RonC
RonC
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
  • Threads: 37
  • Posts: 4063
April 25th, 2016 at 12:34:00 PM permalink
If this was all about the counters, there would be no need for 6:5. Use CSM's on low level games and funnel the counters to certain pits based on the games you offer. No need for 6:5 at all. 6:5 is purely to up the hold...
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
April 25th, 2016 at 12:44:17 PM permalink
Quote: Rio481

Quote: Paigowdan

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.


So you're arguing that the casinos are trying to increase hold on low limit tables (by adding 6:5 to CSM, 8 decks, 60% penetration, no surrender, etc.) to make up for the loss on high limit tables???? Sorry, but that makes no sense. If the high limit tables are losing money to APs the casinos would put the countermeasures there.


No. As stated, the high limit tables can afford to have greater surveillance and other countermeasures to avoid losses that the low-limit tables shouldn't need to spend as much on. Again, Surveillance can't adequately protect twelve tables when they can protect three tables.
If you're trying to state that AP issues didn't cause or contribute to the introduction and usage of 6:5 blackjack, well, know that it did, even if it is distasteful to accept, choosing to believe that AP players are the do-gooding friends of the casino operator.

Quote: Rio481

And they have, but notice they didn't add 6:5. BECAUSE IT'S NOT A COUNTERMEASURE!!!


Oh yes it is, and an effective one.

Quote: Rio481

They understand 6:5 turns away the educated gambler who is more likely to be at the high limit table.


They understand 6:5 turns away card counters, who would then have to be ushered into the high-limit surveillance filming rooms.

Quote: Rio481

They understand that with extremely rare exceptions the card counter is not a significant threat.


They understand if any threat can be done away with cheaply, as well as increasing their profits in the process, they'll just put up a table sign that says "Blackjacks pay 6:5" and be done with it. Besides, casino bean counters make this decision as to the risk, not posters on a gambling forum. Why offer 3:2 blackjack and then have to pay for Bob Nersesian's hourly rate from a back-off gone wrong, when a 6:5 table sign basically covers this and costs $20?

Quote: Rio481

And they have measures (surveillance, observation, flat-bet, back-off) to identify and mitigate the threat. They also understand that recreational gamblers will look only at the $10 min and ignore the rest of the rules on the placard. Sorry, but that's strike two.


And they have measures of 6:5 payouts, too, and they seem to using it more and more. Looks like the windup for a possible strike three.

Quote: Rio481

Quote: Paigowdan

2. Adding a 6:5 to a CSM 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.


Fixed it for you. CSM is the AP countermeasure. 6:5 is a pure revenue play.


Nope. Both CSMs and 6:5 payouts are counter measures. And both CSMs and 6:5 are revenue enhancers. Both are used for both purposes.

Quote: Rio481

I'm not saying casino execs are either stupid or evil. They are simply trying to maximize shareholder value. Adding 6:5, CSM, reducing comps, etc are all ideas to increase revenue, and to the degree they work will remain in place.


They aren't completely stupid or evil. They finally seem smart enough to use what works for their bottom line. If 3:2 worked better, they'd keep it more widely.

Quote: Rio481

I'm not bashing the casinos, just wish the market wasn't so willing to play along.


I can imagine. Those damn casino bean counters and their ploppies messing up the AP gravy train for us card counters. The nerve of them protecting their business interests. If you think a game is a bad value, don't play it but neither lament it.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
April 25th, 2016 at 1:08:18 PM permalink
I wouldn't be surprised if casinos offered 3% HE even money shoes, then only to later bring out and say "we're bringing out 6:5 just for you! Lower house edge! - We're so good to our customers!" (With pictures of beautiful people laughing and smiling over a 6:5 table, the whole ad blitz....life is good....)
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
April 25th, 2016 at 1:10:13 PM permalink
Quote: RonC

If this was all about the counters, there would be no need for 6:5. Use CSM's on low level games and funnel the counters to certain pits based on the games you offer. No need for 6:5 at all. 6:5 is purely to up the hold...



CSM's cost something like $2,000 per table month to rent. 6:5 is free. Remember the bean counters.....
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
TwoFeathersATL
TwoFeathersATL
Joined: May 22, 2013
  • Threads: 36
  • Posts: 3616
April 25th, 2016 at 1:21:54 PM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan

CSM's cost something like $2,000 per table month to rent. 6:5 is free. Remember the bean counters.....

speaking of bean counters, the CSMs subtract a little from the house edge for all but the counters. Now the bean counters have to compare the the number of counters vs the number of non-counters, AND add in somehow the fractional proportion of really bad counters. That prolly kept them their jobs for another year or so. Compare that to the monthly cost of the CSMs. Wonder what they are doing this year to justify their employment?

<edit> apparently at at least some of their properties the CET bean counters have drastically cut the RC and TC for table game play, or so I've been told. ('twas a little bird that could speak southern human language).
Youuuuuu MIGHT be a 'rascal' if.......(nevermind ;-)...2F
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 5354
April 25th, 2016 at 1:34:30 PM permalink
If a casino can't spot a card counter....they're doing something awfully wrong. If they try to use the 6:5 as covering up for being a card-counter counter-measure.....oh boy...

