Red Flag Winnings
A patrons winnings are one of a great many pieces of data we use to determine whether they are a "threat" or not. This specific question has to do with Money In vs Winnings.
In a perfect world devoid of variance, we would see that a patron loses approx $0.50 for every $100 spent at BJ. So a patron that puts in $10,000 on a weekend gambling trip would leave down $50.
Since we have variance, that $50 can soar up or down, and here is where we have to use our minds. Sometimes you'll see a patron up $4,000 off his $10,000 in (paid of the $10,000 marker and won $4,000 more). That gets my attention, and here's where I'd like confirmation or refutation of my point.
Now, if the patron was found to be betting $1,000 a hand and played a couple of shoes, I could care less. It's called variance. Correct?
If the patron is found to be betting $100 a hand and played 10 times more shoes, the suspicion rises, but still, not out of the realm of possibility, correct?
But then we find the patron bet $5 per hand over hundreds of shoes, and still managed to pay his $10,000 back and be up an additional $4,000. The suspicion rises exponentially, does it not?
These number are fictitious of course, I'm merely conveying a concept. One that I can't seem to prove to thicker heads based just on my own thoughts. Basically, that when looking at a patrons up vs down, the number of hands involved is a KEY PIECE OF INFORMATION!!
Sorry to rant, but I can't stand when people say I'm wrong but can't prove how, nor tell me what is "right".
Quote: Face
Sorry to rant, but I can't stand when people say I'm wrong but can't prove how, nor tell me what is "right".
I feel ya brother. By the way what you say seems to make sense to me.
Yeah, I think it would be unusual, and worthy of a raised eyebrow, if a gambler was up $4,000 after a session of betting $5.
I think it's more of a red flag for a gambler to get a $10K marker and then bet $5 per hand.
But that's me. Looking at it from the shiny side of the mirror.
So yeah, if a player is winning 90% of blackjack hands over 4 hours, that might be a problem!
Quote: FrGambleI feel ya brother.
I see what you did there ;)
Quote: FrGambleBy the way what you say seems to make sense to me.
Thanks for the... /puts on sunglasses... Confirmation ;) Zing!
Quote: DJTeddyBearFirst off, remember that you're one of the few (orly?) member here that looks at the casino floor from the back side of the two-way mirror.
I think it's more of a red flag for a gambler to get a $10K marker and then bet $5 per hand.
Let me first remind us that all these numbers, the $10k, $4k, ect are fictitious, only used for an example. In reality, the player was up very close to a third, so let's say in $9k and up $3k.
I do remember I'm the only EyeGuy here, but I don't think my position is anything special. I feel it's simple math and a simple concept, one that any single person here, pro or newb, can understand. Numbers on their own mean nothing. If I said someone bet $9,000 and ended up winning $3,000 on BJ, does that have any meaning to anyone, other than "that person has more money now"? That's exactly how the info is relayed to us, and I think it tells us nothing. We then access their stats and it comes first as the same "In vs Up/Down" format, split into Yearly and Lifetime. Again, does that really tell us anything? It was at this point the hubbub began, as someone dismissed it flat out, with only knowing the above info - this patron is up 1/3 lifetime, made their "$3k" off a "$9k" in.
What if it was Tiltpoul on his recent NY trip. Guy comes in for a day, bets $500 to $1,000 a hand, and leaves a few hours later. His lifetime says, hey hey, this guys in $9k and made off with $3k. Or what if it was one of our BJ Betty's, some old lady playing $10 a hand, a few hours a week, every weekend, all year long. We look and find she's in $9k and up $3k. There's a big difference as far as I'm concerned, that whole "the larger the sample size, the closer to expectation" thing. While I realize variance happens, and "large sample" may not be just a few thousand hands, the point I had was a valid one. Just knowing the money doesn't mean squat without knowing in what fashion it was obtained. Being up $3,000 off of one session of $1,000 bets is worlds apart from being up $3,000 off of weekly sessions of $10 bets. Without looking at this information, the "money only" is a meaningless figure.
