Jacoby Brissett Impressions (Perma Merge)

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

 

I never called Reich a bad coach, and I never complained that he was costing us games. Don't do this strawman stuff, please.

 

And how do you know he doesn't feel comfortable with screen passes? He called one on third and 19 and it converted. He calls play action, just at about the same clip as every other typical NFL play caller.

 

I've been saying since 2013 that I think it's time for someone to test the upper limits of the play action threshold. I'd love for that to be this year's Colts, especially since we have a capable rushing attack. But I'll even settle for 10% more play action, with some of those PA attempts coming from under center.

 

I promise that if it's not successful (however we're qualifying "success"), I won't call for Reich to be fired because he called too much play action. Scouts honor.

I know you didn’t 

     I am going from personal experience on leaning on plays and the personnel group tipping off the D

 

      I played as an OG in a pulling O that any lean would tip off the play direction 

[SteelCityColt]

3 minutes ago, DiogoZ said:

 

I really can't think of any incredible good motive to not use more PA. It would at least help Brissett on the passing game.

 

I've been asking myself every game this same question: Why? Why wouldn't we abuse of the PA when (mainly) our running games is destroying the competition.

 

Well, I guess that's one more question to a season full of them.

The lack of a P/A is weird in that it goes back to before this FO/coaching staff. 
 

Grigson/Luck era, even without a running game, we were so much more effective using it, but didn’t use it often enough. 

[Goatface Killah]

12 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

That requires you to listen with an open mind.  Something you've not demonstrated.  At all. 

 

Someone comes at you with stats, "Stats don't matter!  I coached high school and it's like taking a school bus of kids down the field safely!"  Okay, what about film analysis?  He's not throwing guys open?  "Look at his TD-INT ratio!"   Yeah but Reich seems to be treating him differently than Luck, because he's not seeing the field well enough.  I think Reich runs the ball more and limits the playbook for JB so it masks his weaknesses, weaknesses that Luck didn't have.  "2018 doesn't matter!  Stats don't matter again!  We're winning and could be 9-1!  Why doens't anyone understand meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!"  

 

 

So you claim I said I coached in High school and accuse me of not listening? 

 

Alright. Never said that, but alright.

 

 

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

You run the classic Whalen S/T play, that’s what you do. 
 

Hines is a tough one for me, I like a lot of what he can offer, but as you lay out in the above, how to best use him. 
 

Thoughts on some 2RB formations? 

Hines is a tough one 

    Until he proves that he can produce positive runs regularly, when he is in the backfield by himself teams can think pass first

[OffensivelyPC]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The prevailing counter argument seems to be that if you throw a screen to Hines, the defense will immediately stop him because they know he's out there to catch screens (even though we never throw any to him, so go figure). 

 

And at the same time, there's a vocal objection every time Hines gets an inside carry, because he's supposed to be used in space.

 

So don't establish any trends, and don't call any trend busters. Just ... I don't know ... punt???

Funny you just mention punt.  Currently watching this SBnation youtube video on the saddest punts.  Every punt since 2000 is a visual data point.  They have some fun data analysis videos and play breakdowns.  There are some pretty cool and informative learning points.  But mostly, great time killers at work.  The video on the Steve Bono 73 yard bootleg touchdown run (and why it will never happen again) was a lot of fun too.

 

 

[PrincetonTiger]

4 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

The lack of a P/A is weird in that it goes back to before this FO/coaching staff. 
 

Grigson/Luck era, even without a running game, we were so much more effective using it, but didn’t use it often enough. 

PA is disappearing football wide

 

      RPO is the big thing now

[ColtsBlueFL]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

So don't establish any trends, and don't call any trend busters. Just ... I don't know ... punt???

 

Which brings to my mind from those that keep track...

 

How often do we run different plays from the same personnel grouping and alignment?

 

By the same token, how often do we run the same play (hopefully successful) but from different personnel grouping/alignments?

[DiogoZ]

3 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

PA is disappearing football wide

 

      RPO is the big thing now

It's kind of mind-blowing considering the considerable success when we use it.

[OffensivelyPC]

2 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

So you claim I said I coached in High school and accuse me of not listening? 

 

Alright. Never said that, but alright.

