The future or end of AP Play?
Poll
 | 6 votes (25%) | ||
| | 10 votes (41.66%) | ||
| | 1 vote (4.16%) | ||
| | 7 votes (29.16%) |
24 members have voted
Quote: kewljI am anxious to see if Dan and 24Bingo are still full of such love for the industry once they get kicked to the curb in favor of electronic Azari, or Azari type, multi-station type table games, that replace both dealers and floor personnel.
Ironically, I would say the prospect for dealer mistakes is one of the main reasons people will always choose live over electronic versions, given the choice, in a variety of games...
(And it does my heart good to see all the good little statists "think for themselves" on the road to Uncle Sam's Abattoir.)
Promo Coupons on Low-Limit, Room Offers Mid-Limit, Stays at High-Limit. The game is countable, the limits compressed, and comped per level.
The AP has a slim chance, the other offered games except craps are of higher -EV (Baccarat House Bet is near-equal). So thus the envelope gets pushed.
OT: This ultimately reminds of Free-Bet Blackjack. /OT
Quote: kewljI am anxious to see if Dan and 24Bingo are still full of such love for the industry once they get kicked to the curb in favor of electronic Azari, or Azari type, multi-station type table games, that replace both dealers and floor personnel. Give it a few months and we will probably see them over on our side of the table, LEGALLY beating the casinos at their own game.
Electronic tables kill dealers and floormen as much as they kill AP players, and I am untroubled by it. Also note that as a game designer, Royalties stem from felt versions, electronic progressive version, eletronic tables, and full electronic versions. The media does not matter.
I do think big but slow changes are in store for table games, and it affects legal pilferers more than it does designers and executives.
When I was young, there were nothing but job adds for Key Punch operators, to pump out the massive number of utility bills Americans recieved each month by snail mail. Then overnight the billing punched card was dead, ("Do not Fold, Spindle, or mutilate") and key punch jobs were gone. Big industry transition. Dealers and floormen may slowly go through such a thing also. The printing industry had already.
As for live table games, that be a bit slower, knowing how slow this industry moves, and that table games players seek table games, we're seeing SHFL's I-Tables start to take place, where dealer-dealt tables have full electronic assist to prevent dealer errors (including mis-paying hands), mis-setting/mis-reading hands (Lady, you have 19, not 17!") and the like. I've played I-Table Three Card Poker at Hooters, and it works, works very well. Still a "people table." As TheBigPayback said, "Ironically, I would say the prospect for dealer mistakes is one of the main reasons people will always choose live over electronic versions, given the choice, in a variety of games... " I disagree, I don't say "Let's play some Pai Gow - the dealer may misset her hand!!" as a reason for playing. I say, "Tonight I get Five Aces..." It's like going to the movies to look for filming gaffes, like spotting a lady's Rolex on Michelle Pfiffer while she plays Marie Antionette. Trolling for film gaffes is not the reason for going to the movies, and gambling, not scamming, is the reason to go to the casino. And Most do NOT take this point of view. Takes a special mind to assume that. Plus the fact that some people want to be around people, not machines, for play.
Just as music technology went from vinyl records, 8-track tape, casette, CD's, to mpeg, changes in game media will happen to table games, but slowly. However, the thrust here was not these media and technology changes, but policy and rule changes and a look at the AP situation.
Quote: rxwineThe first bit of nonsense in this thread is members of the casino industry presuming to lecture others on morals.
More like trying to predict the future, its changes, and why, while address an aspect of table games so important it spawned a whole AP subindustry. As an industry worker, I was also saying there is something morally suspect in offering "house rule" defeatable games on purpose, only to back off, blackbook, or 86 those who try. As for the industry lecturing morals on gaming and gamblers, I view it as an adolescent scolding a toddler. The industry sets the house rules.
Quote: Paigowdanlegal pilferers
You are just too much, Dan......way too much. lol
Note that I also said it is wrong for the industry to allow holes, and react to it, instead of fixing it.
Quote: kewljJust stop all this nonsense about the service being offered. The casino is offering games of chance. That means they win some and lose some. But the odds are stacked in their favor, so they win more than they lose. THAT is their advantage, and that is rightfully so. But that is not enough. They want to try to disallow people from thinking. They want to pick and choose and only accept wagers from losing players. They are nothing more than they bully kid on the block who will only play if he gets to be on the winning team. You should be ashamed of yourself for defending such non-sense.