That's what this person did, dismissed it only knowing the money, and that was my issue. It just irked me, so I came here for vindication since I wouldn't find it there (this was the same difficult person I dealt with for the 2 coin problem. Oy, when will I learn). So thank you Fr for your response, boy and dm for the math, and btw DJ, good catch on the less obvious "$10k mark for $5 bets". I think we could make a mean Surv team with some of the guys here, and I hear tell Macau is hiring, complete with crazy bonus packages ;)
If the house is up, but somebody is winning cleanly, only a foolish supervisor or shift manager would sweat some lucky fool's lucky day. What counts is a clean winner versus a casino cheat. If somebody won $2,000 by playing the field or flat betting in Blackjack with no counting, a lucky winner cannot be denied or resented for being a lucky gambler. There are only casinos and gambling halls because there are winners.
We had one floorman on graveyard - an old school guy who's been in the business 40 years in the sense that he had six months experience 80 times over - who would sweat some guy making $200 on a $100 buy-in inside of an hour because of luck. It got so bad he alienated players just trying to have a good time. Because he had worked on graveyard, his "hounding" of a player or table would really stand out, and piss off honest players and management who appreciated having customers in the first place.
He was told to either retire - or to go to Swing shift, which is REALLY busy - just to smoke him out of the business.
Anyway, he came to swing, and for the first few days he was telling dealers to change their shuffle, rub their lucky rabbit's foot, or telling me to "turn the dice over every time I brought them back to the center," etc. He once put out a change of dice with FOUR dice (holding onto one die), and the player noticed; the player got pissed, and said, 'what are you trying to DO - jinx me??!!" The floorman was, - I couldn't BELIEVE it.
On swing shift, if he sweated the money, he was forced to run around like a chicken with his head cut off, - he literally couldn't keep up with his own sweating, because with every table full from 7PM to 2AM, SOMEBODY was winning SOMEWHERE in the house! AND he was giving himself the punishment he deserved. Like it was his personal money! Huh?
Why this was a nightmare for him, I do not know, he is just a floorman who doesn't own a cent of the money in the racks!!!
Finally, he was called into the office for the last time, and was told to stop it or leave, and that he will never work in this business again; "Old School came down with the Stardust's Implosion!...If you piss off another player or dealer with your anal compulsive sweating, you'll be walked to the parking lot (and to the retirement office) by friggin' security, you got that??!!"
He came in the next day a new man, he just LET GO of all the old school casino baggage.
Someone won? "Good for you! Can I get you a dinner comp with that win? Again, excellent, man, really..."
The crap table's down a few thousand? Don't even sweat it, It'll be up in an hour, or tomorrow, - a clean win is a good win, and good for them!"
And he seemed to mean it. I don't know if he had a moment of clarity, or was Baptised by spirit, or what have you, he just shedded his old ways...
Sure, we can look at the action, watch it truly and closely like we're supposed to, but if somebody plays his cards right or gets lucky without cheating and with all procedures followed, well sh]t, good for the winner.
1. any clean win a gambler wins is fine and dandy.
2. A win is more likely than not to be a loan.
3. You either trust the math and procedures - or you trust superstition and sweat, giving yourself the punishment you deserve.
Steve Wynn put it aptly: "You may take losses on a monthly basis, but not on a yearly basis."
And Face, if a player wins an extended session, let's say 2 or more SD from the norm, but his play is clean, the dealer and floor are clean, no cheating etc. was found after review, the man has to be paid, as sometimes annoying as it can be (depending on the player)...true?
I feel for surveillance at times, because i suspect that you're told:
"But you GOTTA find something on him...' here and there, and worry if something is missed.
For 0155 in the morning, that was an outstanding reply to Face's question. What a great example that everyone here can so visibly understand.
Do you work swing shift most of the time?
I was describing a character, a floorman, who saw "Red Flag winnings" on just about any innocent win over $100+ before he was forced to change. He got nutty for a while, a veteran worker who started to "see ghosts" everywhere. Hard to describe, it was like an insidious paranoia about players who came in, and of all things - just WON. (The nerve! or something, what can I tell you...)