 

 

 

Here's what you said

 

Quote

Look, I played football for many years. I've also volunteered at a football camp for incoming college players for the last 18 years to assist my old HS coach. I know football.

 

If you didn't mean you didn't coach, you didn't really make it clear.  You certainly insinuated you were coaching.   

 

Soooo...I mean, do you know football because you helped carry around water jugs at football camp?  Or did you help coach and that's why you know football?  

[Superman]

26 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

I know you didn’t 

     I am going from personal experience on leaning on plays and the personnel group tipping off the D

 

      I played as an OG in a pulling O that any lean would tip off the play direction 

 

That's something else we can do when using play action from under center -- pull a guard toward the play action, which is guaranteed to get the LBs out of position. We've done it before.

[Superman]

20 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

PA is disappearing football wide

 

      RPO is the big thing now

 

RPOs still use play action. They are fundamentally a play action play -- "run/pass option" --  as half of the play is a run and half is a pass, and it's up to the QB to make the decision. I count RPOs as play action if they include a play fake.

 

Of course, they are not play action from under center.

[braveheartcolt]

They are keeping big time PA for this Thursday night. Big time game, unleash the PA. 

[Goatface Killah]

7 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

 

Here's what you said

 

 

If you didn't mean you didn't coach, you didn't really make it clear.  You certainly insinuated you were coaching.   

 

Soooo...I mean, do you know football because you helped carry around water jugs at football camp?  Or did you help coach and that's why you know football?  

 

No I never insinuated I was a football coach. Helping at a camp isn't really coaching. Nobody pays me to coach a team. 

 

But it is valuable experience believe it or not. And the fact you dont think so just tells me you have no clue what you're talking about. 

 

 

 

 

 

[PrincetonTiger]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

RPOs still use play action. They are fundamentally a play action play -- "run/pass option" --  as half of the play is a run and half is a pass, and it's up to the QB to make the decision. I count RPOs as play action if they include a play fake.

 

Of course, they are not play action from under center.

For Me

  RPOs are more of Option plays than PA

      They rely on the choices of a defender and do not always rely on running the similar play before

[Superman]

Just now, PrincetonTiger said:

For Me

  RPOs are more of Option plays than PA

      They rely on the choices of a defender 

 

That is a distinction, but I don't know that it distinguishes play action from option plays. An old fashioned outside veer might start with a play fake.

 

Either way, I'm talking about the act of faking the handoff to the RB to manipulate the defense. If that happens at the start of the play, I call that play action. Including RPOs. 

 

And my belief is that we do not know how much play action is too much, because no team has ever tested its limits. That's not surprising, even "aggressive" NFL coaches are still very conservative. But I'd like to find out. The Cowboys started this season with a ton of play action, something like 60% in their first two games (IIRC), and have since tapered off. 

[OffensivelyPC]

5 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

 

No I never insinuated I was a football coach. Helping at a camp isn't really coaching. Nobody pays me to coach a team. 

 

But it is valuable experience believe it or not. And the fact you dont think so just tells me you have no clue what you're talking about. 

 

 

 

 

 

lol okay.  Put words in my mouth instead of clear things up with a simple explanation that might dispel any question.  You've been doing it for the past couple days anyway, so I'm used to it with you.  State conclusions and avoid bad facts, which is why you didn't even answer the question.

 

I never said it was valuable experience.  But if you aren't "coaching" kids in a football camp, then what in heaven's name are you doing?  When I went to football camp, college camps, etc., I called them coaches and took coaching instruction.  

[PrincetonTiger]

29 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That is a distinction, but I don't know that it distinguishes play action from option plays. An old fashioned outside veer might start with a play fake.

 

Either way, I'm talking about the act of faking the handoff to the RB to manipulate the defense. If that happens at the start of the play, I call that play action. Including RPOs. 

 

And my belief is that we do not know how much play action is too much, because no team has ever tested its limits. That's not surprising, even "aggressive" NFL coaches are still very conservative. But I'd like to find out. The Cowboys started this season with a ton of play action, something like 60% in their first two games (IIRC), and have since tapered off. 

I grew up playing in and coaching in a offense that only had a few plays that didn’t rely on misdirection and fake handoffs 

[stitches]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

 

I never called Reich a bad coach, and I never complained that he was costing us games. Don't do this strawman stuff, please.

 

And how do you know he doesn't feel comfortable with screen passes? He called one on third and 19 and it converted. He calls play action, just at about the same clip as every other typical NFL play caller.

 

I've been saying since 2013 that I think it's time for someone to test the upper limits of the play action threshold. I'd love for that to be this year's Colts, especially since we have a capable rushing attack. But I'll even settle for 10% more play action, with some of those PA attempts coming from under center.

 

I promise that if it's not successful (however we're qualifying "success"), I won't call for Reich to be fired because he called too much play action. Scouts honor.

Yep, I've been saying the same. I think there is no good reason to not run play action/RPO on EVERY SINGLE snap that the personnel on the field allows those to be ran. Yep. I don't want 50%... I want close to 100% of the available play action/RPO situation to be play-action/RPO snaps. What am I missing? Someone with better understanding of the tactical give and takes, please explain to me what is the drawback of running playaction/RPO on every single play that the personnel allows you to run it? 

 

(I guess you can reserve some non PA/RPO for very game-flow and game-situation specific instances, but those won't be many)

[Superman]

35 minutes ago, stitches said:

Yep, I've been saying the same. I think there is no good reason to not run play action/RPO on EVERY SINGLE snap that the personnel on the field allows those to be ran. Yep. I don't want 50%... I want close to 100% of the available play action/RPO situation to be play-action/RPO snaps. What am I missing? Someone with better understanding of the tactical give and takes, please explain to me what is the drawback of running playaction/RPO on every single play that the personnel allows you to run it? 

 

(I guess you can reserve some non PA/RPO for very game-flow and game-situation specific instances, but those won't be many)

 

No one knows because the boundaries haven't been tested yet. Some analysis suggests that offenses could easily double their use of play action and still see increased efficiency. No one does it more than 36%, as of last season (LAR). Their offense definitely didn't suffer from too much play action.

 

The bottom eight teams were all pretty bad offensively last year; not saying that correlation is entirely about play action, but I think we can definitively say that those offenses weren't bad because they ran too much play action.

 

I don't know what the fear is, to be honest. People might think that play action corresponds to time to throw, but it doesn't. Play action doesn't have to be long, drawn out and exaggerated. Tom Brady and Carson Wentz were both top five play action passers last year, and both were in the bottom half of the league for time to throw.

 

Someone is gonna break the mold one of these days. It's bound to happen.

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2019/play-action-offense-2018

https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/passing/2018/all#average-time-to-throw

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/10/23/nfl-is-midst-play-action-boom-kirk-cousins-is-reaping-benefits/

[2006Coltsbestever]

I am one that has no problem with people using stats to help measure a player. I got my degree in Business from IUPUI and had to take rough math classes and a statistic class that was off the chart. Stats are important, I get that. All I have ever said is there are more to rating a player than stats. Leadership is gigantic, at least to me it is, that is not a stat and can't be measured. JB is a great leader. The only 2 stats some seem to keep bringing up in here to say JB struggles or is below average are YPA and total yards passing per game. Every time someone tries to come back and say well he has 15 TD's in 8 games and only 4 INT's it gets ignored by those same people. Those 2 stats are crucial to stat people. If we had a QB that threw a lot of INT's we would stink period. Also another crucial stat is red zone efficiency, JB is great in the red zone. 

 

To me this is just a waste of a post and my last one on it because with some they ignore other facts other than YPA and total yards passing. How can anyone have a reasonable debate with someone when they ignore things like a QB's leadership, that the WR core is average at best, etc.. Even when Hilton has played this season he has been banged up for the most part.

 

One last thing, it would be one thing if we were losing to bring up JB's yards passing but we are winning. JB isn't costing us any games as of now. If it was costing us games I would buy into some of these posts but it's not. I was listening to the Dan Dakich show earlier and he was saying how some Colts fans do not think JB is any good. He just laughed and said it is because they want a QB that throws for 5000 yards and is flashy. I rarely agree with him but he has a good point here. Some just need to accept JB isn't Andrew Luck and we now have a run 1st offense. I have accepted it because we are winning and as a fan have to accept it because that is the hand we are dealt. The only alternative is, not to watch anymore.