EDIT: I wish I had read the posts from then till here - as I'm sure some of these points were touched up on.
This is where I think most APs are wrong. I do consider myself an AP, but I rarely actually gamble - I play poker from time to time and have studied card counting, although I've never employed it because of a lack of a proper bankroll ( I studied card counting after I lost horribly the first time I played Blackjack - without any strategy.)
The game of chance is the service they are offering. Imagine having a bankroll at stake - just like your own when you do count. You shouldn't needlessly go play Craps with it, just like the casino shouldn't needlessly let a strong AP play. And they (casinos) should have the right to refuse wagers - or the service - if they choose.
That being said, I think casinos should be far less wary of card counters, because most can't win. To be successful as an AP, you'd have to be well capitalized, disciplined and ridiculously skilled at the games you play. Most card counters aren't well capitalized, some may be disciplined, but FAR underestimate their errors - causing them to play at a better +EV for the house than against a basic strategy minimum bettor.
I'd also like to say that card counting is not inherently against the rules. The rules are what they are - as they are presented to you. So you can count away, unless the casino changes the contract. Then the rules change to either "you can't play blackjack," "you can flat bet" or "you're 86ed." I see no reason why free people assembling together in a corporation can't decide to refuse service, or alter the rules of a specific customers' contract. Either way - that doesn't happen UNTIL they tell you.
That's why I'd say card counting isn't against the rules for all players, and that casinos refusing to take play from skilled players isn't immoral either. I also think that the best path to longevity for APs is to play with the EV bonuses, and poker (since there's no heat for obvious reasons), although it's arguably far more complex than blackjack to play effectively, and the required bankrolls are bigger unless you play online.
24Bingo: Table or Tourney? I prefer Tourney /OT
But we already know there is no such thing as an advantage player. Its a figment of the casino consultant's imagination that he leaves in the minds of the casino management who then go around looking for players who swap cards or count aces. Ofcourse there are some Keno players on this board who claim to be advantage players as well as some BJ players at modest levels, some of whom dance around in disguises and some of whom are blatantly bedecked in tee shirts emblazoned "Card Counter".Quote: SOOPOOIf the casinos were able to truly end AP play, there would be no such thing as an advantage player.
Since there has been no final determination on this board before the poll... there won't be any final determination on this board after the poll, so I suggest we all repair to an establishment wherein its spelled p-o-l-e and drive her crazy with trivia questions about bet shifting.
Quote: PaigowdanAs for live table games, that be a bit slower, knowing how slow this industry moves, and that table games players seek table games, we're seeing SHFL's I-Tables start to take place, where dealer-dealt tables have full electronic assist to prevent dealer errors (including mis-paying hands), mis-setting/mis-reading hands (Lady, you have 19, not 17!") and the like. I've played I-Table Three Card Poker at Hooters, and it works, works very well.
At least that was the idea, although SHFL's assessment of their product on their last conference call was not encouraging: from what I remember, they weren't going to invest much in it going forward and rather just try and earn back what they put into it. Instead of thinking it's "the future", the opinion now seems to be that it'll just be a niche for certain markets, and never gain widespread acceptance. I've always said that they needed to offer something more for the player with their i-table product, but it doesn't seem like it's going to work out. From an investment point of view, I hope it does, but my hopes aren't too high at this point.
Quote: TheBigPaybakAt least that was the idea, although SHFL's assessment of their product on their last conference call was not encouraging: from what I remember, they weren't going to invest much in it going forward and rather just try and earn back what they put into it. Instead of thinking it's "the future", the opinion now seems to be that it'll just be a niche for certain markets, and never gain widespread acceptance. I've always said that they needed to offer something more for the player with their i-table product, but it doesn't seem like it's going to work out. From an investment point of view, I hope it does, but my hopes aren't too high at this point.
I-Table is an extremely expensive product, due to its technology; casino operator execs think, "we'd can get 4 or more of table 'y' if we skip I-deal - as good as it is." It's a procurement finance issue, I believe. Too expensive = buy few of them, if any. I-table turns a weak dealer into a strong game protection dealer, but has nothing much over a pro veteran dealer.
