Casino Lowering Table Limit For Days After A Player Wins Big - What Do You Think?

Hey Everyone,

A local Vegas casino is having a promotion that's drawn me in every day for the last couple of weeks. As a result, I've played with the same guy (Player A) on several occassions. Here are the details:

Game: BJ
Initial Table Limit: $25-$3000
Player A's spread: $500-$3000

Player A is absolutely not a card counter. About a week ago, he clipped the casino for about $30k. Subsequently, the casino lowered the table limit to $2000 whenever he sat down (the past three days).

Last night, he asked a pit boss (a guy I had never seen before) why the limit was $2000.

"Someone hit us for over $30k about a week ago, so we lowered the limit."

Hmm....this seemed counter-intuitive to me. As I said, the guy isn't counting, and that has to be evident to anyone watching (if I know it, they know it). Not only that, he doesn't even play great BS (never hits 12 against 2-3, takes even money on BJ, won't ever double w/A-7, plus other stuff). The casino is relatively small, but part of a large chain. I kept thinking, "What happens if the casino gets popped for $200k one night - do they close the doors for a day to 'make up'?" It just seemed strange to me, especially given that Player A has lost his fair share as well. The house edge is the house edge....right?

What do you guys think?

Quote: LovinItAll

What do you guys think?

That for all their math consultants and business models, casinos are as superstitious as players. They're trying to prevent that particular player from having another lucky session.

Quote: Nareed

That for all their math consultants and business models, casinos are as superstitious as players. They're trying to prevent that particular player from having another lucky session.

Really? I'm not disagreeing with you (especially about statistical models), but a casino being 'afraid' of a lucky streak? Just seems odd....

I've been at larger properties years ago where a player was winning big (much larger than $30k). Virtually without exception, the casino would do anything to keep the player playing - streaks don't last forever, or at least that's what I thought their rational was. Maybe times have changed....

I always thought if a player was winning big they would want to KEEP the player playing, and bigger since the house edge will eventually get'cha

I've heard of table limits being lowered on-the-spot, but it was in AC and had to do with card-counting not being a throw-out-able offense there, so not exactly comparable to what you said.

One other thoughts besides superstitions (just guesses, I'm not in the business) ... a "punishment" handed down by corporate for not making numbers. Yeah, this will happen sometimes, but maybe corporate reviewed the tape and smelled a rat without actually being able to prove anything. If it happens to the same guy at the same table with the same dealer more than once, but they can't prove anything was fishy but it JDSR, this sounds like something corporate might do.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

....but maybe corporate reviewed the tape and smelled a rat without actually being able to prove anything. If it happens to the same guy at the same table with the same dealer more than once, but they can't prove anything was fishy but it JDSR, this sounds like something corporate might do.

Just to clarify, this is all happening in a small high-limit room with a regular rotation of dealers. Guy plays for hours and hours and, to me, there doesn't seem to be any type of collusion.

Thanks for the replies.

Quote: LovinItAll

Really? I'm not disagreeing with you (especially about statistical models), but a casino being 'afraid' of a lucky streak? Just seems odd....

I shouldn't sound so postive when speculating. It's the SF writer in me...

It is odd, but I've seen similar things at the dealer/floor level. Especially in craps tables. Not lowering of limits per se, but switching dice, interfering withthe shooter, switching cards, shuffling in mid-shoe, things like that. And it's all superstition.

Quote:

I've been at larger properties years ago where a player was winning big (much larger than $30k). Virtually without exception, the casino would do anything to keep the player playing - streaks don't last forever, or at least that's what I thought their rational was. Maybe times have changed....

I don't play nearly a hundredth that big, but as a rule if I win at a casino I play that money elsewhere (unless I spend it or put it away). My reasoning is that I'm willing to risk it, but not to give it back where I won it. I know it makes no sense, and the odds are the same at the Fitz than at Excalibur, but my play's so small it doesn't really matter.

But to your point, sure, if a player hits a casino for a big sum, the casino should keep him playing, either then or later, and give him a chance to lose it back. It's the player who should stop playing, if he cares about keeping the money he's won.

If the promotion made the game +EV, I see no reason for the casino not to do that. Why didn't they do it for all players, just for him? IDK. Maybe they assumed no one [no one else to be precise] will actually bet the table max anyway. Or, again, maybe just a mix of superstition and common sense - it doesn't take a counter to beat a +EV game, just a player who knows the game and bets big.