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I am one that has no problem with people using stats to help measure a player. I got my degree in Business from IUPUI and had to take rough math classes and a statistic class that was off the chart. Stats are important, I get that. All I have ever said is there are more to rating a player than stats. Leadership is gigantic, at least to me it is, that is not a stat and can't be measured. JB is a great leader. The only 2 stats some seem to keep bringing up in here to say JB struggles or is below average are YPA and total yards passing per game. Every time someone tries to come back and say well he has 15 TD's in 8 games and only 4 INT's it gets ignored by those same people. Those 2 stats are crucial to stat people. If we had a QB that threw a lot of INT's we would stink period. Also another crucial stat is red zone efficiency, JB is great in the red zone. 

 

To me this is just a waste of a post and my last one on it because with some they ignore other facts other than YPA and total yards passing. How can anyone have a reasonable debate with someone when they ignore things like a QB's leadership, that the WR core is average at best, etc.. Even when Hilton has played this season he has been banged up for the most part.

 

One last thing, it would be one thing if we were losing to bring up JB's yards passing but we are winning. JB isn't costing us any games as of now. If it was costing us games I would buy into some of these posts but it's not. I was listening to the Dan Dakich show earlier and he was saying how some Colts fans do not think JB is any good. He just laughed and said it is because they want a QB that throws for 5000 yards and is flashy. I rarely agree with him but he has a good point here. Some just need to accept JB isn't Andrew Luck and we now have a run 1st offense. I have accepted it because we are winning and as a fan have to accept it because that is the hand we are dealt. The only alternative is, not to watch anymore.

So true

   My degree in Political Science and a lifetime around kids under 18 have taught me a lot 

[ColtsBlueFL]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

I want close to 100% of the available play action/RPO situation to be play-action/RPO snaps. What am I missing?

 

If it is from under center, the QB will have to turn his eyes away from the defense. Thus he cannot see where players move to at the snap- safety's, CB's, LB's, even dropping DLinemen... so, the pre-snap read must be spot on, or has to be ready to get it out hot, or look for the "checkdown" or hot read/release quickly if guessing wrong..

[PrincetonTiger]

3 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

If it is from under center, the QB will have to turn his eyes away from the defense. Thus he cannot see where players move to at the snap- safety's, CB's, LB's, even dropping DLinemen... so, the pre-snap read must be spot on, or has to be ready to get it out hot, or look for the "checkdown" or hot read/release quickly if guessing wrong..

That is a big reason why some teams do not like to run Playaction

[Goatface Killah]

3 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

lol okay.  Put words in my mouth instead of clear things up with a simple explanation that might dispel any question.  You've been doing it for the past couple days anyway, so I'm used to it with you.  State conclusions and avoid bad facts, which is why you didn't even answer the question.

 

I never said it was valuable experience.  But if you aren't "coaching" kids in a football camp, then what in heaven's name are you doing?  When I went to football camp, college camps, etc., I called them coaches and took coaching instruction.  

I carry water and fetch footballs.

 

Would it matter what I said? If I told you I taught heads up tackling then you would either not believe me or drag me into an argument about whether or not that's coaching. 

 

Idc if you respect my opinions. I'm just offering them because this board has become a cesspool of complaining and moaning about what is actually a pretty good football team anyways, and I just cant help myself. Feel free to ignore me.

[Superman]

5 hours ago, SteelCityColt said:

Thoughts on some 2RB formations? 

 

How about FB dive to the LG?

 

:: sigh ::

 

Split backs would be fine, depending on the blocking. Even out of shotgun. 

[crazycolt1]

14 hours ago, lollygagger8 said:

 

I ask you a legit question. 

You made the comment so why? 

[stitches]

3 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

If it is from under center, the QB will have to turn his eyes away from the defense. Thus he cannot see where players move to at the snap- safety's, CB's, LB's, even dropping DLinemen... so, the pre-snap read must be spot on, or has to be ready to get it out hot, or look for the "checkdown" or hot read/release quickly if guessing wrong..