And yeah, I thought this floorman was a great example, an extreme example, of seeing Red Flag winnings. And then he just changed. Maybe he got a prescription for Zoloft or something, or got a mistress who kept him busy, but he addressed the issue.
There really are people in this business (especially at smaller houses) who see Ghosts everywhere, or see more ghosts than really exists.
Only a number of times did we really have someone sliding dice, past posting, etc. A few times the surveillance tape really had to be scruntinized to spot the player's gimmick.
Although I didn't express myself as well as I had hoped, you got the drift of what I was saying.
I figured out a better way to express myself: Ratios
There is more than one ratio that needs to be considered.
It seems like your supervisors are only concerned with the ratio of the buy-in to the cash-out.
A cash out of 1.5 times the buy-in is no big deal, only because it is assumed that the average bet is a respectable fraction of the buy-in. Maybe in the 5%-10% area, which makes the win very much within the acceptable range.
I'd be more concerned with two other ratios: The buy-in to the average bet, and the average bet to the win.
This means a buy in of 2000 times the average bet, and a win of 1000 times the average bet are two red flags. In my opinion, these are huge red flags.
The only part I don't know is, where the ration becomes a raising of an eyebrow, to a genuine red flag.
Additionally, in your line of work, I think a "session" should be short term, not the life-long "session" that gets discussed here on occasion. After all, the Red Flag you're looking for is indicating a possible cheater. A lifetime of losing does not make cheating acceptable. So a life-long session is irrelevant.
Dan -
That was an interesting story, and you're right that the SweatTheMoney guy was out of line.
For what it's worth, what I was indicating, and what I think Face was looking for, was not a reason to bar or harass a wining player, but just an indicator of when a player's action should be more closely examined for possible cheating.
Quote: FaceI see what you did there ;)
Thanks for the... /puts on sunglasses... Confirmation ;) Zing!
Let me first remind us that all these numbers, the $10k, $4k, ect are fictitious, only used for an example. In reality, the player was up very close to a third, so let's say in $9k and up $3k.
I do remember I'm the only EyeGuy here, but I don't think my position is anything special. I feel it's simple math and a simple concept, one that any single person here, pro or newb, can understand. Numbers on their own mean nothing. If I said someone bet $9,000 and ended up winning $3,000 on BJ, does that have any meaning to anyone, other than "that person has more money now"? That's exactly how the info is relayed to us, and I think it tells us nothing. We then access their stats and it comes first as the same "In vs Up/Down" format, split into Yearly and Lifetime. Again, does that really tell us anything? It was at this point the hubbub began, as someone dismissed it flat out, with only knowing the above info - this patron is up 1/3 lifetime, made their "$3k" off a "$9k" in.
What if it was Tiltpoul on his recent NY trip. Guy comes in for a day, bets $500 to $1,000 a hand, and leaves a few hours later. His lifetime says, hey hey, this guys in $9k and made off with $3k. Or what if it was one of our BJ Betty's, some old lady playing $10 a hand, a few hours a week, every weekend, all year long. We look and find she's in $9k and up $3k. There's a big difference as far as I'm concerned, that whole "the larger the sample size, the closer to expectation" thing. While I realize variance happens, and "large sample" may not be just a few thousand hands, the point I had was a valid one. Just knowing the money doesn't mean squat without knowing in what fashion it was obtained. Being up $3,000 off of one session of $1,000 bets is worlds apart from being up $3,000 off of weekly sessions of $10 bets. Without looking at this information, the "money only" is a meaningless figure.
That's what this person did, dismissed it only knowing the money, and that was my issue. It just irked me, so I came here for vindication since I wouldn't find it there (this was the same difficult person I dealt with for the 2 coin problem. Oy, when will I learn). So thank you Fr for your response, boy and dm for the math, and btw DJ, good catch on the less obvious "$10k mark for $5 bets". I think we could make a mean Surv team with some of the guys here, and I hear tell Macau is hiring, complete with crazy bonus packages ;)
Face it, Face. He's a complete idiot and that's the reason the even higher MBA idiots put him in a position to be your boss. The boss is not allowed to be smarter than anyone underneath him. You'll come to accept that as you get a little older.