Quote: P90

If the promotion made the game +EV, I see no reason for the casino not to do that. Why didn't they do it for all players, just for him? IDK. Maybe they assumed no one [no one else to be precise] will actually bet the table max anyway. Or, again, maybe just a mix of superstition and common sense - it doesn't take a counter to beat a +EV game, just a player who knows the game and bets big.

It's a casino/franchise-wide (Station) drawing promotion (e.g. Car Giveaway) - No EV effect on the game.

Just sweating the money. Stupid--and unfortunately typical--casino behavior.

Tom Brietling and his partner Tim Poster owned the Golden Nugget in downtown Vegas for one year in 2004. They were wealthy men given that they invested $25m apiece of their own money (then borrowed another $155m from private investors like Andre Agassi) but they were not an international corporation.

At the prompting of Tim Poster they decided to raise their table limits. About 9 months into their ownership a very wealthy and obnoxious video game developer (who they nicknamed Mr Royalty) came in and took them for over $8 million. Their board of directors voted to re-institute the lower table limits.

There are legal requirements regarding how much cash the casino must keep on hand. They depend on the number of slot machines and tables and the annual gaming revenue of the casino (not the company, but the casino). The unexpected $30K win may have put a serious bite on their cash. The pit boss may have simply re-acted out of concern for his job. At this point he may want to minimize losses rather than worrying about a big win to earn his money back.

The pit revenue of the downtown Las Vegas casinos averages $27.6K per day (the Golden Nugget and the Stratosphere are well over the average). That is before expenses are subtracted. So for a small casino a loss to a single person of $30K has an impact on the monthly bottom line.

It may not be the smartest thing to do, but it is an understandable gut reaction. Casinos do not like gambling very much. They like to "grind" away their money. The traditional name for a low stakes casino is a "grind joint".

Quote: pacomartin

Tom Brietling and his partner Tim Poster owned the Golden Nugget in downtown Vegas for one year in 2004. They were wealthy men given that they invested $25m apiece of their own money (then borrowed another $155m from private investors like Andre Agassi) but they were not an international corporation.

At the prompting of Tim Poster they decided to raise their table limits. About 9 months into their ownership a very wealthy and obnoxious video game developer (who they nicknamed Mr Royalty) came in and took them for over $8 million. Their board of directors voted to re-institute the lower table limits.

There are legal requirements regarding how much cash the casino must keep on hand. They depend on the number of slot machines and tables and the annual gaming revenue of the casino (not the company, but the casino). The unexpected $30K win may have put a serious bite on their cash. The pit boss may have simply re-acted out of concern for his job. At this point he may want to minimize losses rather than worrying about a big win to earn his money back.

The pit revenue of the downtown Las Vegas casinos averages $27.6K per day (the Golden Nugget and the Stratosphere are well over the average). That is before expenses are subtracted. So for a small casino a loss to a single person of $30K has an impact on the monthly bottom line.

It may not be the smartest thing to do, but it is an understandable gut reaction. Casinos do not like gambling very much. They like to "grind" away their money. The traditional name for a low stakes casino is a "grind joint".

I was familiar with the Brietling story. As an update, the guy managed to drop $25k a couple of nights ago, so they got the majority back. After some further discussion, I think this guy streaks like that somewhat regularly.

No doubt a $30k hit would impact their forecast for revenue. I'm about done with this particular place anyway. I was down about $800 yesterday, asked the PB (very nicely) if he could let the waitress know that I'd like something to drink, and 40 minutes later had to get up and get my own. A wait that long would've irked me on the casino floor, but in the so-called 'High Limit' room, it's beyond unacceptable. Colored up, obv. - too irritated to keep playing.

Always wondered why this place wasn't busier. I think I now know.....

Thanks for the response.

Which Station is it?

A 30k win is nothing to most casinos. Add another zero.

Good thread.
As it is told to many a casino and shift manager - and not always accepted:

1. You either trust the mathematics - or you're trusting superstition, which will lock in your loss.
2. If you don't view it and accept it as just a loan to a player, no matter how big, then locking down the limits on him also locks in your loss to him.

What we are seeing is the human nature behind sweating the money.
Granted, higher limits mean higher variance, so a bad day can be a really bad day.
But the largest portion of casino income comes from the whales, and not from nickel players.

When Caesars Palace sweats it, then this industry has become disturbed.