Table games aren't going anywhere soon, although the table games mix is shifting:
1- less Roulette, BJ, and Craps.
2 - More UTH, More Pai Gow Poker, more single-deck, single deal carnival games (uncountable);
3 - more side bets (the older of which are AP-able, the newer of which are generally not.)
Once and current king of cashflow.
Only the mini sidebets are vulnerable to AP,
but the game has to be watched by real hawks..
The true criminals are on it like a woldpack.
Lets leave the few successful BJ counters alone.
The multitude of unsuccessful counters pay for them many times over,
And casinos know its actually good for business at a certain level,
To let some of this activity leak out to the masses.
Quote: PaigowdanI-Table is an extremely expensive product, due to its technology; casino operator execs think, "we'd can get 4 or more of table 'y' if we skip I-deal - as good as it is." It's a procurement finance issue, I believe. Too expensive = buy few of them, if any. I-table turns a weak dealer into a strong game protection dealer, but has nothing much over a pro veteran dealer.
I disagree. Frankly I'd be surprised if SHFL sold any of them, as they're all about leasing these days. I'd agree that the leasing cost on one of them versus a blackjack game with a side bet is significantly more, but I'd be very surprised if the leasing cost on an i-table is significantly more than one of their top table games, like 3-card poker.
Isn't the main issue floor space? I see table games swapped in and out, but I don't find many casinos actually adding net table games.
Quote: Paigowdan
Table games aren't going anywhere soon, although the table games mix is shifting:
1- less Roulette, BJ, and Craps.
2 - More UTH, More Pai Gow Poker, more single-deck, single deal carnival games (uncountable);
3 - more side bets (the older of which are AP-able, the newer of which are generally not.)
I agree they're not going anywhere, heck I'd like to see more! Agree on more side bets and progressives.
Quote: WongBoNot the first time baccarat has saved the bottom line..
Once and current king of cashflow.
Only the mini sidebets are vulnerable to AP,
but the game has to be watched by real hawks..
The true criminals are on it like a woldpack.
Lets leave the few successful BJ counters alone.
The multitude of unsuccessful counters pay for them many times over,
And casinos know its actually good for business at a certain level,
To let some of this activity leak out to the masses.
I agree completely. The numbers are purely speculative, but I imagine that, for every dollar lost (other than by pure Variance) to people who can count the casino makes a few bucks on players who only think they can count and play. However, back-offs necessarily add to the mystique of the how thing for people who do not already count, so I would suggest that they are necessary to keep the prospective counters thinking that the casinos are truly afraid of card counters...because that will get them in the door.
Quote: TheBigPaybakI disagree. Frankly I'd be surprised if SHFL sold any of them, as they're all about leasing these days. I'd agree that the leasing cost on one of them versus a blackjack game with a side bet is significantly more, but I'd be very surprised if the leasing cost on an i-table is significantly more than one of their top table games, like 3-card poker.
I have heard it is quite expensive to lease; price may be a factor. The system works very well. Like any new table game product, acceptance of even a fine product takes a glacial schedule.
Quote: TheBigPaybackIsn't the main issue floor space? I see table games swapped in and out, but I don't find many casinos actually adding net table games.
Pit Floor space is limited and pretty static, there is more swapping products than adding products, true. Games die, new ones pop up, the mix changes.
Quote: PaigowdanI have heard it is quite expensive to lease; price may be a factor.
If that's the case, that doesn't seem too smart, imho- but obviously I'm not aware of all of the facts. The last comments by the CEO on the product, though, were not encouraging: actually they were downright pessimistic from what I recall.
Is your impression that i-table usage in Vegas is growing? Do you know of placements that have survived for over a year and are there till this day?
Quote: TheBigPaybakIf that's the case, that doesn't seem too smart, imho- but obviously I'm not aware of all of the facts. The last comments by the CEO on the product, though, were not encouraging: actually they were downright pessimistic from what I recall.
Is your impression that i-table usage in Vegas is growing? Do you know of placements that have survived for over a year and are there till this day?
I sometimes play an I-table Three Card Poker game at Hooter's, on Tropicana. This is an established install, and it gets fine action, at least since the last time I was there.
