consequences for the dealer.  

As a generale rule of thumb: If a player seeks convesation, then it is not helpful to refuse advise because the dealer is afraid of losing his/her job because of the wrong answer. I would then try to find out a way of communication with the guest in a normal way.  It's because no advise, neither right nor wrong, can change luck in the short run for the player, nor the house.

 

From Switzerland

 

Boris


The casino absolutely does not care whether a given player wins or losses, either in one session or for that player's lifetime. All it cares about is action. Every time a player places a bet, the casino has immediately won $X. The outcome of the hand doesn't matter.

 

From the player's standpoint, however, short-term results do matter. And it's incorrect to say "it's all luck," even in the short term. Playing BJ optimally will reduce your expected losses to near zero. Playing poorly will make your losses significantly larger.

 

As an example, playing a 6-deck game with good rules, playing perfect Basic Strategy, you can expect to lose 0.55% of your action. A poor player who doesn't follow BS will lose about 4%. So the latter player will lose about eight times as much overall. 

 

And yes, in the short term, that difference won't be apparent. For instance, you have a hard 16, and the dealer has a 10 showing. If you hit, you will win 26% of the time; if you stand, 24%. Doing the right thing or the wrong thing, the difference won't be discernible. But there will indeed be a difference. Most Basic Strategy plays improve the EV of hands by a few percent, so results in the short term won't be reflective of the difference.

 

If you were an assiduous player wanting to verify the correctness of a given BS play, you could keep track of each time you had, say, hard 16 vs. a 10, then the first 500 times, hit, and the next 500 times, stand, and compare the results. That's how the early basic strategy tables were formulated in the 1950s, pre-computer. The remarkable thing is that everyone who crafted a basic strategy manually agreed. And then the first computers tasked with that agreed as well.


 Everytime I am in Vegas - for the last 35+ years - I walk by, stop and watch the action at the blackjack tables. I see the same things happening today as I have seen during the last 35+ years. When busy, the tables are full - with the exception of the higher minimum bet tables. One person departs and another seemingly immediately replaces that person. Meanwhile, the dealer continues to deal, raking in more than they pay out. This goes on for hours, day after day. Seldom do any of the players win, and when they do they continue to sit there and give it all back, plus more. On the rare occasion one - or more - players are actually winning for an extended amount of time, the phone rings, the suits show up and lurk, eyeballing every move of the players. If the player(s) then contonue to win, often times they are pulled aside and told that their play is no longer welcomed there. Those who deal blackjack see this shift after shift. Eventually I imagine they grow numb to the fact that the majority of the players are losing - the dealers just methodically deal out hand after hand, rapidly scooping up the absurdly stupid side bets and then the losing blackjack bets. Blackjack, for the majority of players is a losing game. My advice - which I use whenever I become bored enough to play - is to play for a short amount of time, and If I get ahead, I quit and take my winnings. I never lose - or win much. And I am OK with that. So I suggest that next time you are in a casino, do as I do - walk by the blackjack tables, watch the play and observe. You may learn something ...

Edited on Jun 22, 2026 2:02pm
Originally posted by: David Miller

 Everytime I am in Vegas - for the last 35+ years - I walk by, stop and watch the action at the blackjack tables. I see the same things happening today as I have seen during the last 35+ years. When busy, the tables are full - with the exception of the higher minimum bet tables. One person departs and another seemingly immediately replaces that person. Meanwhile, the dealer continues to deal, raking in more than they pay out. This goes on for hours, day after day. Seldom do any of the players win, and when they do they continue to sit there and give it all back, plus more. On the rare occasion one - or more - players are actually winning for an extended amount of time, the phone rings, the suits show up and lurk, eyeballing every move of the players. If the player(s) then contonue to win, often times they are pulled aside and told that their play is no longer welcomed there. Those who deal blackjack see this shift after shift. Eventually I imagine they grow numb to the fact that the majority of the players are losing - the dealers just methodically deal out hand after hand, rapidly scooping up the absurdly stupid side bets and then the losing blackjack bets. Blackjack, for the majority of players is a losing game. My advice - which I use whenever I become bored enough to play - is to play for a short amount of time, and If I get ahead, I quit and take my winnings. I never lose - or win much. And I am OK with that. So I suggest that next time you are in a casino, do as I do - walk by the blackjack tables, watch the play and observe. You may learn something ...


