PaiGowDan has a twin?
June 14th, 2012 at 4:40:32 PM
permalink
Over time, I have gotten the impression that the casinos are not interested in preventing counting by the majority of the people. The reason being, the majority of the counters are not as proficient as they think they are, meaning the 'counter' ends up losing to the casino in the end. If the casino made it impossible to count at all, the casino may not get any action from that person. So, the casino is only interested in eliminating counting when it has been 'proven' that the counter does in fact know what he/she is doing, in which case, the casino now wants to take offense and ban that 'cheater'.
I would love to know how the casinos feel about the continuous shuffle machines. It certainly eliminates the ability to count.
Why wouldn't every casino just go to that option, and then never have to worry about a counter?
Does it drive away players?
Does it drive away the black chip bettors?
Since the casinos have not seemed to rush to the CSMs, is it because they feel the games are more profitable the way they are, with the counting vulnerability in place?
Per other thread: I am not an expert in this field of study, I do not hold any degrees, I did not consult Wikipedia, and most importantly, I DID NOT stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I would love to know how the casinos feel about the continuous shuffle machines. It certainly eliminates the ability to count.
Why wouldn't every casino just go to that option, and then never have to worry about a counter?
Does it drive away players?
Does it drive away the black chip bettors?
Since the casinos have not seemed to rush to the CSMs, is it because they feel the games are more profitable the way they are, with the counting vulnerability in place?
Per other thread: I am not an expert in this field of study, I do not hold any degrees, I did not consult Wikipedia, and most importantly, I DID NOT stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
June 14th, 2012 at 5:09:08 PM
permalink
You've hit on some very salient points.
This is exactly right. There are so many people out there who will watch Rainman or 21, read the first chapter of one of Wong's books, and think they've found a magic ATM. The casino wants these people's action! Then there are the competent players who are under-bankrolled, meaning they are either betting too much and will probably go bust before they see a profit, or they are betting appropriately and have a miniscule win rate.
The casinos could easily implement more draconian anti-counter methods than are in practice today. Typical penetration across all casinos is in the range of 75%. Why don't the casinos just start putting the cut card at 50%? Well, they lose hands/hour, and thus make less money from the non-counters. Also they may drive away would-be counters that are actually not skilled. So it's a fine line...leave the game beatable by a small fraction of skilled players so that you make more money from the rest of the players.
Blackjack is an immensely popular game because people know it can be beaten. If card-counting didn't exist, blackjack wouldn't be where it is today in the hierarchy of casino games. So while they won't come out and say it, casinos love that card-counting exists on one level (and of course hate it on other levels). It brings suckers to the tables. They just have to watch out for the sharps, and they do.
CSMs definitely look like the perfect anti-counting game protection device. When I first learned about them, I wondered the same thing as you, but there are many reasons why they haven't become ubiquitous.
1) They are expensive to lease. As far as I know, casinos still must lease the CSMs from the company that holds the patent; they can't buy them outright yet (if someone in the gaming industry knows better, please correct me). This means that while you're getting in more hands/hour and have eliminated the threat of card counting, it comes at a cost. I'm sure the casinos have done a cost-benefit analysis, which is why they use CSMs at all.
2) Some players are superstitious or for other reasons just don't like the CSMs. The shuffle is a good time to relax, shoot the shit with the dealer and the other players. For this reason, even non-counters have reasons to avoid the CSMs, and this point will hold down their popularity.
3) I have heard that some dealers don't like CSMs because the shuffle gives them a mental break. If you think about dealing from a CSM, while you are on shift, you really have no mental breaks at all. I don't know if there have been any studies done, but I wouldn't be surprised if dealer mistakes (hitting/standing mistakes, payout errors, etc.) are more frequent on CSM tables. Also, I think it may be the case that break-in dealers start on CSMs since there is no risk of card counting. However, this also means that these new dealers may be more vulnerable than average to other advantage plays (hole carding, front loading, next-card info, etc.)
Quote: RaleighCrapsOver time, I have gotten the impression that the casinos are not interested in preventing counting by the majority of the people. The reason being, the majority of the counters are not as proficient as they think they are, meaning the 'counter' ends up losing to the casino in the end. If the casino made it impossible to count at all, the casino may not get any action from that person. So, the casino is only interested in eliminating counting when it has been 'proven' that the counter does in fact know what he/she is doing, in which case, the casino now wants to take offense and ban that 'cheater'.