Quote: PaigowdanI know that when you work for a casino operator, you have to "know where the bleeding is" so to speak. True.
If the house is up, but somebody is winning cleanly, only a foolish supervisor or shift manager would sweat some lucky fool's lucky day. What counts is a clean winner versus a casino cheat. If somebody won $2,000 by playing the field or flat betting in Blackjack with no counting, a lucky winner cannot be denied or resented for being a lucky gambler. There are only casinos and gambling halls because there are winners.
We had one floorman on graveyard - an old school guy who's been in the business 40 years in the sense that he had six months experience 80 times over - who would sweat some guy making $200 on a $100 buy-in inside of an hour because of luck. It got so bad he alienated players just trying to have a good time. Because he had worked on graveyard, his "hounding" of a player or table would really stand out, and piss off honest players and management who appreciated having customers in the first place.
He was told to either retire - or to go to Swing shift, which is REALLY busy - just to smoke him out of the business.
Anyway, he came to swing, and for the first few days he was telling dealers to change their shuffle, rub their lucky rabbit's foot, or telling me to "turn the dice over every time I brought them back to the center," etc. He once put out a change of dice with FOUR dice (holding onto one die), and the player noticed; the player got pissed, and said, 'what are you trying to DO - jinx me??!!" The floorman was, - I couldn't BELIEVE it.
On swing shift, if he sweated the money, he was forced to run around like a chicken with his head cut off, - he literally couldn't keep up with his own sweating, because with every table full from 7PM to 2AM, SOMEBODY was winning SOMEWHERE in the house! AND he was giving himself the punishment he deserved. Like it was his personal money! Huh?
Why this was a nightmare for him, I do not know, he is just a floorman who doesn't own a cent of the money in the racks!!!
Finally, he was called into the office for the last time, and was told to stop it or leave, and that he will never work in this business again; "Old School came down with the Stardust's Implosion!...If you piss off another player or dealer with your anal compulsive sweating, you'll be walked to the parking lot (and to the retirement office) by friggin' security, you got that??!!"
He came in the next day a new man, he just LET GO of all the old school casino baggage.
Someone won? "Good for you! Can I get you a dinner comp with that win? Again, excellent, man, really..."
The crap table's down a few thousand? Don't even sweat it, It'll be up in an hour, or tomorrow, - a clean win is a good win, and good for them!"
And he seemed to mean it. I don't know if he had a moment of clarity, or was Baptised by spirit, or what have you, he just shedded his old ways...
Sure, we can look at the action, watch it truly and closely like we're supposed to, but if somebody plays his cards right or gets lucky without cheating and with all procedures followed, well sh]t, good for the winner.
1. any clean win a gambler wins is fine and dandy.
2. A win is more likely than not to be a loan.
3. You either trust the math and procedures - or you trust superstition and sweat, giving yourself the punishment you deserve.
Steve Wynn put it aptly: "You may take losses on a monthly basis, but not on a yearly basis."
And Face, if a player wins an extended session, let's say 2 or more SD from the norm, but his play is clean, the dealer and floor are clean, no cheating etc. was found after review, the man has to be paid, as sometimes annoying as it can be (depending on the player)...true?
I feel for surveillance at times, because i suspect that you're told:
"But you GOTTA find something on him...' here and there, and worry if something is missed.
Excellent input, Dan. Seems like a counter would just be so easy to spot if he wants to win anything that it would be obvious. Those clowns brag about getting away with a 10 to 1 bet spread. How can they get away with that? Most everyone I see has a 1 to 1 bet spread. There's no good reason to allow that bet spread crap. Let them move to another table.
Quote: DJTeddyBear
For what it's worth, what I was indicating, and what I think Face was looking for, was not a reason to bar or harass a wining player, but just an indicator of when a player's action should be more closely examined for possible cheating.
The thing is, it's all a 'spy vs. spy' game. Once a cheating method's 'tip off' has been exposed, the bad guys are back in the lab coming up with a new and unknown scheme.
I suppose there are some constants: a player's unnatural reponse and movements can't always conceal his intentions, and a "crew member" casing the place can also give himself away. Few cheats are soloists, but there are some.
On the table, there are some things like hands or cards over bets in action, or uncanny calls on three card poker or BJ can be a possible indicator.
I've been playing three card poker recently (it's a fun little ditty of a game), and notice the defenses that are now in place for three card (Nice to see!):
- at the California Casino in downtown LV, the dealer does not wait to deal his own hand, but slips in a cut card under his hand as he takes it out of the shuffler to block the view of the packet's hole card.
- at the Golden nugget, the dealer keeps the dealer's hand in the machine until all players had PLAYed for folded.
- At Fiesta, we use only the flush-mounted shufflers on the game, and are supposed to slide the dealer's hand flush against the table to the dealer's spot without ever raising the card packet, like you were sponge-wiping a counter-top. This IS effective - if it is done correctly. A few dealers are sloppy with this motion, though.
All these are defenses that are responses to player cheat actions, but the thing is, there are new schemes and cheating methods being developed every day. The cat and mouse game never ends. I'm sure right now as we speak, there are people trying out and perfecting new maneuvers in garages and dens.
Quote: dmExcellent input, Dan. Seems like a counter would just be so easy to spot if he wants to win anything that it would be obvious. Those clowns brag about getting away with a 10 to 1 bet spread. How can they get away with that? Most everyone I see has a 1 to 1 bet spread. There's no good reason to allow that bet spread crap. Let them move to another table.
Thanks!
The 10 to 1 spread is a flat-out giveaway, as it is out of the norm. C'mon, now: it is clear that the vast majority of BJ players are flat-betting tourists or yokels, so a spread would be noticed, whether or not it is connected with card-counting guilt. ("Mom! Dan is showing his colors again!....")
Certainly, there is no way to take advantage of counting without a spread, so the flat-bettors are "pointing' to the "potentially' guilty party at the table. I can hear some players think: "Dammit, bet more, buddy, so you can take some heat off me, sheesh!" (You are innocent unless proven guilty, except in a casino...)
I like the BJ variant "2 thru 7" as it has an inherent resistance to card counting.
Quote: PaigowdanFiesta Henderson on Lake Mead Parkway.
I'll try to catch you some time. Odd-isn't there also a Lake Mead St near the FR?
Quote: PaigowdanAnd Face, if a player wins an extended session, let's say 2 or more SD from the norm, but his play is clean, the dealer and floor are clean, no cheating etc. was found after review, the man has to be paid, as sometimes annoying as it can be (depending on the player)...true?
I feel for surveillance at times, because i suspect that you're told:
"But you GOTTA find something on him...' here and there, and worry if something is missed.
Indeed, Dan. No matter what the amount or how ridiculously off expectation their winnings, they are theirs. Even if we highly suspected them of counting, they would be backed off but still allowed to keep their cheques. If we make a mistake and leave all the 10's in our Spanish 21 (it happens) and we get killed, they keep their money. If we install the reels backwards and someone hits a $1mm+ j/p (it happened), they get their money. I suspect the only way they might not get their money is if they were caught in legit cheating of a criminal nature.
I hope you know by our previous convo's that I'm not a sweat-the-money guy. But my job, by definition, it sweat-the-money-esque. When it comes to table games, it's pretty much the reason for my existence. I just prefer to be smart about it and sweat for purpose, not the typical definition used here of "freak out any time someone wins".
Quote: DJTeddyBearThere is more than one ratio that needs to be considered.
It seems like your supervisors are only concerned with the ratio of the buy-in to the cash-out.
This confirmed my whole point, and was my source of frustration. You can't make a determination on anything knowing only cash in vs cash out. Thank you, I feel vindicated =).
Quote: DJTeddyBearThe only part I don't know is, where the ration becomes a raising of an eyebrow, to a genuine red flag.
This is a complicated matter. There's really no such thing as a "single red flag that has ultimate meaning" (except for maybe running through the floor wearing a full face motorcycle helmet), but rather a compilation of curiosities to create reason for concern (and I just filled my alliteration quota ;)). Wager fluctuation is one, but that happens all the time in all manner of play. Fluctuating with the count is another, but there exists coincidence. Rubbernecking and other JDLR are more "flags", but people have quirks and do weird things all the time. Stooping at the table might be holecarding, or it might be a guy like me stretching out a back spasm. Does the guy taking Insurance not know a thing, or does he know too much? It's up to the skills of the personnel to see these things and either make connections or dismiss them as happenstance.
As it applies to my OP, seeing a guy up 1/3 of his In is a simple curiosity, but it IS a curiosity. It is reason enough to spend just 5 minutes clicking a computer to look a little bit deeper. If I see it happened over a course of a few shoes of $500 bets, I can stop right there and still know I Did My Job. If I find otherwise, maybe I spend 15 more minutes going even deeper, etc and so on, until I am satisfied of the how and why of his play and winnings. It doesn't matter if in the hundreds of these I've done I've caught a whopping 2 people. I feel it must still be done because once you start slacking, it marks the beginning of the end.
Thanks all for your replies.
Quote: dmI'll try to catch you some time. Odd-isn't there also a Lake Mead St near the FR?
There is also a Lake Mead Boulevard that's a far north crosstown street, and on occasion, a tourist in a rent-a-car or a new local gets SERIOUSLY lost, like "Holy sh]t, how did I end up in this neighborhood 25 miles from where I'm supposed to be?"
Quote: IbeatyouracesEven ploppies cant get away with even a 1-2 spread a small sweat shops. 1-10 in larger places isnt a big deal. A smart counter wont stick out like a sore thumb and will rathole and color up "less than" they buy in.
No such thing as a smart counter. Lots of dumb countees, though.
Quote: PaigowdanThere is also a Lake Mead Boulevard that's a far north crosstown street, and on occasion, a tourist in a rent-a-car or a new local gets SERIOUSLY lost, like "Holy sh]t, how did I end up in this neighborhood 25 miles from where I'm supposed to be?"
They would in reality, then, have been very close to where they should have wanted to be - Santa Fe Station. IMNHO.
Quote: IbeatyouracesSo you are saying I'm not smart? BTW, the only dumb gamblers are the ones that play games with a HE and lose all their money and never makes a consistant profit.
I am repeating that you are not a smart counter. You could not count my game. I would shuffle after every hand, and I don't think your indices could overcome my house edge playing heads up. So how smart a counter could you, or ANY counter be under those conditions?
Quote: PaigowdanWhat counts is a clean winner versus a casino cheat.
Casino cheat and AP being the same person in your
book, right Dan? I've known about old timers who
sweat every win, like the guy you described. They're
a holdover from the Mob mentality in the 60's and
70's. I saw some of those guys in the late 70's, but
they mostly went away. The Mob thought all winners
were cheats, every dime bet belonged to them, or
so they thought..
My position:
1. AP's, (or for that matter any players) who play the house rules (including behavior) are fine: best basic strategy, best Poker hand setting, etc. Fine with me.
2. AP's who do not play by the house rules, and this includes card counting, may be 86-ed. Fine with me. No loss to the casino.
3. Downright casino cheats may be detained for the police, and for booking. No loss to the casino and to society.
4. Don't really care if players win or lose. I care if they enjoyed the action and had a good time, that's what they came for. If they win fine, if we win, fine too, all on a clean game.
Old timer/old school mentality: just hate it. The new management and floor personal hate it too. Dealers and players have always hated it.
Quote: Paigowdan
1. AP's, (or for that matter any players) who play the house rules (including behavior) are fine: best basic strategy, best Poker hand setting, etc. Fine with me.
How can this person exist? If they play by the rules, they CANNOT be any sort of advantage player by definition. What advantage do they have?
Quote: WizardofEnglandHow can this person exist?
I guess Dan sees a lot of match play and other coupons, eh?
Quote: WizardofEnglandHow can this person exist? If they play by the rules, they CANNOT be any sort of advantage player by definition. What advantage do they have?
1. They do exist. It is not mutually exclusive. They player better - perfect - poker strategy on poker-based games, and perfect basic strategy on BJ games.
