Lawsuits Take Aim at 6:5 Blackjack Payouts

The most important blackjack rule revolves around how much casinos pay for naturals, meaning a score of 21 on the first two cards.

Casinos can either pay 6:5 or 3:2 for naturals. The latter is definitely more favorable to players because 3:2 payouts increase the RTP by 1.39%.

Gaming establishments do have the right to insert 6:5 payouts at blackjack tables. Gamblers, meanwhile, reserve the right to avoid such games. Many players who are in the know do exactly this.

A group of blackjack players in Massachusetts, however, are taking a different approach to the matter. They’re actually suing casinos in the Bay State for offering 6:5 natural payouts under unfair circumstances.

I’m going to discuss this lawsuit in depth. First, though, I’ll cover more on why 6:5 payouts are despised and what casinos and real money online casinos normally do to make up for them.

What’s the Big Deal With 6:5 Natural Blackjack Payouts?

As mentioned before, natural payoffs have the biggest impact on the blackjack RTP. The next most impactful rule, the number of decks, isn’t even close.

A single deck raises the RTP by 0.5% when compared to eight decks—the most possible for any given game. Again, the payback difference between a 3:2 and 6:5 natural payout is 1.39%.

Aside from affecting your long-term chances of winning, these payoffs also have a noticeable effect on short-term winnings. Here are some examples on how your winnings are affected by the different payouts:

Example #1

• You bet $50 and get a natural blackjack.
• A 3:2 payout would result in $75 in winnings.
• A 6:5 payout would result in $60 in winnings.
• 75 – 60 = $15 difference

Example #2

• You bet $10 and get a natural blackjack.
• A 3:2 payout would result in $15 in winnings.
• A 6:5 payout would result in $12 in winnings.
• 15 – 12 = $3 difference

Example #3

• You bet $100 and get a natural blackjack.
• A 3:2 payout would result in $150 in winnings.
• A 6:5 payout would result in $120 in winnings.
• 150 – 120 = $30 difference

How Casinos Typically Make Up for 6:5 Payouts

Blackjack is a skill-based game that rewards expert players. With a great command of strategy, you’ll achieve the top payback within a given set of rules.

Of course, most gamblers don’t use perfect basic strategy. Therefore, casinos try to keep the blackjack RTP within a fair range of 99.5% to 98.0%. This way, an average player can at least look forward to somewhere between 98.0% and 96.5% payback.

If a casino adds 6:5 natural payoffs to a table, they usually try to make up for this by including some favorable rules. The aforementioned single deck is one big way that casinos can improve the RTP.

Again, a single deck boosts the payback by 0.5% as opposed to eight-deck games. It increases the RTP by 0.48% when compared to six-deck tables.

Here are some other rules that’ll increase your chances of winning:

• Double down on any total (versus only 9 through 11) = +0.25% RTP
• Dealer stands on soft 17 (versus hitting) = +0.20%
• Double down after splitting = +0.17%
• Re-splitting aces = +0.08%
• Late surrender = +0.07%

Why Are Massachusetts Gamblers Suing Over 6:5 Payouts?

According to Court House News, blackjack players have filed two class-action lawsuits against Massachusetts casinos. 6:5 natural payoffs are at the heart of the suits. These lawsuits argue that Massachusetts players are collectively cheated out of $30 million through unfavorable rules.

The lawsuits claim that low-stakes players were steered towards 6:5 tables. Meanwhile, those who want to enjoy 3:2 payouts have to play for higher stakes.

This matter goes beyond just the 6:5 payoffs, though. Players and lawyers behind the lawsuits claim that the casinos haven’t balance out the rules.

Under the Massachusetts Gaming Commission’s rules, Massachusetts casinos can offer either 3:2 or 6:5 natural payouts. In the latter case, they’re supposed to feature a special “6:5 variation” that includes some player-friendly rules.

The gaming commission contends that the casinos haven’t violated its rules. Justice David Lowy isn’t so sure, though, noting that the commission’s rules are a “mess” of inconsistency.

Other judges are worried about how fair the game rules are for casual players. Justice Serge Georges isn’t so sure that the average gambler would know that “the stakes are stacked against them.”

Justice Scott Kafker is also skeptical, noting that he as a blackjack novice wouldn’t have any clue about the unfavorable rules.

“I’m not James Bond,” Justice Kafker says. “I don’t know all the rules when I show up at the table. Is this a distinction that players know and understand? It seems like inside baseball.”

Where Does This Case Stand Now?

A state judge is in favor of the casinos. However, a federal judge has since sided with the blackjack players. The latter now wants the Massachusetts high court to issue consistent rulings on both lawsuits.

As mentioned before, Massachusetts Gaming Commission rules allow for standard 6:5 and 3:2 rule sets. Under the 6:5 option, casinos are supposed to offer certain rules that favor the player.

The gaming commission is inconsistent, though, when suggesting that casinos can feature 6:5 payouts without using the recommended 6:5 variation. MGM Springfield and Encore Boston took them up on this rule twist.

Joshua Garick, one of the attorneys who’s representing the gamblers, notes that this inconsistency is unfair to gamblers.

“If you’re going to change the rules, you have to give something back to the player,” Garick argues. He goes on to say that the idea of a 6:5 rule set is ridiculous if it’s not even followed.

“Why would you have a game with rules for 6:5 if you didn’t have to follow them?”

Wayne Dennison, who’s representing the casinos, believes that players can easily figure out the rules at hand. For example, he thinks that how many decks are in use should be obvious, and players can use this information to “make an informed choice.”

Justice Lowy doesn’t like how casinos were only offering 3:2 payouts at higher stakes. Thus, players with gambling problems might be forced to bet larger stakes just to enjoy favorable rules.

Although Justice Kafker appears to believe the 6:5 rules are deceiving, he also doesn’t know how the matter would be settled financially.

“Is every blackjack table taped?” asks Kafker. “I assume there are videos available that show gameplay. But you point out an enormous discovery problem.”

Will the Players Win the Lawsuit?

This case isn’t just about 6:5 natural payouts. After all, real money blackjack tables from Las Vegas to Atlantic City can offer these lower payoffs.

Instead, it’s all about the misleading and confusing rules. The gaming commission offers guidelines for 6:5 tables, yet doesn’t actually require casinos to use them.

Of course, players don’t usually get a pass for not understanding the rules. Most tables only display natural payouts and whether the dealer stands on a soft 17.

These lawsuits, however, may present an exception to the norm. They contend that certain 6:5 payout games don’t follow the gaming commission’s guidelines, which are inconsistent in themselves.

It appears that the blackjack players indeed have a case, but they’re not guaranteed to win. The casinos could still prevail if judges find that it’s the gamblers’ responsibility to figure out the rules.

Even if they side with the players, the justices may also find it too difficult to arrange fair repayment. After all, it would be extremely difficult to determine who’s due money and how much.

In short, everything still remains up in the air. Whatever happens, though, the high court will likely issue consistent rulings with both lawsuits.

Conclusion

No knowledgeable blackjack player welcomes 6:5 natural payouts. However, this is the first-known instance of gamblers actually fighting back against these low payoffs through the courts.

Both lawsuits revolve around the inconsistency of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission’s recommendations and the unfavorable rules. Encore Boston and MGM Springfield are offering low-qualify games to low-stakes players.

These cases may not result in players receiving tens of millions of dollars back. They could, however, set a precedent for how casinos must display all rules.

Again, natural payouts and the dealer hitting/standing on soft 17 are the only commonly printed rules. This situation could potentially change based on the outcome of the Massachusetts lawsuits.