You might be tempted to respond, "of course craps is worth the trouble, like every other game in the casino. They all make the house an income, based on the mathematical operation of probability."
At first glance, we would agree with you in principle, yes. All games at the casino, from the slots, to roulette, to blackjack... they all exist to provide an alternate income for the casino. Casinos aren't phased at all when someone hits the jackpot, because they know that in the long run all roads lead back to the house's coffers. That is, even if they had to pay out $1 million in a jackpot, you can be sure they would make that amount up over the long haul. There's just no escaping it: casinos are in it to win it, and win it they shall.
The reason we're tempted to question the viability of craps is simply because the craps table requires so much more in terms of staff resources compared to all the other table games. At the roulette and blackjack tables, there is a single croupier for each station, supervised by that ogre-looking pit boss (we're sure they pay those guys to look as scary as possible). But at the craps table it's different: you need up to four casino personnel to manage each table. That's an enormous, four fold increase in human resources for a game that makes use of odds which aren't overwhelmingly the dissimilar to other single-dealer games.
But there are critical caveats to consider. Firstly, remember that not all squares in craps are created equal. Some bets absolutely have a much higher advantage for the house than others. Casinos perhaps rely partly on the ignorance of their patrons to make a variety of bets, some of which would never be recommended in terms of odds and payout ratios.
In fact, some squares on the craps table carry such a high advantage that they are outlawed in certain states in the US (we're thinking of the big 6/8 square). A gambler is far more likely to walk away with a profit if he sticks to safer bets like the Pass line (or even the Don't Pass line) bets. Secondly, a cursory glance at the quantity of tables at the average casino reveals that there are far less craps stations than there are blackjack or roulette ones. Not only does the craps table occupy a larger area (a study of profit per square meter would certainly be an interesting exercise) but roulette and blackjack are also far more popular in any case. The craps table exists partly for the purists and partly for the variety.
In the end, the game is still very much worth the casino's trouble, even with the extra manpower that's needed. The advantage that's brought to the house certainly outweighs the cost, and there is the greatest chance that if you visit a casino that's craps won't be the only game on your agenda. You'll probably end up playing on blackjack and roulette, too.
At first glance, we would agree with you in principle, yes. All games at the casino, from the slots, to roulette, to blackjack... they all exist to provide an alternate income for the casino. Casinos aren't phased at all when someone hits the jackpot, because they know that in the long run all roads lead back to the house's coffers. That is, even if they had to pay out $1 million in a jackpot, you can be sure they would make that amount up over the long haul. There's just no escaping it: casinos are in it to win it, and win it they shall.
The reason we're tempted to question the viability of craps is simply because the craps table requires so much more in terms of staff resources compared to all the other table games. At the roulette and blackjack tables, there is a single croupier for each station, supervised by that ogre-looking pit boss (we're sure they pay those guys to look as scary as possible). But at the craps table it's different: you need up to four casino personnel to manage each table. That's an enormous, four fold increase in human resources for a game that makes use of odds which aren't overwhelmingly the dissimilar to other single-dealer games.
But there are critical caveats to consider. Firstly, remember that not all squares in craps are created equal. Some bets absolutely have a much higher advantage for the house than others. Casinos perhaps rely partly on the ignorance of their patrons to make a variety of bets, some of which would never be recommended in terms of odds and payout ratios.
In fact, some squares on the craps table carry such a high advantage that they are outlawed in certain states in the US (we're thinking of the big 6/8 square). A gambler is far more likely to walk away with a profit if he sticks to safer bets like the Pass line (or even the Don't Pass line) bets. Secondly, a cursory glance at the quantity of tables at the average casino reveals that there are far less craps stations than there are blackjack or roulette ones. Not only does the craps table occupy a larger area (a study of profit per square meter would certainly be an interesting exercise) but roulette and blackjack are also far more popular in any case. The craps table exists partly for the purists and partly for the variety.
In the end, the game is still very much worth the casino's trouble, even with the extra manpower that's needed. The advantage that's brought to the house certainly outweighs the cost, and there is the greatest chance that if you visit a casino that's craps won't be the only game on your agenda. You'll probably end up playing on blackjack and roulette, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment