Alex is a regular reader, a blackjack player who long has played at traditional tables with a live dealer and real cards and chips.
He tried out a game with video betting, and later had some questions about the experience.
“I played at one of those blackjack tables where a dealer dealt the cards, but you bet by touching the screen,” he wrote. “All the payoffs were automatic. As soon as the hand was over, the credits were added or deducted from your screen.
“I still like handling the chips myself, but I liked this better than I thought I would. It was all pretty easy and didn’t intrude on the game. Can you think of any negatives for players?”
I like handling chips, too, but touch-screen betting has its advantages. Payoff mistakes are all but eliminated. The dealer isn’t going to take your chips by mistake, nor are you going to be overpaid or underpaid.
Touch-screen betting also enables the casino to offer side bets that are paid as quickly as the main bet. Side bets almost always have a house edge higher than the main game, so I avoid them. But for players who like to chase bigger jackpots, the side bets can be offered without slowing the deal.
One thing that should leave players wary is that since the dealer doesn’t have to make payoffs, games with electronic betting move faster than games with chips. More hands per hour means faster losses for most players.
In blackjack, touch-screen payouts often require use of a card-reading shoe to relay results to the payout program. Card counters are wary of systems that have accurate records of wagers and of cards played, but for most players the main worry is speed of play.
Table games featuring electronic betting remain a small minority. They’re not going to make live games disappear anytime soon, but will continue to grow slowly as player acceptance increases.