There are SO MANY ways to counter-measure these "rule breakers" (as you call them...lol), CSMs, 6:5, poor rules, poor penetration, etc. are not necessary as counter-measures. With a slight modification to how the El Cortez runs their BJ pits, they would be a perfect example of how a casino should be run.

I ain't saying casinos should not have CSMs, 6:5 BJ, poor rules, etc. (poor penetration is just stupid), since those are ways the casino makes more money faster....especially in a market like the LV strip where people are gonna be playing whether the game has good rules or not.

But, those "counter measures" are used to make more money, not to stop card counters.
"should of played 'Go Fish' today ya peasant" -typoontrav
RonC
RonC
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
  • Threads: 37
  • Posts: 4063
April 25th, 2016 at 1:35:23 PM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan

CSM's cost something like $2,000 per table month to rent. 6:5 is free. Remember the bean counters.....



20% more hands dealt should help them a lot with that $2,000...
Paradigm
Paradigm
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 2022
April 25th, 2016 at 1:50:27 PM permalink
Agree RonC....the CSM's real benefit is never stopping the action for shuffling or replacing burnt 6 decks with freshly shuffled 6 decks from standard shuffling machine (and then offering someone the chance to cut the decks)...all time and motion stuff that disappears with a CSM. Of course they also thwart the counters, but I don't think that benefit alone is sufficient to justify the lease rate.
Attempting to add value one post at a time
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
April 25th, 2016 at 2:35:24 PM permalink
Quote: RS

If a casino can't spot a card counter....they're doing something awfully wrong. If they try to use the 6:5 as covering up for being a card-counter counter-measure.....oh boy...


They often can and can't. Dealers have enough of a time dealing and adding; surveillance tracks the counters. If they can make counting one less issue, then in goes 6:5 or something similar for most tables, and then funnel the counters into the filming room/high-limit room. Any game that requires excess surveillance babysitting is an issue.

Quote: RS

There are SO MANY ways to counter-measure these "rule breakers" (as you call them...lol), CSMs, 6:5, poor rules, poor penetration, etc. are not necessary as counter-measures. With a slight modification to how the El Cortez runs their BJ pits, they would be a perfect example of how a casino should be run.


Cortez is a bit extreme. Casinos decide their mix of measures. By having less countable games, less rules are broken, less back-offs occur, less legal issues occur, with savings there. And yeah, if you get a tap on your shoulder for a back-off, it's because a rule is broken in the eyes of the casino, not the player.

Quote: RS

I ain't saying casinos should not have CSMs, 6:5 BJ, poor rules, etc. (poor penetration is just stupid), since those are ways the casino makes more money faster....especially in a market like the LV strip where people are gonna be playing whether the game has good rules or not.


You can consider the Strip casino pits as feeding troughs, where any gruel served up that gets consumed is successful. And if having a counter's point of view, any measure that hurts counters will be considered "stupid" or anti-player by the counter, and effective by the operator. If the masses are happy and the coffers full, they'll argue it ain't stupid, and will have a point.

Quote: RS

But, those "counter measures" are used to make more money, not to stop card counters.


Believe what you want, if counting becomes unfeasible or impossible, this was not an accident. Any loss prevention positive gets factored in.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
Rio481
Rio481
Joined: Mar 11, 2016
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 50
April 25th, 2016 at 2:50:49 PM permalink
PGD -
First, I appreciate the spirited debate. I understand your position, just completely disagree with it.

Second, you're right it's strike three. I'm not at all convinced. Let's take the very specific case of games with both CSMs and 6:5. CSMs are a perfect countermeasure to card counters. And they're actually cheaper than the placard at the table. By eliminating down time between shoes they more than make up for the $2000/month they cost to rent. So let's look at an example. With 6D H17 (common on the strip before CSMs were introduced) the house edge is something like .57%. It's not easy to overcome that advantage in a 6D game, but it can be done. Now the CSM is introduced as a countermeasure for a small population of skilled counters. Card counting is now completely ineffective. So what's the point of now introducing 6:5? There's no longer a threat to defeat. The answer is very simple and one that I've repeated - shareholder value. Now, if you want to make the argument that a larger hold is needed to cover increased payroll costs for the dealers, higher maintenance charges for the facility, construction for new facilities, more lavish environment, etc then I think we have something to talk about. But let's please not pretend that 6:5 is about protecting the game from counters, or that APs were the direct cause of the 6:5 trend. I'm sure this is probably the way it's discussed by the operators, but I'm afraid it's a case of them starting to believe their own BS.

Third, I reserve the right lament anything I please. I choose not to play games that are a bad value, but I do not run over to the tables and try to persuade people not to play. It's their money, and if they choose to lose it more quickly than necessary it's their business. But I do not relinquish my right to complain. And I accept that others may reject my opinions and arguments, either in good spirit or not. And I will defend your right to express your opinions even though I disagree with you. Ain't this free speech thing great?!!

  • Jump to: