When a blackjack pit is busy, why don't floormen lower the minimum bets

When a blackjack pit is busy with players at the $10 and $15 minimum tables and there are empty tables at the $25 to $100 ones with the dealers standing around, why don’t the pit bosses make a change to accommodate more players? I see this particularly downtown.

[Editor's Note: This answer was written by our guy behind the curtain, Andrew Uyal, author of The Blackjack Insiders.]

The two main points to consider here are occupancy levels and table efficiency.

As for occupancy levels, one would think that a casino would want all the tables full all the time. But that's not the case. If all the tables are full, where will new players (possibly those with a lot of money to spend) sit?

The ideal occupancy level is about 80%. Thus, on tables with five spots, having a spot or two available is the ideal situation. On tables with six spots, two spots available are best. This is -- or should be, if the management team is on top of it -- a factor in table minimums. If a $10 table is full, it should be raised to $15. If it's not full, but the majority of players are betting more than $10, it should be raised to $15.

The more complex issue is table efficiency. This is the example the incomparable Bill Zender gave me and uses to explain table efficiency.

Table A is a $25 table. A $100 player sits down and the minimum stays $25. Two more $25 players sit down for a total of three players and $150 in action each hand.

Table B is also a $25 table. A $100 player sits down, but this time, the supervisor raises the minimum to $100 to accommodate the new level of action.

You might think Table A is more beneficial for the house, but Table A is getting only 104 hands per hour, for a total amount wagered in that hour of $15,600, resulting in a theoretical win of $187 for the house.

Table B will have 220 hands dealt in that same hour, resulting in a total amount wagered of $22,000 and a $264 theoretical win.

So you can see that, rather than jamming its tables with lower-minimum bettors, the casino is more interested in accommodating the higher ones. That's why full tables aren't always better. Some empty spots, even empty tables, are beneficial for the casino to have.

No part of this answer may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without the written permission of the publisher.

Have a question that hasn't been answered? Email us with your suggestion.

Missed a Question of the Day?

Have a Question?

Tomorrow's Question

Has Clark County ever considered legalizing prostitution?

Comments

David Miller Jan-06-2024

Table Efficeincy

  Empty tables with no players = zero efficiency

O2bnVegas Jan-06-2024

Pay attention

Actually, I have seen higher table limits lowered after a long time of no players.  Maybe $100 to $50, or on occasion $50 to $25.  Not frequently, but enough to make me keep checking if, say, a 3 Card Poker table is too high for me but I notice no players for a long time.  Might be lowered, though depends on the gamek, time of day, etc.

Also, in a situation of no players for a long time, I've often asked the dealer "can I play for $15?" and have been allow to do so.  The dealer has to ask the supervisor, of course.  The low limit won't last long once players start coming in, but it has worked for me on occasion.  If another player comes in and asks about it after the minimum is raised, I don't say a word, leaving it to the dealer explain.

Candy

David Sabo Jan-06-2024

YIKES

Reading the answer to the question which is undoubtedly right feltvery depressing to read. Unfortunately it also reminded me of getting my MBA in Finance. Where I learned about the attractiveness of debt from a corporation point
of view. Give me a second I gotta go puke I think I just swallowed a poison pill.

Question of the Day - 06 January 2024

Comments