Actually, winning in and of itself doesn't lead to an exclusion or even any kind of scrutiny. During my eight years of dealing, I saw exactly two people backed off--and only one of them was counting. In the meantime, thousands of players at my table won, some quite a lot. More lost than won, sure.

 

The numbers, historically, have been that about 40% of players have a winning session and about 50% have a losing session (the rest break even). That jives with my experience dealing.

 

Blackjack is one of the few casino games where skill makes a difference. It has one of the lowest house edges when played properly. Of course, "played properly" includes "don't go anywhere near a 6:5 game." So if you bother to learn AND use Basic Strategy, and play where the rules are decent, you're at an 0.5% disadvantage. 

 

The thing is, there aren't that many decisions per hour compared to some other games (such as slots--GAAH). That's why you want to play at a full table. The slower the pace, the less you lose, and for me, the better the social atmosphere.

 

But let's look at the true cost of that entertainment. A full game will take about one minute per hand. Bet $15 (the minimum, these days). That's $900 per hour, if you don't take any breaks. 1/2 of one percent of that is $4.50--your expected loss. And you ought to be able to wangle one free drink during that hour! Plus, if your play is tracked, you might earn some modest comps. Bottom line, if you play the right games and play them optimally, you're not going to lose at all.

 

As I've said, it's more the social aspect of it than anything else. I count the shoe as kind of a reflex these days, and I find myself automatically adjusting my play to reflect the true count. Since I don't bet more than the minimum, I'm recouping maybe 0.4% with those Basic Strategy adjustments. So, free entertainment and the opportunity to meet people.

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

Actually, winning in and of itself doesn't lead to an exclusion or even any kind of scrutiny. During my eight years of dealing, I saw exactly two people backed off--and only one of them was counting. In the meantime, thousands of players at my table won, some quite a lot. More lost than won, sure.

 

The numbers, historically, have been that about 40% of players have a winning session and about 50% have a losing session (the rest break even). That jives with my experience dealing.

 

Blackjack is one of the few casino games where skill makes a difference. It has one of the lowest house edges when played properly. Of course, "played properly" includes "don't go anywhere near a 6:5 game." So if you bother to learn AND use Basic Strategy, and play where the rules are decent, you're at an 0.5% disadvantage. 

 

The thing is, there aren't that many decisions per hour compared to some other games (such as slots--GAAH). That's why you want to play at a full table. The slower the pace, the less you lose, and for me, the better the social atmosphere.

 

But let's look at the true cost of that entertainment. A full game will take about one minute per hand. Bet $15 (the minimum, these days). That's $900 per hour, if you don't take any breaks. 1/2 of one percent of that is $4.50--your expected loss. And you ought to be able to wangle one free drink during that hour! Plus, if your play is tracked, you might earn some modest comps. Bottom line, if you play the right games and play them optimally, you're not going to lose at all.

 

As I've said, it's more the social aspect of it than anything else. I count the shoe as kind of a reflex these days, and I find myself automatically adjusting my play to reflect the true count. Since I don't bet more than the minimum, I'm recouping maybe 0.4% with those Basic Strategy adjustments. So, free entertainment and the opportunity to meet people.


     Don't kid yourself -  "winning" certainly does lead to exclusion - why else would a blackjack player be backed off?   Losers never get backed off. 

Originally posted by: David Miller

     Don't kid yourself -  "winning" certainly does lead to exclusion - why else would a blackjack player be backed off?   Losers never get backed off. 


That's absolutely false. Counters get backed off when detected, whether they're winning or losing. Winning alone doesn't get you backed off.

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

That's absolutely false. Counters get backed off when detected, whether they're winning or losing. Winning alone doesn't get you backed off.


     It is not false - what a stupid statement. Counters who lose are not backed off - they only get backed off if they are counting and winning. It is stupid to suggest that a casino would back off anyone who is losing - whether they are a card counter or just a novice. 

Originally posted by: David Miller

     It is not false - what a stupid statement. Counters who lose are not backed off - they only get backed off if they are counting and winning. It is stupid to suggest that a casino would back off anyone who is losing - whether they are a card counter or just a novice. 


I know far more about this subject than you do, but you just want to argue.

 

I'll make you a bet. Ask ANY of the LVA staff or authors which one of us is correct. The one who is wrong will leave these forums forever. Deal??

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now