But that's the thing... From what I've seen stats wise, pretty much every QB, even the ones that are not the best at presnap reads experience significant jump in efficiency when they run both playaction and RPOs. That's why I'm asking. To me it looks like the advantages are overwhelming even for the worst QBs.

[shasta519]

10 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Great example. Vegas wins billions a year, and there's only a very small fraction of people that can defy the odds/analytics. 

 

I'd also point out that the people that beat Vegas, usually rely on stats/analytics themselves. So you're actually hurting your case... 

 

Yeah...the people that can beat Vegas do so with their own modeling and algorithms. Nobody that is seriously trying to win money is betting on “opinion.”

[lollygagger8]

8 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I ask you a legit question. 

You made the comment so why? 

 

It was a joke dude. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

8 hours ago, stitches said:

But that's the thing... From what I've seen stats wise, pretty much every QB, even the ones that are not the best at presnap reads experience significant jump in efficiency when they run both playaction and RPOs. That's why I'm asking. To me it looks like the advantages are overwhelming even for the worst QBs.

 

I'm on board, and was one calling for more PA this past game in real time.  I recall a football outsiders article that concluded-

 

"The difference in the effectiveness of a team's passing game using play-action relative to without play-action is unrelated to the frequency or effectiveness of the team's rushing. The vast majority of teams have more yards per play on play-action dropbacks than on non-play-action dropbacks."

 

Yet coaches apparently still believe they have to have more attempts and a higher proficiency before PA will be effective. OTOH, If it was 100% effective, I think at least one coach would have adopted it and made hay, and thus create another 'copy cat' effect.

 

 

[EastStreet]

8 hours ago, shastamasta said:

 

Yeah...the people that can beat Vegas do so with their own modeling and algorithms. Nobody that is seriously trying to win money is betting on “opinion.”

Yup, not in terms of "house" games. 

The only opinion type bets that can work are sports book type bets. And that's mostly inside info and modeling/algs too. If it were that easy, all kinds of people would be doing it. His premise is pretty silly.... 

[SteelCityColt]

15 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Yup, not in terms of "house" games. 

The only opinion type bets that can work are sports book type bets. And that's mostly inside info and modeling/algs too. If it were that easy, all kinds of people would be doing it. His premise is pretty silly.... 

 

Even then you're talking individuals out of the total pool of gamblers, a well run sports book shouldn't lose. Slightly different how lines are set over there, but here the profit margin is built into the spread up front. The line being set at what they consider the be the optimum to draw equal action on the buy/sell. Obviously the market then moves depending on betting patterns. 

[EastStreet]

4 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

Even then you're talking individuals out of the total pool of gamblers, a well run sports book shouldn't lose. Slightly different how lines are set over there, but here the profit margin is built into the spread up front. The line being set at what they consider the be the optimum to draw equal action on the buy/sell. Obviously the market then moves depending on betting patterns. 

Yup. FWIW, I know a few horse racing bettors that have made a nice living off of it for the last 30 years. I've been pretty good since my teens too (I do not bet regularly at all). Vegas really doesn't care that some win as the whole process is built to bring it all to the middle. A few of my best friends were bookies from HS to late 20s, and the "game" is pretty clear. I was closely around it those years, and loosely involve for a few. The biggest challenge, collecting LOL.

[SteelCityColt]

5 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

It was estimated in the NY Times there could be as many as 700,000 professional gamblers in the United States.

 

It's not just a few people. And no, those people dont have thier own algorithms. They use the same date as the casino and beat them, because interpreting that data is SUBJECTIVE. 

 

CLOWNS

 

It would be important to know the breakdown of what the 700,000 are betting on. Poker players for example aren't playing the house. There is also a massive difference between a casino, and a sportsbook.

[EastStreet]

1 minute ago, GoatBeard said:

It was estimated in the NY Times there could be as many as 700,000 professional gamblers in the United States.

 

It's not just a few people. And no, those people dont have thier own algorithms. They use the same date as the casino and beat them, because interpreting that data is SUBJECTIVE. 

 

CLOWNS

I know several. Most are losers or just get buy. The only successful ones I know are sports book type and they are using their own models and analytics. The few that do well are ex-bookies types and people that have been around the "games" all their life.

