Article written in response to e-mail question to the Last Resort Consulting website

After some thought on the subject I decide to do some comparisons that may help develop a better picture of the situation of what is considered the best blackjack table configuration; five spot, six spot, or seven spot layouts. It has always been my contention that time and motion is paramount and usually all it takes is common sense to arrive at the best solution. As I see it the argument is whether or not five, six, or seven spot blackjack tables will provide the most possible gaming results during one hour of play in a fairly busy or crowed casino; one where all seats will be filled with average strategy and wagering players. At present customer comfort achieved from spacing out the wagering areas of the table does not seem to be the issue. This factor however does preclude the option of using a table with more then seven wagering spots per blackjack table.

First, let’s look at how the different tables measure up against each other on an individual table basis.

• 
  By comparing the results of this table one can see how the number of spots on a table layout affects the number of hands dealt per hour. Before examining this table we need to first go over the assumptions.
  
  
• Column A indicates the total number of wagering spots available to players at the table. The number of wagering spots on each table type is inflexible as far as maximum utilization. This characteristic gives the seven spot table an operational advantage.
  
  
• Column B illustrates the total number of hands per round of the table that is the number of players plus the dealer since the dealer must deal himself a hand as well.
  
  
• Column C shows the estimated number of rounds an hour the dealer will generate on a full table. These numbers were chosen arbitrarily based on a benchmark of 60 rounds dealt on a seven spot game.
  
  
• Column D indicates the total number of hands to be dealt in an hour given the previously established information.
  
  
• Column E reflects the total number of hands that will produce win/lose results in an hour. This calculation is equal to total hands per hour less the dealer’s hand that does not generate direct revenue.
  

The most important figure to look at in this previous table is the number of rounds needed to reach the same number of total results (column E) on each table type. Notice that the seven spot table accomplishes in 60 rounds what the six spot table accomplishes in 70 rounds, and the five spot table accomplishes in 84 rounds.

The trade-off between the three table configurations becomes the time savings need to propel either the six spot or five spot table past the time used to deal 60 rounds on the benchmark seven spot layout. Unfortunately, the time issue, whether 84 rounds or 70 rounds can be accomplished in less time then 60, can only be determined within the confines of your own casino. The best suggestion is to perform game pace analysis on the seven spot table with five, six, and seven players wagering to determine the actual cost per each situation.

Since 60 rounds is equivalent to one round per 60 seconds, the six spot game would need to be dealt at one round per 51 seconds, while the five spot game would need to be dealt at one round per 43 seconds, before the three game types would reach parity.

The next issue that needs to be addressed is that of total table utilization during busy or peak hours. The total number of spots on each table comes into play since they represent the total number of customers that can be accommodated.

Based on a busy casino with limited number of blackjack tables arbitrarily determined at twelve, the seven spot tables have a great advantage since they accommodate more players. If the casino could expand like an accordion the casino would have to add two more table and at least two more dealers to their casino floor before the six spot tables would accommodate the same number of casino gamblers as the seven spot benchmark tables; with the five spot tables and operators needing to “grow” even greater.

In conclusion, based on the pre-established assumption of a busy casino with limited floor space, the previous example would lead one to believe that the seven spot tables hold a definite advantage over the six and five spot alternatives. These advantages are; (1) flexibility of utilization, (2) maximum number of results achieved during play and, (3) lower payroll expenditures. All this while achieving the greatest revenue return regarding allocated casino floor space.

It should also be noted that seven spot tables would suffer from slight reduction in hold percentage. Although the casino will win more money the seven spot table will accommodate more players, which will increase the amount of total individual buy-ins at the table. This situation will increase the amount of total cash drop, subsequently lowering the hold percentage slightly. Since the slightly lower hold percentage does not represent a loss in revenue, this effect should be understood and not perceived as a negative.