rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 79
  • Posts: 6598
April 25th, 2016 at 8:35:40 AM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan


No. If it weren't an issue, it wouldn't have been touched.



Only the worst games for counting were touched. Pretty clear to most folks that it's a cash-grab by the house, preying on players who don't know or care about the difference. If the target were counters, they'd have changed the games that are/were actually good for counting.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
Rio481
Rio481
Joined: Mar 11, 2016
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 50
April 25th, 2016 at 8:47:29 AM permalink
I'm not buying for one second that 6:5 has anything whatsoever to do with APs and game protection. That 3:2 with good rules can be found in the same casinos at higher minimums gives lie to this argument. If 6:5 was being deployed as a countermeasure to APs it would have been done across the board.

I've spent 28 years in the corporate world, and what I'm seeing is no different than any other business. Prices at Disneyworld increase yearly, their food gets worse, and the lines just get longer. Disney is even using the lines to their advantage - providing after-hours access (for a fee) only to people who are staying at the Disney resort hotels. It's the same in the resort casinos. Resort fees and room rates increase, comps dry up, paid parking is added, and house edge increases. 6:5 "21" (I refuse to call it Blackjack) is just part of this. The bean counters see an opportunity and exploit it so long as it's not rejected by their customers. As a for-profit enterprise they're attempting to maximize shareholder value. That's their job. As much as I'd like to, I don't blame the casinos.

You'll notice that off-strip casinos have been more resistant to 6:5. I think this reflects the fact that their customers are better educated players that are there primarily to gamble. These casinos need to compete for those players and understand that they'll lose business with unfavorable rules. The resort casinos have more captive, uneducated (in gaming terms) players. The casino action is typically a sidelight to the trip. That's what's discouraging to me - that otherwise intelligent, well-educated, affluent folks allow themselves to be held captive to a game that delivers bad value for their entertainment dollar when better options are just around the corner. I guess you could call them "enablers".
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 63
  • Posts: 10716
April 25th, 2016 at 9:11:32 AM permalink
6:5 was in no way the result of counters, period!! It's no different than other companies making more money in a faster way. It's no different than that ice cream container you bought ten years ago for $2.59. Today it's still $2.59, but the container is smaller!! 6:5 is no different. You're buying the same thing but getting less value out of it.
"And that's the bottom lineeeee, cuz Stone Cold said so!"
TwoFeathersATL
TwoFeathersATL
Joined: May 22, 2013
  • Threads: 36
  • Posts: 3616
April 25th, 2016 at 9:25:36 AM permalink
If 6:5 replaced 3:2 as a reaction to professional gamblers, AP or not, it would have started at the higher limit tables and worked its way down to the lower. That's all you need to know. It's business, it's probably been good business, for the business. The story isn't over yet, we are still part of the story.
'Ride captain ride, on your mystery ship' !
Youuuuuu MIGHT be a 'rascal' if.......(nevermind ;-)...2F
Canyonero
Canyonero
Joined: Nov 19, 2012
  • Threads: 38
  • Posts: 485
April 25th, 2016 at 9:42:25 AM permalink
Hey, did you guys hear they are gonna charge for parking now? Well, once again the APs (Advantage Parkers) killed the golden goose.
Just because you find free parking does not mean you should blatantly take advantage of it. And the APs had been openly talking about it on internet forums and such. Then, every ploppy took advantage of free parking. Naturally, the casions now have to respond and charge for parking, their hold was just too low because of all the APs. Way to ruin it for everybody, APs!
Rio481
Rio481
Joined: Mar 11, 2016
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 50
April 25th, 2016 at 9:56:55 AM permalink
Quote: Canyonero

Hey, did you guys hear they are gonna charge for parking now? Well, once again the APs (Advantage Parkers) killed the golden goose.



I asked the concierge what they know about paid parking - when it's going to start, pricing, etc. Nothing is set in stone yet, but the latest this guy had heard parking was going to be free for Mlife members with Pearl status (not hard to achieve) or above. They were also discussing an option that would allow you to park at any MGM property and move between them freely once you paid your daily fee. He described the paid parking as a means of collecting revenue from people who are using the MGM parking but not patronizing the restaurants, casinos, shops, hotels, etc.

I suspect this is going to shift a lot of traffic to other strip properties, who will then respond with their own paid parking. And I think MGM understands this. Again, trying to increase shareholder value . . .
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
April 25th, 2016 at 10:11:11 AM permalink
Quote: Rio481

I'm not buying for one second that 6:5 has anything whatsoever to do with APs and game protection. That 3:2 with good rules can be found in the same casinos at higher minimums gives lie to this argument. If 6:5 was being deployed as a countermeasure to APs it would have been done across the board.


No. The segregation of 6:5 and 3:2 is to also reduce the surveillance load by funneling card counters to manageable groups of tables. The same surveillance group that cannot provide protection for twelve tables can do it for three.

Quote: Rio481

I've spent 28 years in the corporate world, and what I'm seeing is no different than any other business. Prices at Disneyworld increase yearly, their food gets worse, and the lines just get longer. Disney is even using the lines to their advantage - providing after-hours access (for a fee) only to people who are staying at the Disney resort hotels. It's the same in the resort casinos. Resort fees and room rates increase, comps dry up, paid parking is added, and house edge increases. 6:5 "21" (I refuse to call it Blackjack) is just part of this. The bean counters see an opportunity and exploit it so long as it's not rejected by their customers. As a for-profit enterprise they're attempting to maximize shareholder value. That's their job. As much as I'd like to, I don't blame the casinos.


