1st person tables are above the live ones in my lobby now

this. ive sat behind a full table at 9pm more times than i want to think about
 
the thing i find interesting about first person is that it's deliberately designed to look like a camera feed and i don't think it has to be. it's 3D. they could render it from anywhere. they could show you the shoe from above, or the wheel from inside, or something no camera could do. instead they picked a fixed angle that mimics a studio shot of a felt table, down to the lighting. so the whole visual language is a copy of a thing it isn't. which tells you they think the live table is the real version and this is the substitute, even while they're pushing it to the top of the lobby
 
I've seen both too and I can't settle it for you. The write up I trust most says a six deck shoe in the body text and eight decks in its own page description, which is not a great look for either of us. The in game info panel is the thing to check and I'd trust that over anything written about it. If somebody has it open, post what it says.

While we're on things that aren't published: the soft 17 rule and the blackjack payout ratio for First Person aren't stated anywhere I've looked either. Both of those matter more than the deck count.
 
for what its worth the whole evolution blackjack range has that problem and its worse than the deck count thing
their own pages dont agree with themselves on rtp. the headline list i read gives a range of 98.4 to 99.5, then quotes lightning at 99.5 which is outside its own range. the faq on the same page says 98.8 to 99.5. and the little product cards give different numbers again, power at 98.8 where the text says 99.5
thats nearly a whole percent of disagreement on one game depending which part of the page you read
 
Single most useful post in the thread, and it deserves more than a like.

A percent on blackjack is enormous. The difference between 99.54% and 98.8% is more than doubling your cost per hand. If a player cannot establish which of those they are sitting at, then every strategy discussion above this post is decoration. I would add one thing to it. Those numbers also assume you play the hand correctly every time. The published RTP of any blackjack variant is the figure for optimal play, and the gap between optimal and typical is wider than the gap between any two of those variants.
 
Since the variants keep coming up, the two to actually get your head round are the ones where the rules change rather than the presentation.

Power Blackjack takes all the 9s and 10s out of an eight deck shoe, then lets you double, triple or quadruple down. Removing high cards is bad for you and the multiple down is good for you, and it lands at 99.54%. No Six Card Charlie.

Lightning Blackjack charges a fee equal to your bet, and after two consecutive wins you start getting multipliers of 2x up to 25x. It quotes 99.59%, the highest in the range, and that figure is calculated on everything you put in including the fee.

Those are the two best returns on the board and both of them get there by changing what a hand of blackjack is. If you want cards dealt out of a full shoe at honest odds with no fee and no gimmick, Seven Seat at 99.47% is the game and it has been sat there the whole time.
 
played REAL blackjack 5 year before i ever played it online. the fee one sounds mad to me, paying double to maybe get a multiplier
 
what is the quickest first person table then. if speed is what you are paying for i had rather have the quickest one
 
I would gently suggest that is the wrong thing to optimise for, and I say that having watched this exact reasoning run its course on this forum more than once.

You have spent this thread arguing that more hands is more chances. It isn't, and the faster the table the faster that becomes apparent. Speed Blackjack is about 30% quicker than the standard live table and First Person is quicker again. Whatever your session was going to cost, it will cost it sooner.

If you want the fastest table because you enjoy the pace, that is a perfectly reasonable thing to want and I would just set a number before you sit down. If you want it because it gets you to a win faster, it does not work that way.
 
speed is the only part of this i have a strong feeling about and it's got nothing to do with rtp.. i tried tht roulette once and stopped after about ten minutes because there was no gap. on a live wheel there's a wait while people bet and the ball goes round and the dealer says something, and in that gap you think about what you're doing. it just asks you again immediately
 
nataly.k said:
speed is the only part of this i have a strong feeling about and it's got nothing to do with rtp.. i tried tht roulette once and stopped after about ten minutes because there was no gap. on a live wheel there's a wait while people bet and the ball goes round and the dealer says something, and in that gap you think about what you're doing. it just asks you again immediately
Click to expand...
That gap is the most underrated thing about live dealer and it never comes up in these comparisons because it doesn't fit in a spec sheet.
 
This has been bugging me since I posted and Nataly has said it better than i was going to. I said I didn't miss the dealer. what I actually didn't miss was the waiting, and the waiting is where I used to decide whether to keep going. Four times the hands per hour sounded like efficiency when I wrote the first post
 
forum has talked a man out of a game in 36 posts. i bet its new record
 
Nobody's been talked out of anything. He's said the quick version suits him less than he thought, which is a different thing to the quick version being bad. I'll keep using First Person for the reason I gave and I'd still tell anyone playing a long session to sit at a live table instead. Both of those can be true.
 
this is going to bother me all week so I am putting it here to get it out of my head. evolution report the RNG growth every quarter and never once break down what is driving it. is it existing live players switching across, or is it new players who never used a live table at all? those are completely different stories about the business and about the product and the 10.1% looks the same either way.
if anyone has seen that split published anywhere I'd like to read it.
 
they won't publish that and i wouldn't either in their position. cannibalisation and acquisition look identical on a revenue line and only one of them is a good story
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top