It's an interesting set up:
1. There are touch screens at each player position, slightly smaller than a laptop screen, and vertical, where you press buttons to play your hand (Bet ANTE, Pair Plus, PLAY, 6-card bonus, etc.)
2. You buy in with cash or chips, and money is credit to you console.
3. Dealer says Place Your Bets, and and you make your bets by touching the chips to the betting spots. Dealer then locks the bets in.
4. Dealer then deals, and goes player-by-player dealing the cards; as the card come out, your hand is known and shown on your screen, exactly matching your cards.
5. You touch PLAY or Fold, and the correct deduction is made to your screen bankroll.
6. When all players had played or folded, Dealer reveals dealer's hand, and since the system knows the cards, all wins, loses, and bonus bet results are credited and debited to each players console without dealer error.
7. When you color-up, you recieve chips from the rack. Buy-in and color up are the ONLY times chips are used on the game.
If it is cost-effective, it will grow.
Quote: PaigowdanI sometimes play an I-table Three Card Poker game at Hooter's, on Tropicana. This is an established install, and it gets fine action, at least since the last time I was there.
It's an interesting set up:
1. There are touch screens at each player position, slightly smaller than a laptop screen, and vertical, where you press buttons to play your hand (Bet ANTE, Pair Plus, PLAY, 6-card bonus, etc.)
2. You buy in with cash or chips, and money is credit to you console.
3. Dealer says Place Your Bets, and and you make your bets by touching the chips to the betting spots. Dealer then locks the bets in.
4. Dealer then deals, and goes player-by-player dealing the cards; as the card come out, your hand is known and shown on your screen, exactly matching your cards.
5. You touch PLAY or Fold, and the correct deduction is made to your screen bankroll.
6. When all players had played or folded, Dealer reveals dealer's hand, and since the system knows the cards, all wins, loses, and bonus bet results are credited and debited to each players console without dealer error.
7. When you color-up, you recieve chips from the rack. Buy-in and color up are the ONLY times chips are used on the game.
If it is cost-effective, it will grow.
Thanks for the information, and I do hope their product will gain some traction, although I still fail to see the enticement from a player's point of view, if a comparable game was being offered at the casino, hence my continual comment that an i-table should offer something "more" and at the same time, still be more profitable for a casino versus the traditional setup because of lack of mistakes and speed.
I played i-table blackjack one time and wasn't impressed, although getting killed while playing it didn't help the experience... :)
Their Tablemaster 3-card poker is kind of a joke, as it doesn't offer the ante bonuses for higher hands. I never understood that one...
The rules are pretty damn good-
3/2 blackjacks, H17, DOA, DAS, late surrender, split aces receive one card, 7-card charlie.
Shuffle after 4/6 decks. Min Bet $2, Max Bet $25.
Actually, the game would be countable/beatable (est. $3 p/hr) if one could determine the shuffle point.
Anyway, I played for 30min to kill time. While I played, the dealer make several multiple-hand 21's in a short span of time. I have no doubt the GAME IS FAIR, and do not suspect any cheating. But I'm guessing most people would walk away feeling the game is rigged. This is the reason these games will never be mainstream, IMO.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNo there isn't. If something is allowed by law, then it is allowed. That's all there is to it. The government is the only figure with any authority here.
Tell that to the big guys in yellow jackets with the words "Casino Security" on the back. You're not allowed to make a string bet at a poker table, but that's not a crime, just a house rule. You're also not "allowed" to stab the poker dealer in the hand -- and that *is* a crime. Don't fall into the trap of believing that the only rules in society are, or should be, defined by the state. There's no law against smoking in cars or homes, but nobody's allowed to smoke in mine.
Quote: MakingBookI was in the Las Vegas Club last week. They have a video blackjack game called Bet the Set 21.
The rules are pretty damn good-
3/2 blackjacks, H17, DOA, DAS, late surrender, split aces receive one card, 7-card charlie.
Shuffle after 4/6 decks. Min Bet $2, Max Bet $25.
Actually, the game would be countable/beatable (est. $3 p/hr) if one could determine the shuffle point.
