The fact is that blackjack, per-square-foot, has had a low win-rate. A player can learn a very simple basic strategy and get the house advantage down to about 1.5% in an eight deck shoe and can get it down to under 1% with perfect basic strategy (in most casinos, depending on rules). That's assuming a 3-2 payout on blackjack. One and a half percent doesn't cut it with the corporate bigwigs. A blackjack pit takes up a lot of space, and that space has to make a certain amount of money. It's rare nowadays that a casino gives something away in order to get customers --- "loss leaders" so to speak. Such things as poker rooms and sports books (both of which have a low hold per-square-foot) are there to draw and retain customers who want those things, and who will go elsewhere if they don't find them. A casino that took out any of the traditional table games such as blackjack, craps, roulette, etc., would see many customers and potential customers heading for casinos that have them.
Over the last decade, Las Vegas had gotten away from making gambling its main feature and turning towards making the city a convention center and destination resort for tourists. Rooms that used to cost $40 now cost over $100. While most casinos still have loss-leader food specials (usually on graveyard when traffic thins out), meals that once cost $5 now run from $15 to $20.
This effects blackjack because it's viewed with the same per-square-foot criteria as everything else. The traditional hold on a table game is about 20%---in other words, over the course of time, if X number of players buy in for $100,000, the house can expect to pay out about $80,000 of it and retain about $20,000. This figure is remarkably accurate for almost every table game, except blackjack and baccarat. The house doesn't mind a lower hold on baccarat because the mean (average) bet is higher than it is with other table games. Because of the overall improvement in blackjack play (through the use of basic-strategy cards and the availability of information on proper play), the table hold for blackjack in a game that pays 3-2 odds is much lower than 20%, around (according to a floorman) 12%. That simply isn't high enough, given the amount of space that a blackjack pit takes and the number of personnel and other expenses (new cards, etc.) that it needs to operate. So many casinos have gone to the 6/5 payout, which adds about another 1.5% to the house advantage (1.45%, I believe), which increases the total house advantage on the mean (average) player from about 3% to about 4.5%. That will increase the house hold per player-session from 12% to about 18%, which is more in line with the traditional 20%.
The whole notion of the 6-5 payout being unfair goes against the fact that all casino games are essentially unfair in that the house has an edge in each (or intends to). The house (at least in Vegas and most regulated casinos) offers honest games, but with the advantage necessarily in favor of the house. All the house is doing with blackjack is getting the advantage in line with that of other table games. Simply: a 1-3% advantage is fine for a low-maintenance small-area-consuming slot or video poker machine, but it isn't enough for a higher-maintenance (personnel, etc.), larger-area-consuming table game.
Over the last decade, Las Vegas had gotten away from making gambling its main feature and turning towards making the city a convention center and destination resort for tourists. Rooms that used to cost $40 now cost over $100. While most casinos still have loss-leader food specials (usually on graveyard when traffic thins out), meals that once cost $5 now run from $15 to $20.
This effects blackjack because it's viewed with the same per-square-foot criteria as everything else. The traditional hold on a table game is about 20%---in other words, over the course of time, if X number of players buy in for $100,000, the house can expect to pay out about $80,000 of it and retain about $20,000. This figure is remarkably accurate for almost every table game, except blackjack and baccarat. The house doesn't mind a lower hold on baccarat because the mean (average) bet is higher than it is with other table games. Because of the overall improvement in blackjack play (through the use of basic-strategy cards and the availability of information on proper play), the table hold for blackjack in a game that pays 3-2 odds is much lower than 20%, around (according to a floorman) 12%. That simply isn't high enough, given the amount of space that a blackjack pit takes and the number of personnel and other expenses (new cards, etc.) that it needs to operate. So many casinos have gone to the 6/5 payout, which adds about another 1.5% to the house advantage (1.45%, I believe), which increases the total house advantage on the mean (average) player from about 3% to about 4.5%. That will increase the house hold per player-session from 12% to about 18%, which is more in line with the traditional 20%.
The whole notion of the 6-5 payout being unfair goes against the fact that all casino games are essentially unfair in that the house has an edge in each (or intends to). The house (at least in Vegas and most regulated casinos) offers honest games, but with the advantage necessarily in favor of the house. All the house is doing with blackjack is getting the advantage in line with that of other table games. Simply: a 1-3% advantage is fine for a low-maintenance small-area-consuming slot or video poker machine, but it isn't enough for a higher-maintenance (personnel, etc.), larger-area-consuming table game.