2. They maximize their comps and use them.
3. Basically, there are functional players who manager their play and their bankrolls by the rules, become winners enough and just fine.
I am in a sense a Pai Gow poker Ap, by using proprietary strategies that are better than the house strategies I face in action, and I exist on good terms with the casino operators I frequent. No need for disguises, even. I think if the modern Ap player is at war with a casino operator, then he's in a losing battle, which is not the status of a true AP player, to be in conflict. Such AP players aren't noticed as AP players; they're noticed as winners.
Quote: Paigowdan1. They do exist. It is not mutually exclusive. They player better - perfect - poker strategy on poker-based games, and perfect basic strategy on BJ games.
2. They maximize their comps and use them.
3. Basically, there are functional players who manager their play and their bankrolls by the rules, become winners enough and just fine.
I am in a sense a Pai Gow poker Ap, by using proprietary strategies that are better than the house strategies I face in action, and I exist on good terms with the casino operators I frequent. No need for disguises, even. I think if the modern Ap player is at war with a casino operator, then he's in a losing battle, which is not the status of a true AP player, to be in conflict.
Sorry I just dont buy it.
If this was even possible (which it isnt) I guess the % of these "AP" players would be less than 0.1%
If it were possible to be an AP without breaking the rules, the industry would be under threat from organised teams.
Quote: WizardofEnglandSorry I just dont buy it.
You don't have to buy it. I don't have a romanticized view of AP players and lists of their mandatory qualities and police records. Smarter players do better, even playing by the rules, and especially by not getting into a black book. If you're up $10,000 for the year, and the casino still invites you in as one of the "premiere players," you have a status on an AP player.
Quote: WizardofEnglandIf this was even possible (which it isnt) I guess the % of these "AP" players would be less than 0.1%
If it were possible to be an AP without breaking the rules, the industry would be under threat from organised teams.
Or regular customers who are simple ahead.
Quote: PaigowdanYou don't have to buy it. I don't have a romanticized view of AP players and lists of their mandatory qualities and police records. Smarter players do better, even playing by the rules, and especially by not getting into a black book. If you're up $10,000 for the year, and the casino still invites you in as one of the "premiere players," you have a status on an AP player.
Or regular customers who are simple ahead.
Im not saying smarter players cant do better. But they CANNOT be advantage players.
Blackbook? does that even still exist?
If your up 10k, well done, its not because your an advatange player, you experienced the nice side of variance. For every player who experiences positive variance, there are about 1.1 players who didnt.
Oh and "premiere players" = "we must get this guy back, he has our money"
Nearly everything you've said here is completely incorrect. There are a few ways to gain an edge in Pai Gow and other similar games, but they have absolutely nothing to do with what you describe. You are correct in noting that it's possible to gain an advantage by "maximizing" comps, but to do so would violate your principles, as a certain level of deceit is requisite to be rated at a level higher than what you're actually wagering. You know as well as I do that casinos do not comp > 100% of your theo. Any player who solely engages in a negative-expectation game is not an AP. An AP has a statistical advantage over the house/opponent, which is not in any way what you're describing.Quote: Paigowdan1. They do exist. It is not mutually exclusive. They player better - perfect - poker strategy on poker-based games, and perfect basic strategy on BJ games.
2. They maximize their comps and use them.
3. Basically, there are functional players who manager their play and their bankrolls by the rules, become winners enough and just fine.
I am in a sense a Pai Gow poker Ap, by using proprietary strategies that are better than the house strategies I face in action, and I exist on good terms with the casino operators I frequent. No need for disguises, even. I think if the modern Ap player is at war with a casino operator, then he's in a losing battle, which is not the status of a true AP player, to be in conflict. Such AP players aren't noticed as AP players; they're noticed as winners.
Another false statement, just for kicks: you said that counting alone can never get the edge without implementation of a spread. There are at least two ways to accomplish this, one of which is obvious. And no, I'm not telling!
