From up above:
"...Well pre-2000, there were mostly the bac big tables where 2 dealers would work the double bank chip rack and 7 people can play on each end. One dealer would stand opposite the chip rack in the middle of the table (see picture below where the indent is and place the players cards down by the rail and the bankers cards above those), he or she would receive the cards from each person when they had the shoe. The shoe would start in seat #1 and be past around the table counter clockwise. The person with the shoe would deal one card for the player and slide it to the dealer standing and then the next card for banker with its corner under the shoe, third card slid for the player again to the standing dealer, fourth card again under the corner of the shoe. You could wager either player or banker of course. If you were high wagering player, you would then slide the bankers cards to the dealer standing and you would receive the players cards back to open. If you were not high wagering players bet, they were slid to whomever was. Then you would open the bankers cards no matter the amount you had wagered. You kept the shoe as long as you made winning banker hands.
There was always at least a $100.00 minimum on the table. The game was very slow and there were no automatic shufflers. Took at least 20-30 mins for the shuffle.
Most all played same side and in sync. Huge camaraderie prevailed most all the time. .."
I agree that pre-2000 the baccarat game was less profitable for the casino. I liked the big-table atmosphere. Since the 1980s it has gradually disappeared to only a few high-limit rooms offer it(& then not open 24/7). Although I do prefer the speed of decisions from the EZ Bac version in recent decades.
Besides the significantly fewer hands the Pre-2000 players were most likely to "follow the leader" (i.e., play in sync). It didn't really matter to casino which side (P as well as B) as "everyone betting with the camaraderie" created more volatility for the casino(vs the modern player more willing to wager opposite the current trend).
Casinos prefer less volatility and more predictability. If we go way back the game was played more like Black Jack where players could make drawing decisions based on what their opponent was showing,LOL. That would have been fun. The problem for the casino was they couldnt count on the Banker(dealer) using optimum strategy. Todays drawing rules fixed that concern for the casino. So in todays game the casino is satisfied with straddling the game results. Less volatility and guaranteed profits.
Many changes from the original parlor version of Baccarat chemin de fer:
The parlor game was originally a three-person zero-sum game. Later in the 19th century it was simplified to a two-person zero-sum game. Early in the 20th century the parlor game became a casino game, no longer zero-sum. In the mid 20th century, the strategic casino game became a nonstrategic game, with players competing against the house instead of against each other. It is my opinion that this evolution was motivated by both economic and game-theoretic considerations.
*Mostly Economic
Majority of changes through the years are motivated by casinos' desire to increase profits. Meaning that when an inventor for a new layout presents their pitch to a casino they show how this "new layout, bonus bets, procedural changes,...etc" will increase ROI for the casino vs the current method.
I often find it informative to dissect and unravel bonus bets and (i.e, Why would they offer this, and or how did they calculate the house edge on this new wager). Then I look at the underlying premise and try to discern if there is a flaw in the inventors' calculations.
Continued Success,
"...Well pre-2000, there were mostly the bac big tables where 2 dealers would work the double bank chip rack and 7 people can play on each end. One dealer would stand opposite the chip rack in the middle of the table (see picture below where the indent is and place the players cards down by the rail and the bankers cards above those), he or she would receive the cards from each person when they had the shoe. The shoe would start in seat #1 and be past around the table counter clockwise. The person with the shoe would deal one card for the player and slide it to the dealer standing and then the next card for banker with its corner under the shoe, third card slid for the player again to the standing dealer, fourth card again under the corner of the shoe. You could wager either player or banker of course. If you were high wagering player, you would then slide the bankers cards to the dealer standing and you would receive the players cards back to open. If you were not high wagering players bet, they were slid to whomever was. Then you would open the bankers cards no matter the amount you had wagered. You kept the shoe as long as you made winning banker hands.
There was always at least a $100.00 minimum on the table. The game was very slow and there were no automatic shufflers. Took at least 20-30 mins for the shuffle.
Most all played same side and in sync. Huge camaraderie prevailed most all the time. .."
I agree that pre-2000 the baccarat game was less profitable for the casino. I liked the big-table atmosphere. Since the 1980s it has gradually disappeared to only a few high-limit rooms offer it(& then not open 24/7). Although I do prefer the speed of decisions from the EZ Bac version in recent decades.
Besides the significantly fewer hands the Pre-2000 players were most likely to "follow the leader" (i.e., play in sync). It didn't really matter to casino which side (P as well as B) as "everyone betting with the camaraderie" created more volatility for the casino(vs the modern player more willing to wager opposite the current trend).
Casinos prefer less volatility and more predictability. If we go way back the game was played more like Black Jack where players could make drawing decisions based on what their opponent was showing,LOL. That would have been fun. The problem for the casino was they couldnt count on the Banker(dealer) using optimum strategy. Todays drawing rules fixed that concern for the casino. So in todays game the casino is satisfied with straddling the game results. Less volatility and guaranteed profits.
Many changes from the original parlor version of Baccarat chemin de fer:
The parlor game was originally a three-person zero-sum game. Later in the 19th century it was simplified to a two-person zero-sum game. Early in the 20th century the parlor game became a casino game, no longer zero-sum. In the mid 20th century, the strategic casino game became a nonstrategic game, with players competing against the house instead of against each other. It is my opinion that this evolution was motivated by both economic and game-theoretic considerations.
*Mostly Economic
Majority of changes through the years are motivated by casinos' desire to increase profits. Meaning that when an inventor for a new layout presents their pitch to a casino they show how this "new layout, bonus bets, procedural changes,...etc" will increase ROI for the casino vs the current method.
I often find it informative to dissect and unravel bonus bets and (i.e, Why would they offer this, and or how did they calculate the house edge on this new wager). Then I look at the underlying premise and try to discern if there is a flaw in the inventors' calculations.
Continued Success,
