I realize a story that John Scarne told in his, 'New Complete Guide to Gambling,' about a House getting shelled in Roulette by the Martingale essentially due to increasing the Maximum such that it gave the player an extra bet before bust, but the Odds are ALWAYS in the casino's favor. If he chooses not to, the casino may not win as money from him as they otherwise would have. It would seem that allowing such would increase variance at the table, but only in the casino's favor, the player (if Martingale) only stands to win one unit.ī.) If the player Martingales-Out due to the Table Maximum, he could theoretically switch tables to continue his Martingale. For the same reasons that such systems are doomed to failure, (because the losses are devastating) the casino should encourage players to play these systems to their last dollar. However, I partially disagree because this only applies to Blackjack and not the other games.Ģ.) Diminish the Probability of Success for Progression SystemsĪ.) I would still think that the casino would want players to be making a -EV bet, which they all are, even at the cost of them successfully winning one betting unit more often. I have heard many people opine as to the reason for this, and I disagree with all reasons except the first, and the reasons/disagreements will follow:Ī.) I agree with this one, because you don't want a BJ player to be spreading $5-$5000 depending on the favorability of the count.

In short, I do not understand why the Table Maximum is not the same as the House Maximum for every Table with only the minimums differing, at least, not in limited circumstances. I hope that someone can answer this for me, because I imagine the answer is something simple that I am missing.

Las vegas table minimums by casino