Back to the OP, you're clearly correct. I know it's unlikely that the average casino suit has a strong grasp of probability and statistics, but some areas of research worth suggesting would be standard deviation (if a win is > 3SD, maybe you should start paying attention) and the Law of Large Numbers. Floor crews tend to sweat money because they know they'll hear about it when their shift bleeds heavily. It's unfortunate that this is the culture in many places, because shift results can be skewed heavily by a single large bettor or even a > 2SD swing (which happens around 4% of the time)—nothing to blame the poor pit boss for! Sample size is the key here, as noted in the OP—a player with a large cumulative win over many long sessions is more likely to be a "threat" than a player with a lone-yet-massive session win. The fact is, some people just sweat action.
Quote: LonesomeGamblerNearly everything you've said here is completely incorrect. There are a few ways to gain an edge in Pai Gow and other similar games, but they have absolutely nothing to do with what you describe.
VP is the staple of low-key advantage players, however uncommon full pay machines are becoming.
Their advantage is on the order of 0.1%, but it's still, at least, free gambling.
Quote: LonesomeGamblerAnother false statement, just for kicks: you said that counting alone can never get the edge without implementation of a spread. There are at least two ways to accomplish this, one of which is obvious. And no, I'm not telling!
BJ counting is hardly terra incognita by now. Wonging and team play. In an exceptionally good game you could get it with decision-making improvements alone, but otherwise it's not enough.
Advantage Player: Far more seem to think they are advantage players than the casino does.
If a guy comes in with twenty dollars and starts making a small fortune at Blackjack he will be watched like a hawk. It will be tremendous publicity for the casino if its legit and if its not legit, the house will find out because they will watch him even when he takes a bath room break.
Quote: FleaStiffbut the main unusual item is going to generally be Bet Spread stuff.
If you can flat bet and win, they'll just think you're
lucky. In their minds nobody but nobody wins by
flat betting. As far as the pit knowing anything about
probability or the math involved in the games they're
watching, forget it. A floor supervisor is just a former
dealer with a suit on. Ask them something that doesn't
involve when their next break is, or what they had
for lunch, and they're clueless.
Quote: KeyserIn AC they are now banninng people for winning too much in certain casinos, thanks to deregulation.
I remember that there was a thread about this a few months ago. Has it been verified? I was in AC a few times since then and could find no evidence of players being banned simply for winning. I've seen other methods employed against card counters but never banning.
As far as I know the decision of Uston v Resorts International still stands.
Quote: FaceIndeed, Dan. No matter what the amount or how ridiculously off expectation their winnings, they are theirs. Even if we highly suspected them of counting, they would be backed off but still allowed to keep their cheques. If we make a mistake and leave all the 10's in our Spanish 21 (it happens) and we get killed, they keep their money. If we install the reels backwards and someone hits a $1mm+ j/p (it happened), they get their money.
I'm curious about this last example vis-a-vis the recent report of a gambler at an Austrian casino being denied a jackpot due to an alleged software error:
Behar Merlaku denied $57M jackpot, offered $100 instead
What were the circumstances in your scenario and how do they differ from the Merlaku case? In other words, why did your casino pay up right away rather than disputing the jackpot?
Quote: KeyserYes it can be verified. As a matter of fact the pit and the dealers will tell you that they are now 86 ing big winners at the Trump Plaza. I was one of them.
Got it. My mind only thinks of blackjack. Were you playing something else?
Quote: KeyserNot from cards. I was playing something else.
You won $1200 playing roulette and they threw you out?
Sure they did..
Quote: KeyserPut it this way, all you would have to do is take a look at the monthly holds
And those are published where?
I did check the hold figures, and now I'm curious. Are you using entirely legal methods to win at your game?Quote: KeyserPut it this way, all you would have to do is take a look at the monthly holds by game you could probably figure out the game and the amount.
And in regards to AC 86'ing legal APs, I'm not aware of this happening (and it's certainly not legal in NJ), but I am aware of AC casinos backing off suspected APs, despite this also being illegal. The suits know that most APs won't fight a back off, so they break the rules with the intention to deny it later when they're called out on it. Eventually, someone will capture it on video and someone will get fired, but that's about it. No big deal either way, in my opinion.