 

And Vegas typically doesn't care too much about them. Sportsbook type of bets are less than 3% of their total revenue. And while only 2ish%, their revenue has grown significantly the last 5 years. The remaining 97+% are the big money makers.

 

If you don't think folks have their own models or analytics, I don' know what to tell you.

[Goatface Killah]

1 minute ago, EastStreet said:

I know several. Most are losers or just get buy. The only successful ones I know are sports book type and they are using their own models and analytics. The few that do well are ex-bookies types and people that have been around the "games" all their life.

 

And Vegas typically doesn't care too much about them. Sportsbook type of bets are less than 3% of their total revenue. And while only 2ish%, their revenue has grown significantly the last 5 years. The remaining 97+% are the big money makers.

 

If you don't think folks have their own models or analytics, I don' know what to tell you.

So you think they have analytics the sportsbook doesn't have?

 

Geez.....you cant make this % up lol

[SteelCityColt]

16 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Yup. FWIW, I know a few horse racing bettors that have made a nice living off of it for the last 30 years. I've been pretty good since my teens too (I do not bet regularly at all). Vegas really doesn't care that some win as the whole process is built to bring it all to the middle. A few of my best friends were bookies from HS to late 20s, and the "game" is pretty clear. I was closely around it those years, and loosely involve for a few. The biggest challenge, collecting LOL.

 

A casino really doesn't want to clean you out at all, the adage was, if they walk in with £100, we want to win maybe £20 off them. 

 

Having big "winners" is great as it's encouraging to others. When you see a table game with a big bonus game, the house can only really lose if it's won in an unusually short time as it will mostly be the seed money. Beyond that they will profit from the increase in players on the fixed odds game and normally from the interest the prize fund accrues while being held in escrow.  

 

You either to be massively incompetent, committing fraud, or have no customer base to not make money running a casino. The only way to consistently beat a house game is to cheat. 

[EastStreet]

1 minute ago, GoatBeard said:

So you think they have analytics the sportsbook doesn't have?

 

Geez.....you cant make this % up lol

Do you know how many pay services out there charge for betting advice that use their own models and analytics. You can buy programs as well. And there's plenty of database programmers out there that do their own. Plenty of college geek kids dabble in their own models too....... Many are trying to create THE model or THE algorithm. Vegas is constantly hiring geek kids to continuously improve their analytics.

 

Pretty obvious though that you really have no clue about sports betting. My best friend was a bookie in my mid teens to mid/late 20s (I helped out for a few years). His aunt (really family) was one of the biggest bookies in Indy at that time (she was his starter bank and who he laid off to most of the time). I grew up around other older bookies, and went to the race tracks like Latonia (now called Turfway I think), RDs, and CHDs since I was 9 or 10. I'm close to 50 now... 

[EastStreet]

9 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

A casino really doesn't want to clean you out at all, the adage was, if they walk in with £100, we want to win maybe £20 off them. 

 

Having big "winners" is great as it's encouraging to others. When you see a table game with a big bonus game, the house can only really lose if it's won in an unusually short time as it will mostly be the seed money. Beyond that they will profit from the increase in players on the fixed odds game and normally from the interest the prize fund accrues while being held in escrow.  

 

You either to be massively incompetent, committing fraud, or have no customer base to not make money running a casino. The only way to consistently beat a house game is to cheat. 

FYI, here's a breakdown of Vegas gaming revenues by type from October.

Slot machines: $693 million

Blackjack: $125.4 million

Baccarat: $76.2 million

Roulette: $40.4 million

Craps: $31.7 million

Sports: $29.5 million

Three Card Poker: $11 million

[EastStreet]

and here's the break out of house advantage.

 

Game/House Advantage

Roulette (double-zero)5.3%

Craps (pass/come)1.4%

Craps (pass/come with double odds)0.6%

Blackjack - average player2.0%

Blackjack - 6 decks, basic strategy*0.5%

Blackjack - single deck, basic strategy*0.0%

Baccarat (no tie bets)1.2%

Caribbean Stud*5.2%

Let It Ride*3.5%

Three Card Poker*3.4%

Pai Gow Poker (ante/play)*2.5%

Slots5% - 10%

Video Poker*0.5% - 3%