EV of Blackjack vs. Slot Machines

[squiffy]

I am taking my Dad to Chukchansi Indian Casino in December. He generally plays $1 slots. But I am wondering if it would be wiser to have him play BlackJack at the minimum bet. I think it is 6 deck with $5 minimum bet.

I know this question is not well defined and has lots of hard to define variables, like how fast you push the slots button vs. how fast the dealer deals each hand and how many other players are at the table. But does anyone have a WAG as to which would COST ME LESS MONEY per hour????

My guess is that I should get my Dad to switch to playing Blackjack, which would probably be slower and cost me less money.

I have always heard that slots are the biggest moneymaker for casinos. But that may be in part because you don't have to pay them salaries or health benefits. And they take up much less space than a poker table or a blackjack table.

Though I wonder how many $1 slots it takes to earn as much profit as a BlackJack table -- Considering the expense of paying the dealer's salary and health benefits, etc.

[Nottom]

I would think that a $1 slot machine probably makes significantly more than the casino makes from a $5 BJ player.

The difference in the number of bets/hour seems huge plus the edge is probably bigger to begin with.

[ChipWrecked]

If he frequents the casino, i.e. has lots of trials on the slots, no question in my mind that blackjack would serve him better if he knows basic strategy. I have a former card counter's hatred of slots so my opinion is biased. If casino trips are a now-and-then thing, SD probably makes it a wash. I'd be interested in Homer's opinion on this.

However, one thing I love to do in Vegas is get into a small buy-in slot tourney like at the Stardust. Spend a couple hours banging away on the thing as fast as you can and get it out of your system. I am actually net winner at this (as the older folks tire more easily [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]).

[Homer]

I know this question is not well defined and has lots of hard to define variables, like how fast you push the slots button vs. how fast the dealer deals each hand and how many other players are at the table. But does anyone have a WAG as to which would COST ME LESS MONEY per hour????

I'm fairly certain the answer is blackjack, generally speaking, but I'll spit out some ballpark numbers just for comparison purposes. You'll see that his worst possible average loss in blackjack is still more favorable than his best possible average loss in slots.

Note that I did not factor in comps. Just for the sake of completeness, slot players get ~.25% cashback ($1.5-$2 per hour), and blackjack players get ~.8% (2% HA assumed * 40% rebate) in comps ($2-3 per hour).

Slots

Cost per game = $1

Games per hour = 600-800

- This is a combination of my best guess and some searching on the net. This seems about right since a very fast VP player can crank out ~600 hands per hour. Slot play requires no thought, so you should be able to crank out at least that many hands if not a few more.

Average slot payback percentage = 94-96%

- Source is internet casino statistics.

Average loss per hour = $27-48

- Where I got these numbers - $1*600*.045 = $27 & $1*800*.06 = $48

Blackjack

Cost per game = $5

Games per hour = 50-80

- This is a function of the number of other people at the table. With three other players at the table, you will get in ~80 hands per hour, and with six others you will get in ~50. Being an Indian casino, the tables will probably be packed, so expect to get in 50 hands/hr. BTW, to approximate the number of hands you'll get in an hour for any number of players at the table, solve for 400/n (where n is the total number of participants at the table, including the dealer) and you'll probably come close.

House advantage = .4%-5.5%

- If he follows basic strategy (shouldn't be hard, you can even print out a BS sheet and use it in the casino) it will be .4%, if he follows a "no bust" strategy (never hit 12 or above) it will be 3.9%, and if he follows a "mimic the dealer" strategy (hit 16 or less, stand 17 or more) it will be 5.5%.

Average loss per hour = $1-22

- Where I got these numbers - $5*50*.004 = $1 & $5*80*.055 = $22

-- Homer

[Bozeman]

"BTW, to approximate the number of hands you'll get in an hour for any number of players at the table, solve for 400/n (where n is the total number of participants at the table, including the dealer) and you'll probably come close."

Really? I would have guessed that you would get considerably more than poker since they don't have to shuffle.

Craig

[doormat]

Homer,
This is a very good comparison you have presented. It does however depend on the player being disciplined enough to follow basic strategy and bet the minimum every hand. As you point out, a player deviating from basic can lose ten times as much - more if they chase their losses or let winnings ride. I have had a lot of friends and relatives come through Vegas and convincing them not to play "hunches" on bets and strategy deviations is a difficult task. As much as I hate slots, they can be cheaper for a novice since you can't easily go on tilt (I suppose a hopeless gambler could play several machines at once). So the human aspect is worth considering. I advise visitors playing slots to place all of their bets with coins instead of by pushing the button, which really slows down their hands per hour. Of course there are some indian casinos that don't allow this.

doormat

[Ed Miller]

He will lose far less playing $5/hand blackjack than he will playing $1 slots, basically no matter how poorly he plays blackjack. Most of it is because he will get far less action playing blackjack (particularly at a full table) than he will playing slots, especially for dollars.

Is there a reason why he plays the dollar slots and not the quarter slots? I assume it's because he doesn't find the quarter slots to be stakes high enough to keep him entertained. If that's so, you will be very hard-pressed to keep him entertained playing $5/hand blackjack. He will feel like he's not winning or losing any money at all. Playing dollar slots, you can have $1000 or more swings in a matter of a couple of hours. You'd have to play $5/hand blackjack for pretty damn long to see a $1000 swing one way or the other.

Because you are playing at an Indian casino, it is likely that the slots and video poker machines will be very tight (at least by Las Vegas standards). But even so, it will almost certainly be preferable for him to play video poker rather than a reel slot, even if he plays poorly. And if he is willing to spend a hour getting the jist of video poker strategy, he should do significantly better at VP.

[ChipWrecked]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a reason why he plays the dollar slots and not the quarter slots?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't speak for his dad, but I've been told many times by slot players that "The dollar machines payoff better than quarters or nickels."

[CORed]

I think you may be underestimating the loss rate for slots. Most dollar slots have 2 or 3 maximum coin in. If you play less than maximum coins, the payout of the top jackpot is usually reduced, or there is some other gimmick that makes playing less than maximum coin a poorer EV on a percentage, if not absolute loss per hour basis. If you are playing maximum coin, your losses per hour can be multiplied by 2 or 3, depending on the machine.

[Homer]

Good points. I totally forgot about having to put in 2-3 coins to get maximum payback percentage.

-- Homer