I also spent three decades in the corporate world, - to include gaming.
You are correct that gaming is in many ways no different than other businesses, - but here 6:5 is driven greatly by loss prevention. Bean counters perform this for shareholder value, too.
But changing game parameters is not an inflationary type price increase, as raising the table minimums and limits would be that action. But you are correct in that business profit parameters (including loss prevention) are driven by what the market will bear, and it seems that it can bear 6:5 blackjack.

Quote: Rio481

You'll notice that off-strip casinos have been more resistant to 6:5. I think this reflects the fact that their customers are better educated players that are there primarily to gamble. These casinos need to compete for those players and understand that they'll lose business with unfavorable rules. The resort casinos have more captive, uneducated (in gaming terms) players. The casino action is typically a sidelight to the trip. That's what's discouraging to me - that otherwise intelligent, well-educated, affluent folks allow themselves to be held captive to a game that delivers bad value for their entertainment dollar when better options are just around the corner. I guess you could call them "enablers".


No. Station casinos converted to 6:5 company-wide as a purely locals casino group, among other local companies; The larger strip chains are generally nation-wide conglomerates with more indicators and "canneries in the coal mines," and so were on the vanguard of 6:5 implementation.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 63
  • Posts: 10716
April 25th, 2016 at 10:38:55 AM permalink
Another reason 6:5 wasn't caused by AP's was the fraudulent "whopping" advertisements from Ballys when it debuted.
"And that's the bottom lineeeee, cuz Stone Cold said so!"
Rio481
Rio481
Joined: Mar 11, 2016
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 50
April 25th, 2016 at 10:51:45 AM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan

No. The segregation of 6:5 and 3:2 is to also reduce the surveillance load by funneling card counters to manageable groups of tables. The same surveillance group that cannot provide protection for twelve tables can do it for three.



Sorry, not buying this BS. Many of the same tables that have 6:5 (including ALL 6:5 tables at Aria) are also CSMs. CSMs are a very effective counter to APs. The only reason to add 6:5 is to increase hold. FWIW, I'll play low limit CSM tables when playing with friends. It's cheap entertainment. But adding 6:5 turns it into gouging.

Quote: Paigowdan

I also spent three decades in the corporate world, - to include gaming.
You are correct that gaming is in many ways no different than other businesses, - but here 6:5 is driven greatly by loss prevention.



Agreed. But there's a big difference between loss prevention and game protection. Of course losses will be mitigated with 6:5, and hold will increase. But game protection is about countering cheats and other "undesirables" (i.e. APs). There are very effective means for countering APs and cheats that don't involve 6:5. Sorry, but it's a pure money play - nothing to do with integrity of the game. And I agree that the market will bear 6:5, at least on the strip. That's obvious from what I saw last week. My disappointment is with the market (aka, players).

Quote: Paigowdan

No. Station casinos converted to 6:5 company-wide as a purely locals casino group, among other local companies; The larger strip chains are generally nation-wide conglomerates with more indicators and "canneries in the coal mines," and so were on the vanguard of 6:5 implementation.



I never said off-strip was impervious to 6:5, just more resistant. On my trip last week I had no problem finding $5 3:2 games off-strip, and even $10 pitch games at 3:2. I didn't visit any Station properties, but the casinos I did visit for the most part reserved 6:5 for low limit SD games. On the strip however, 6:5 was nearly universal for anything under $25.

I think we can agree that in the end it's all about the money. But you're a long way from making the case with me that this has anything to do with countering APs, game protection, or integrity of the game.
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
April 25th, 2016 at 11:03:42 AM permalink
Quote: Rio481

Sorry, not buying this BS. Many of the same tables that have 6:5 (including ALL 6:5 tables at Aria) are also CSMs. CSMs are a very effective counter to APs. The only reason to add 6:5 is to increase hold. FWIW, I'll play low limit CSM tables when playing with friends. It's cheap entertainment. But adding 6:5 turns it into gouging.


1. Yes - Agree - it is to increase hold! ...to counteract loss of hold primarily from card counting. If there were no AP on a game that otherwise holds fine, then no action would have been necessary.
2. Adding a CSM to a 6:5 is a waste, and is just borne of stupidity. Just because a man wears a suit doesn't mean he has a brain in his skull, regardless of industry.

Quote: Rio481

Agreed. But there's a big difference between loss prevention and game protection. Of course losses will be mitigated with 6:5, and hold will increase. But game protection is about countering cheats and other "undesirables" (i.e. APs). There are very effective means for countering APs and cheats that don't involve 6:5. Sorry, but it's a pure money play - nothing to do with integrity of the game. And I agree that the market will bear 6:5, at least on the strip. That's obvious from what I saw last week. My disappointment is with the market (aka, players).


Your quote: "Of course losses will be mitigated with 6:5..." hence its usage.
There's a lot of disappointing imperfection in gambling and casino operations. Trust me, we're looking at a whole bunch of suits who were rejected by NASA, med school, MIT, their father's business, and Mensa, you name it, though they'll never act like it.....

Quote: Rio481

I never said off-strip was impervious to 6:5, just more resistant. On my trip last week I had no problem finding $5 3:2 games off-strip, and even $10 pitch games at 3:2. I didn't visit any Station properties, but the casinos I did visit for the most part reserved 6:5 for low limit SD games. On the strip however, 6:5 was nearly universal for anything under $25.

I think we can agree that in the end it's all about the money. But you're a long way from making the case with me that this has anything to do with countering APs, game protection, or integrity of the game.


Absolutely! It is all about money - and any real or perceived threats to their pocketbook.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.

  • Jump to: