Rio481
Rio481
Joined: Mar 11, 2016
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 50
April 25th, 2016 at 3:06:51 PM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan

Dealers have enough of a time dealing and adding; surveillance tracks the counters.



Oh, please. Yes there are new dealers who struggle just to keep the game moving, but the vast majority I run into are more than adept at spotting counters. That doesn't mean they're tracking the count - just watching my bets and signaling the PB if my bets look suspicious. I ran into a dealer last week who recognized I was counting within the first 5 hands, and actually helped me stay out of trouble. She'd give me a bit of a frown if I tried to increase my bet too quickly, and within the first shoe I was able to determine that the house tolerance was a 1:10 spread.
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
April 25th, 2016 at 3:43:27 PM permalink
Quote: Rio481

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?!!


Thanks!
The world changes. Opportunities that once existed in a bigger way begin to fade.

On CSMs: they have both value and expense, and are better values on non-stop busy games of high limits. However, would they be welcomed in a high-limit room? I think not. For many places, 6:5 is a fine, even perfect, solution for both increased game protection and increased revenues.

6:5: 6:5 was introduced to both increase revenue and decrease card counting, to pay for expenses of operating a casino. If card counting ate into that revenue, and it did, then addressing it is a valid reason from the operator's game protection point of view. This is particularly true if it were effective in that goal - which it is.

Lamentation: You're right, you may lament, but is it helpful? I look at trends, and it seems that as we progress into our more technologically advanced (or even procedurally more advanced) future, this door seems to be closing in an unstoppable fashion. Why deny it? Imagine a future where there's only CSMs and 6:5 Blackjack with 99% of the people not noticing anything different in their civilian ploppie lives, or caring about the plight of the card counter. What is plan "B" here? Craps? Pai Gow Poker? Studying to obtain a degree in Dentistry? Will we miss thinking for money "Plus-one, Plus-one, minus-one, minus-one, zero-zero-zero?" I view this as an interesting fixation, and not "the life." Should casino operators enable this? I think not.
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 4:07:39 PM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan

You're right, you may lament, but is it helpful? I look at trends, and it seems that as we progress into our more technologically advanced (or even procedurally more advanced) future, this door seems to be closing in an unstoppable fashion. Why deny it?



What am I denying? The entire point of my initial post was that based on my observations I think it's clear 6:5 is here to stay and will spread. I also complain about my wife watching HGTV every night, but don't expect that to change either. I have a particular interest in Blackjack, and find it both relaxing and entertaining to play, particularly to play well. That doesn't mean I don't have other interests, passions, and avocations. Is it helpful to lament? To me, yes. I find it helpful to share experiences and insights with others who have common interests. Kind of what a discussion forum is all about, no?
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
April 25th, 2016 at 4:43:31 PM permalink
okay, fair enough.
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 4:48:36 PM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan

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


Add that $2000 back with the ASM there.
"And that's the bottom lineeeee, cuz Stone Cold said so!"
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 12609
April 25th, 2016 at 5:40:56 PM permalink
I didn't read all this thread so excuse me if this has been asked and answered.

Dan are you blaming AP'so for 6:5 BJ?

Yes or no answer please.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 2969
April 25th, 2016 at 5:53:38 PM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan

6:5: 6:5 was introduced to both increase revenue and decrease card counting, to pay for expenses of operating a casino.


How does 6:5 decrease card counting? I would think one of the reasons it exists is to offset card counting (as one of my Ten Rules Of Gambling says, "No, you don't know how to count cards well enough to beat a 6-5 single-deck blackjack table" - and as the next one says, "No, you aren't different").
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 76
  • Posts: 9045
April 25th, 2016 at 7:15:35 PM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

I didn't read all this thread so excuse me if this has been asked and answered.

Dan are you blaming AP'so for 6:5 BJ?

Yes or no answer please.



I think he would agree the answer is "yes", he is. He considers 6:5 an AP counter-measure, according to his previous posts. If you want to argue that answer, you probably need to read the thread first. :)
"If the house lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game."
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
April 25th, 2016 at 9:00:09 PM permalink
Yes, I do indeed, precisely because I was told by casino managers and executives that it alleviates card counting issues and losses in particular.
If the people who run casinos install 6:5 blackjack precisely to reduce/alleviate card counting issues, I have no reason not to believe them.

You can say "it's because they make more money," and you'd be right. They can say, "It's because we make more money not having losses to card counting under the radar, and with less surveillance expense." And they'd be right, too. Now this would be in addition to the extra money from the higher house edge, but as stated, house edge is not the only rationale.

Also, I was told by multiple gaming mathematicians that [and a direct quote here] "6:5 is very difficult to count," and "counters wouldn't rationally select a 6:5 table if they're looking to make some money," basically saying "Yeah, it's the current countermeasure to counting, short of putting a CSM on every table."

You shouldn't be concerned with me, for blaming card counting on the advancement of 6:5 blackjack. You've got every suit in the industry thinking it helps game blackjack protection to some degree, along with CSMs, and they seem to be right. They believe this and use it. I'm a pit boss/table games manager at no casino. Why care?
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
Minty
Minty
Joined: Jan 23, 2015
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 101
April 25th, 2016 at 9:25:57 PM permalink
Maybe this question has been asked in a poll before, and if so, I'm sorry. What do you all think, do you think eventually blackjack will simply be an amalgamation of terrible games that are only played by the uneducated and the desperate? My optimism says no, but my cynicism says yes.

  • Jump to: