Gambling Behaviour Part Three – Yes, again stupid - it's still the product!

My last two Central Lobby articles on PoliticsHome referred to my experiences as a successful poker playerand casino game creator. Not only was I behind the most successful proprietary table game ever in Three Card Poker™ , I also created the most successful casino table game side-bet ever in 21+3®. I divested all rights in all formats in 21+3® to GLXZ prior to starting the Stop the FOBTS campaign and have no commercial interest in the games.

My understanding of gambler and game interaction is very refined, and my credentials speak for themselves. This tends to contrast sharply with those who advocate maintaining the £100 a spin status quo on FOBTs. Their lack of experience or credentials leads them to the ill-informed view that the gambling product is not relevant.

Whilst there was a history of new games doing well and generating good revenues, side bets were less well regarded. With blackjack being the main game in the US, there are probably well over 100 blackjack side-bet games, but only a few of them in operation and many with limited numbers of tables.
_______________________________________________________________

RELATED CONTENT

Gambling Behaviour Part One - it's the product stupid!
Gambling Behaviour Part Two – it’s still the product stupid!
_______________________________________________________________

There are a number of practical difficulties with blackjack side-bets which 21+3® overcomes. 21 refers to the blackjack bet whereas 3 refers to the side-bet. The first two cards of a player blackjack hand are combined with the dealer face-up card to form a three card poker proposition hand. Instead of each winning hand rank being given a separate payoff in a pay-scale there is a composite payoff on all winning hands (a first ever) of 9 to 1 for a three card flush or better. Unlike any other side-bet game previously 21+3® is viable with a $5 minimum wager, or a minimum wager the same as the blackjack minimum.

Just as TCP was the best new game for dealer tips, 21+3® became the best side-bet game for dealer tips. There are a few dynamics behind this phenomenon. Gamblers who play these games are generally out to have fun, they are not hard-core gamblers.

They can generally afford to lose at the level they are gambling. They have a perception and a reality of experiencing the win frequency and game interest. There is a communal atmosphere of the players against the dealer. The 3 side bet, by taking focus away from the 21 bet, makes criticism of other players blackjack decisions less prevalent.

As 21+3® grew I decided to innovate the game even more by adding another side-bet, Top Three™. Again a first ever, it was compulsory to bet one side-bet 3 in order to bet the other side-bet Top Three™. With a win frequency of far less than 1%, it is the pay-scale of 90 to 1, 180 to 1 and 270 to 1 that attracts gamblers. The participation and wager levels show how popular Top Three™ is. In high-stakes London casinos, attracting gamblers who can afford to lose, it is not abnormal to see individual wagers of £1,000 on the 3 bet and £100 on the Top Three™ bet.

Contrast the environment and the demographic of TCP™ and 21+3® in casinos with FOBT roulette in betting shops. The games in casinos create sociable experiences for gamblers to interact with each other and the dealer. 21+3® slows down blackjack slightly and TCP is slower than the traditional games.

FOBTs in betting shops feature primarily roulette. Gamblers are singularly engaged with the machine. They are gambling too fast and at unsustainable levels. The demographic is far more vulnerable than in a casino. There is not the same pleasurable experience, as attested to by the many FOBTs being damaged. I have never seen even cards or chips being damaged at either TCP™ or 21+3®.

My explanations of the facts about the casino environment and the games I created does not make me a casino lobbyist or make the Campaign a casino campaign. The Campaign for Fairer Gambling is not anti-gambling. Pro-status quo FOBT advocates desperately try to denigrate me and the Campaign by making false and or malicious assertions regarding my past history of casino relationships. This is the best they can do because they cannot answer the volumes of evidence the Campaign has amassed to support the FOBT stake reduction from £100 to £2 per spin.