But...as a game designer, I had "sweated the money" on my own game, EZ Pai Gow.
I made more top bonus payouts, - but with each one paying less, - like 2,000:1 and not 8,000:1 for a 7-card natural straight flush. I added the A-5 NSF with the match as a 2000:1 payout, etc., so that no individual rare jackpot would bust the table at a $5 house. With more smaller payouts, it had the same HE.
But there's a Big difference between a $4,000 payout and a $16,000 one-time payout for a new table game at a $5 house.

I want to argue this is different, kind of.

When I had less than 10 tables out, a single "whammo" jackpot would have pulled - or killed - all of the tables, with so few out.
Because I know casino executives, as human beings, can get spooked by one huge hit against them. AS we have seen.

Now, we added (and had it approved) the standard-type Fortune/Emporer's Challenge table, with the 8000:1 7-card NSF; simpler, to match the "standard" Pai Gow bonus tables they all use.

With a few tables out, the table product acted as a "Nickel" house, - vulnerable to one big hit.
With 25+ tables, the tables collectively act as a "stronger house."

Quote: Paigowdan

But...as a game designer...

Dan -

Thanks for that.

That helps explain some of the stuff that was discussed at the distributor meeting we had regarding my Hit It Again idea.

For other reasons, I've already created alternate paytables for Poker For Roulette that A) reduces the top prize, B) increases the house edge, C) both.

I'll be posting about it in the thread about my idea tomorrow.

Dave,
So true. I have seen or heard of several good - no, GREAT new games or so getting slammed by offering table-based only jackpots, on a one-of-a-million hit when the new game has only six tables out or so, - or is even undergoing a field trial.

This was the story of Three-Card Poker's introduction in Atlantic City - where it just dumped from constantly lucky hits that were slightly out-of-normal-variance range (it's bonus table had the flush a 4:1, giving a multi-payout table the same HE as a flat-type of main bet.) It developed a bad reputation, and developed a "funk," so it cost Three-Card Poker's advancement several years of re-introduction effort, where it finally took off in Mississippi, to become the valid main-stay of table games offerings that it truly deserves.

Casino managers and executives could not see that a few lucky "out of normal variance" flukes occurred, - so they just trashed Three-Card Poker at first. Derek Webb of Prime Table Games could tell you about that bad initial break.

I DO feel that:
1. Table games with a $5-$25 minimums should not be offering > 2000:1 odds on any freak hit, because the Gods of Gambling are of a very mercurious nature - especially when some shiny new bitch is making her table game debut - and it doesn't matter if it is our very our daughter.
2. A maximum table-game based jackpot (not pooled progressive) should pay for a cruise or a vacation or a new car, and that's plenty of incentive - but NOT for the entire retirement fund, or the kid's college education on a nickel bonus bet. You're there to play Roulette or Pai Gow Poker, what have you, and to get lucky and well-ahead, even way ahead. There is little difference between buying-in for $100 and leaving with $4,000, and leaving with $187,000, except in your own life, and to the casino house who will forever trash your game.
3. Pooled progressive jackpots allow for the freak "one-in-a-million" payout expense that a $5 house cannot itself carry, and shouldn't risk, and would kill off your new game to the industry if it DID happen (i.e., "When it will indeed slam your new game.").
4. Once your new game has 25 to 100 installs, a jackpot hit just further promotes it.
5. If your new game has 5 to 10 installs, one jackpot hit just kills it the hell OFF.

This is why there was a "starting bonus table" on EZ Pai Gow with the Luhn-Tao wheel (the A-5 NSF) paying off the same as a Royal - because the 7-card Natural straight Flush paid 2000:1 instead of 8000:1, for the same 7% bonus bet house edge. Same house edge, more smaller hits, but no ball-breaking hits to the house. And it did hit, and it paid off for $4000 at the Barona and at the Fiesta Henderson - which was all right. This is because $16,000 was not all right with less than 25 tables installed - and less than18 months since introduction/field trial.

We have now gone with the standard Fortune-like bonus tables, having hit 25 installs.

Edit: we still offer the Luhn-Tao wheel bonus table, and the standard Pai Gow Poker bonus table. Whatever the client house prefers.

Quote: Nareed

It is odd, but I've seen similar things at the dealer/floor level. Especially in craps tables. Not lowering of limits per se, but switching dice, interfering withthe shooter, switching cards, shuffling in mid-shoe, things like that. And it's all superstition.

In a way, it is superstition. But *what if* he slipped in loaded dice, or is a skilled counter, etc. Switching dice or shuffling doesn't cost anything. Discouraging a player from betting big seems like a horrible way to do business.