This is exactly right. There are so many people out there who will watch Rainman or 21, read the first chapter of one of Wong's books, and think they've found a magic ATM. The casino wants these people's action! Then there are the competent players who are under-bankrolled, meaning they are either betting too much and will probably go bust before they see a profit, or they are betting appropriately and have a miniscule win rate.
The casinos could easily implement more draconian anti-counter methods than are in practice today. Typical penetration across all casinos is in the range of 75%. Why don't the casinos just start putting the cut card at 50%? Well, they lose hands/hour, and thus make less money from the non-counters. Also they may drive away would-be counters that are actually not skilled. So it's a fine line...leave the game beatable by a small fraction of skilled players so that you make more money from the rest of the players.
Blackjack is an immensely popular game because people know it can be beaten. If card-counting didn't exist, blackjack wouldn't be where it is today in the hierarchy of casino games. So while they won't come out and say it, casinos love that card-counting exists on one level (and of course hate it on other levels). It brings suckers to the tables. They just have to watch out for the sharps, and they do.
Quote:I would love to know how the casinos feel about the continuous shuffle machines. It certainly eliminates the ability to count.
Why wouldn't every casino just go to that option, and then never have to worry about a counter?
Does it drive away players?
Does it drive away the black chip bettors?
Since the casinos have not seemed to rush to the CSMs, is it because they feel the games are more profitable the way they are, with the counting vulnerability in place?
CSMs definitely look like the perfect anti-counting game protection device. When I first learned about them, I wondered the same thing as you, but there are many reasons why they haven't become ubiquitous.
1) They are expensive to lease. As far as I know, casinos still must lease the CSMs from the company that holds the patent; they can't buy them outright yet (if someone in the gaming industry knows better, please correct me). This means that while you're getting in more hands/hour and have eliminated the threat of card counting, it comes at a cost. I'm sure the casinos have done a cost-benefit analysis, which is why they use CSMs at all.
2) Some players are superstitious or for other reasons just don't like the CSMs. The shuffle is a good time to relax, shoot the shit with the dealer and the other players. For this reason, even non-counters have reasons to avoid the CSMs, and this point will hold down their popularity.
3) I have heard that some dealers don't like CSMs because the shuffle gives them a mental break. If you think about dealing from a CSM, while you are on shift, you really have no mental breaks at all. I don't know if there have been any studies done, but I wouldn't be surprised if dealer mistakes (hitting/standing mistakes, payout errors, etc.) are more frequent on CSM tables. Also, I think it may be the case that break-in dealers start on CSMs since there is no risk of card counting. However, this also means that these new dealers may be more vulnerable than average to other advantage plays (hole carding, front loading, next-card info, etc.)
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
June 14th, 2012 at 7:16:02 PM
permalink
Quote: RaleighCrapsSince the casinos have not seemed to rush to the CSMs, is it because they feel the games are more profitable the way they are, with the counting vulnerability in place?
I believe that it's because the amount lost to card counters is less than the cost of the machines, if at an empty table.
Go to Bellagio, and nearly all their low limit games operate on a CSM. This is because it's faster and an easier way to drain a player's money who would otherwise have to wait for a shuffle, a cut, etc. I have found CSM's are more effective on tables that either have continuous action or walk-by action (i.e. the person who wants to play one hand for $20). There is a high malfunction rate of CSM's too... the old Shufflemaster machines were awful, while the new one2six machines are only slightly better.
There's also all the dealer mental break stuff, though I think the amount of mistakes is probably proportional to the amount of hands dealt (meaning if a dealer had a 1% error rate, on a shoe with 70 hands, he/she might mess up one, that same amount of time on CSM there would be 100 hands, guaranteeing 1 mess up, if you get what I'm saying...)
There's also a negative vibe for players with the machines. To the informed player, they know it's random, but to the casual player, they'll be convinced after 2 hands that the machine is making them lose. They'll say that about any loss, but why add fuel to the fire?
"One out of every four people are [morons]"- Kyle, South Park
