Changing Black Jack rules

When I wrote to the VCGLR to ask why such a game is tolerated, a spokesperson indicated that “under section 61 of the Act, the VCGLR can give directions to the casino operator regarding table games, including setting the minimum and maximum number of any particular game that is to be available to be played in the casino”. Further, “Crown is required by law to inform patrons of the rules of the game and must make the rules of the games available to players, including, publishing them on the Crown website”. However, in the commission’s words, “the decision to offer a game for play is a commercial decision made by the casino operator and its success or failure is dependent on market acceptance of the product”.

Sadly, the introduction of Blackjack Plus game by Crown suggests that Victorian governments continue to promote Crown Casino’s quest for greater profits with much less consideration being given to fairness.    

This is hardly new given past deals between the Victorian government and Crown. In 2009, A Deutsche Bank evaluation found that Crown will make more money than it would lose after a deal increased Crown’s tax rate on its poker machines from 21 to 32 per cent in exchange for a boost to its gaming tables from 350 to 500. While the Victorian Government expected a $60 million tax windfall from the deal, it was estimated that Crown would profit by an extra $41 million by 2015 and by $10 million a year after 2015.

No surprise here, but Crown constantly discriminates against smaller punters to maximise profits. In recent year, rules changes have included Crown reducing the odds in terms of payout for blackjack (21 from 2 cards) on cheaper tables from 6-4 to 6-5. Further, Crown required blackjack dealers to ‘hit’ on ‘soft 17’, which meant the house gets a final chance to win instead of paying out players holding cards at values of 18-21.

It is indeed a sad state of affairs when an Australian government allows ongoing rule changes which further disadvantages the smaller punter, although most gamblers (and even dealers) I spoke to that day were not impressed with the ‘stand-off’ 22 rule. 

Sure times are tough and state governments need taxation revenue, but allowing Crown to introduce its Blackjack Plus game provides another policy example where a spade can indeed be called a spade in terms of describing greedy behaviour with government support.