Ceaser's Palace, Las Vegas - New BJ Rules (Multi-Deck)

[CORed]

I wonder if the D10/11 NDAS, is really going ot improve their profit that much. It certainly hurts the basic strategy player, and the complete set of rules is probably enough to keep the counters away entirely, but is also reduces the opportunity for the truly clueless to screw up. No more following John Patrick's advice to split 5's against a dealer 5 or 6 in a NDAS game so you can "get more money on the table when the dealer is weak". No more soft doubles against dealer 7-10. No more doubling of 9 against dealer 7 or 8 because he probably has a 10 in the hole and if you get a 10 you'll beat him. About the only mistake you can make in doubling now is to double 10 against dealer 10 or A.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone noticed that Ceaser's Palace has changed the Blackjack (multi-deck) rules (in the forum pits) so that the player can only double-down when the player has 10 or 11. This is crazy. I would be interested in knowing how big of an advantage the house gets with the change. Since none of the casinos (even other harrah's properties) have followed suit, I have switched from Ceaser's.

ThreeBeers

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it that hitting soft 17 was a standard rule before this? Because that and the doubling kept ME away from BJ this past weekend.

[Dan Druff]

The new rules will definitely increase Caesar's bottom line. Blackjack players are getting increasingly stupid, and few even know (or care) that the changes hurt their odds. Those that do know tend to be basic strategy players (or counters) who aren't worth all that much to the casino anyway. If I owned Caesar's, I'd have done the same thing.

And yes, I do believe these changes are due to Harrah's management of the property. They aren't likely to be hitting the rest of the strip any time soon, but it is a bad sign overall.

CardCounter0: You shouldn't have backed down and paid the bill. You should have let them arrest you, called a lawyer immediately, and sued both Caesar's and the LVPD for false arrest. You would have had an excellent case and could have netted some big-time $. With that said, it isn't wise to keep pressing at properties where you've been backed off. It's only asking for trouble. Once I'm backed off, I stay away for at least a few years -- and sometimes permanently if they have my name in their system.

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
You shouldn't have backed down and paid the bill. You should have let them arrest you, called a lawyer immediately, and sued both Caesar's and the LVPD for false arrest.

[/ QUOTE ]

It entered my mind. However:
I would have lost at least a day or two income waiting to be able to bail out. I would have had travel expenses back and forth to Vegas for multiple court dates (I'm sure the casinos would postpone a few at the last minute). Suing the LVPD is out, they have done far, far worse and walked away with nothing. The casinos is still a slight chance, Vegas is a small town, the courts know who puts bread on their tables, even if I won, the casino would automatically appeal. I would have the lawyer fees. The best scenario I think would be the casino immediately drop the charges after a night in jail, then we can argue over that, not much damage there. So I was facing a lot of expenses with a slim chance for payoff, or I could immediately get back into action and make some money.

[rgold79]

[ QUOTE ]
The new rules will definitely increase Caesar's bottom line. Blackjack players are getting increasingly stupid, and few even know (or care) that the changes hurt their odds. Those that do know tend to be basic strategy players (or counters) who aren't worth all that much to the casino anyway. If I owned Caesar's, I'd have done the same thing.

And yes, I do believe these changes are due to Harrah's management of the property. They aren't likely to be hitting the rest of the strip any time soon, but it is a bad sign overall.


[/ QUOTE ]

To a certain extent I agree with you re people's general stupidity, but a duller sect of the population definitely would notice more obvious changes like going from 3:2 to 6:5 on blackjacks.

The other casinos could either see that the changes did not cause people to leave the property, and follow suit. Or they can see it did and thus advertise as being more player friendly.

Personally, I'd like to think that people value their money enough to use it wisely But you know what they say about fools and their money...

[ThreeBeers]

By the way, RIO did not have the "New Rules" I discussed earlier; however, their cage system dealing with people who have markers was awful. I will not stay at the Rio again. heading back out to Vegas in 3 months and will try Paris. This is the last hotel I will try that is a Harrah's Property. If I don't like this one, then I am moving to MGM Properties.

ThreeBeers