|
|
#11
07-12-2007, 03:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Faro
[ QUOTE ]
Its been a while since I read but I think he said casinos did not like faro because the vig was so low. [/ QUOTE ] the what? 
|
|
#12
07-12-2007, 05:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Faro
The house has no disadvantage either on the last card, or any card, for that matter... I don't see how the last card is a dealbreaker. Casinos are happy offer odds at craps, and odds bets in craps happen a lot more often than once per shoe.
No point in counting cards at faro. You can determine what cards are most likely to come up - but since cards are dealt in pairs, a winner and a loser, it doesn't help you. Seems like a very appealing game for the casinos to me, actually... no hazards from counters, team play, or anything else. I have heard that for years it wasn't offered because of its bad reputation in the old west days (the house cheating), but that seems no obstacle now.
|
|
#13
07-12-2007, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Faro
BJ is played with 6 decks in the most casinos and they use a cardshoe.
This should be possibel with Faro too. Ok, the old west feeling is gone but all games changed with the time.
|
|
#14
07-13-2007, 10:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Faro
[ QUOTE ]
The house has no disadvantage either on the last card, or any card, for that matter... I don't see how the last card is a dealbreaker. Casinos are happy offer odds at craps, and odds bets in craps happen a lot more often than once per shoe. [/ QUOTE ] You're right that they're never at a disadvantage -- they simply have no advantage when the player is wagering on the last card -- and that situation can come up early in the game. The odds bet in craps is offered only after your initial wager is at (or has been at) a serious disadvantage.
|
|
#16
07-14-2007, 05:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Faro
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Its been a while since I read but I think he said casinos did not like faro because the vig was so low. [/ QUOTE ] the what? [/ QUOTE ] Vig = vigorish [/ QUOTE ] Thx. And why was the Vig so low? The house advantage was 2.9%, the house advantage at BJ is not much better for the casino. Ok, at craps there are bet fields with really bad odds for the player and the american roulette have 2 zeros but the 2.9% at faro is good and the main advantage is faro is very simple. Faro could be the action game itself.
|
|
#17
07-17-2007, 12:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Faro
A lot of people are [censored] at blackjack so the advantage is greater than the theoretical. It's harder to be [censored] at faro.
|
|
#18
07-17-2007, 10:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Faro
Tried the flash game. This rivals War as the most boring gambling game.
|
|
#19
07-18-2007, 07:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Faro
[ QUOTE ]
A lot of people are [censored] at blackjack so the advantage is greater than the theoretical. It's harder to be [censored] at faro. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but the house Advantage at Roulette is not related to a "skill" and roulette is a good game for the house. Or Craps.
|
|
#20
07-18-2007, 01:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Faro
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] A lot of people are [censored] at blackjack so the advantage is greater than the theoretical. It's harder to be [censored] at faro. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but the house Advantage at Roulette is not related to a "skill" and roulette is a good game for the house. Or Craps. [/ QUOTE ] And your point is???? Roulette is like the highest advantage game for the house in the whole casino, of course they offer it. And the way most people play craps, the house also has a huge advantage... Your comparison really isn't very good. Casinos like BJ because while the theoretical edge is low, the way most players play, they are at a much higher disadvantage than theoretical, which makes the game attractive to the casino. Faro has a low edge and it sounds like there really isn't many ways for to play sub-optimally in order to increase the house edge. Therefore it isn't as attractive to the house. Make sense?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