Quote: dudestupid

In a way, it is superstition. But *what if* he slipped in loaded dice, or is a skilled counter, etc. Switching dice or shuffling doesn't cost anything. Discouraging a player from betting big seems like a horrible way to do business.

It is, - absolutely, G-ddam it is, absolutely, - and it is costly to discourage clearly clean betting, no matter how large, within limits, almost always that the house can afford.

Even a mid-size casino is gambling, when the loses add up to hit on a bad month. It happens, I mean it really happens sometimes, and we sweat, - the smaller houses in particular.

On a clearly clean game, - and with a lucky winner who is winning, - the best thing a casino house can POSSIBLY do is to give the winner an opportunity to return his winnings back to the house. That happens more than enough if we allow it and don't sweat it.

But we do get scared in the casino business and panic and react, regardless of math. Jobs and reputations are on the line.

And we justify it all by saying "we are LIMITING OUR LOSES" [Bullshit!] - instead of giving the winner the chance to lose it back. Because we sweat the money in smaller houses.
Not that it ever makes any mathematical sense, because we know it doesn't, IF we know.

Actually we do know better, and can't viscerally trust it though, and it doesn't matter. Eventually we get it back, or we close, and we seldom do.

We just lose our trust in the gaming mathematics whenever we get scared, and we do indeed, - whenever the house is sweating the money.
We therefore, - and non-sensically - try to "limit" these loses, almost always locking those short-term loses in.
We make it all back up on another day - or week - or month from other players, and it justifies our behaviour.

We are actually doing that winner a favor - by forcing him to take his winnings home as profit.

For all of us who have ever worked in sales, you'll know you can never say what you did last month or will do next month without getting the response from your boss "but what did you sell TODAY?!" Thus it ever will be, so the common sense approach to big wins against the casino is going to also be undercut by that *today* mindset when it comes to profits... they must come in every day.

Quote: odiousgambit

big wins against the casino is going to also be undercut by that *today* mindset when it comes to profits... they must come in every day.

A short term focus to please someone reading the daily report or to please stockholders in a particular quarter is always a limiting factor. Lowering the table limits means the big winner can't come back with that whole wad and lose it. Benny Binion took a quarter million dollars on the line and he lost the bet (and you just know the whole table was on the line with that quarter million dollars). Several months later the guy came back ... and Benny Binion won. He didn't lower the limits, he raised them.

Casino managers sometimes forget with all this jabbering about the hospitality business that the casino is in the gambling business.

I would trust the math. If you take a hit and it's due to a non-cheating event, I would just chalk it up to variance and leave the table limits where it is.

On the other hand, pressure from executives to meet a target earning will cause a casino manager to do some strange things. Lowering the limits will reduce your win and your variance as well. It gives more certainty to the expected results. Raising the limits gives more variance and a higher expected value.

I read the New Jersey gaming reports every month. It is very interesting to see what games they occasionally lose money on. I have seen monthly losses for Craps, Blackjack, Pai Gow Tiles and Caribbean Stud (when somebody hits the jackpot). NOTHING else. So the casino can have a monthly loss on these games. I doubt it bothers them. (It also gives you an idea of what the better games are to play).

Quote: dudestupid

In a way, it is superstition. But *what if* he slipped in loaded dice, or is a skilled counter, etc. Switching dice or shuffling doesn't cost anything. Discouraging a player from betting big seems like a horrible way to do business.

I'll take you up on counters. But craps tables are supposed to be really careful with the dice, so slipping in a loaded pair should be rather hard. As to cost, who knows? I might go to a different casino if the one I'm playing at insists on shuffling too often. Likewise if craps play keeps getting interrupted to switch dice frequently.

Also what Dan said.

BTW a smart gambler who gets really, really lucky ought to know better than to play any of the new money at all. Ought to, I say, because we all know if we win big we'll risk some of it to win bigger.

loaded dice seem less common these days. Back alley craps had people crouching and in different positions, no clear boxman or stickman. One man dropped two of his dies and one die from the house... the man banking the craps game simply said: Go ahead and shoot, your point is fifteen.

Dice have serial numbers and an embedded logo. The Venetian doesn't allow sale of its used dice but has them pulverized under armed escort.

The high limit baccarat tables make the most interesting reading for the morning report. No one much cares what the Big Six Wheel did.

Narrow limits keep players from using a few early wins to be parlayed into real damage to the house.