Setting Table Maximum Betting Limits
| Risk and volume dependence in relation to determining maximum betting limits for independent trial, negative expectation table games. By Andrew MacDonald Senior Executive Casino Operations, Adelaide Casino, 1995 |
Casino Analyser Reference Maximum Bet Volatility |
Introduction | Key Principles | Setting Limits | Mathematics | Effective Maximum Bet Limits | Variable Betting | Volume Dependence | Maximum Loss Point | Variable Bet Distribution | Non High-End Casino Operation | Analysis of Results | Conclusion |
Interesting theories abound in the casino industry on how table maximum bet limits should be set.
One expert at a recent World Gaming Congress and Expo seminar in Las Vegas wisely stated that in well-managed casinos, limit spreads should not exceed a ” four times double-up spread in small casinos and maybe up to a seven time double-up spread in large casinos.” So what does this mean? A $5 minimum limit table game should not then allow a bet of greater than $80 ( $5, $10, $20, $40, $80. ) in a small casino and $640 in a large casino. To show this more mathematically, if you would like to calculate for other numbers then the formula is :
|
Maximum
|
= $.2^n | |
|
where $
|
= the minimum bet limit and, | |
|
n
|
= the number of double ups to which you wish to limit. | |
|
For n
|
= 4 then Maximum = 16.$
|
|
|
and n
|
= 7 then Maximum = 128.$ | |
Several questions, however, arise from this hypothesis. Firstly, how does one define a small and large casino? Secondly, does this mean that many casinos in Las Vegas such as The Mirage, M.G.M. Grand etc. are poorly managed as they certainly do not appear to follow this sage’s formula? Thirdly, what on earth have bet spreads and double-ups got to do with anything in negative expectation games? Fourthly and finally, is there a more logical, mathematically correct and sensible business principle upon which this often confusing and confused issue can be based?