Anyway, I played for 30min to kill time. While I played, the dealer make several multiple-hand 21's in a short span of time. I have no doubt the GAME IS FAIR, and do not suspect any cheating. But I'm guessing most people would walk away feeling the game is rigged. This is the reason these games will never be mainstream, IMO.
I could see these and the I-Tables being popular and a strong, cost-effective measure to maximize your margins on fleas while possibly attracting new fleas to the game. I'm basically a flea level bettor and generally don't come in intending to lose more than $100 (and generally it's $50) in one night, and I would probably play a game such as this. It can be intimidating to buy-in to a $10 Minimum Table for $100 knowing that 10 consecutive losses is game over for the night, so something like this would definitely attract me as I like to buy-in for at least 20x the minimum bet. That's really why I probably play three or less serious BJ sessions/year, just don't like having that much on the table.
I can't say for sure I would keep coming back, but I doubt it. It is true that I prefer slot machines with slow and steady payouts, but 1:1 and 3:2 is even a bit slow for my taste, I'd basically be playing 100% strictly for fun and as a time killer.
You'll never get high-rollers to go for something like this, though.
By the way, what's with the $25 Max, MB, scared of the Martingale much?
There will only be electronic tables in the general population...the "live" table games will be reserved for "High Limit"...
LoL, who am I kidding? Paying people pennies on the dollar will always override having to pay a company to "lease" an electronic table.
Quote: MakingBookI was in the Las Vegas Club last week. They have a video blackjack game called Bet the Set 21.
The rules are pretty damn good-
3/2 blackjacks, H17, DOA, DAS, late surrender, split aces receive one card, 7-card charlie.
Shuffle after 4/6 decks. Min Bet $2, Max Bet $25.
Actually, the game would be countable/beatable (est. $3 p/hr) if one could determine the shuffle point.
Anyway, I played for 30min to kill time. While I played, the dealer make several multiple-hand 21's in a short span of time. I have no doubt the GAME IS FAIR, and do not suspect any cheating. But I'm guessing most people would walk away feeling the game is rigged. This is the reason these games will never be mainstream, IMO.
Ah, my first real advantage play (Yes, Dan there's advantage plays against robot dealers, too). The one at Binions has much better rules with a higher maximum bet. For some reason the word "busts" is censored on the Binions machine. When the dealer busts she says "dealer bu...!" and it switches screens. It's almost as if someone covered her mouth.
Quote: RogerKintAh, my first real advantage play (Yes, Dan there's advantage plays against robot dealers, too). The one at Binions has much better rules with a higher maximum bet. For some reason the word "busts" is censored on the Binions machine. When the dealer busts she says "dealer bu...!" and it switches screens. It's almost as if someone covered her mouth.
I don't think the machine (Las Vegas Club) can be played to an advantage. No way to determine beginning/end of a shoe? Dealers change, but too few rounds were dealt for this to be the shuffle point.
I found it odd to see "shuffled after 2/3 shoe" on the machine. Typically these machines are labeled "shuffled after each round."
half the fun is playing against the dealer. I realize that a lot of I tables still have a dealer, but from what I understand many don't. And I do think that this will decrease play somewhat - even though in the end it may increase profits. (Doubt it)
I also don't think AP will go away. That doesn't really make sense. IMO, the casinos waste way too much $$$ trying to stop APs, and if they put less resources to finding card counters, IMO, they'd make more money. All of these extra counter measures they COULD employ to stop card counting would adversely affect their business with every day gamblers - and losing "APs"
I also voted "poker/sportbook" but I don't think that's entirely accurate. They won't, and can't, do away with AP. It just doesn't make sense. They offer so many gambles that are close to 0 edge all the time, that some players will find a way to overcome their 1-5% edge and create an edge for themselves. It's relatively small compared to the Casino's EV, and there are so few capable players that it's like a drop in a bucket (most of the time.)
"Today's best opportunities will not look like those of yesterday"
Paigowdan is wrong- no chance AP disappears.
Been there , don't that LOL. Ticket In, ticket out. WTF No coins clanging in the tray, no proudly carrying buckets of quarters or dollar slugs from casino to casino. LOL
But wait we first need to define these terms and what is not allowed.
Lets Start from Hole Carding.
Definition: Hole carding is when the dealer accidentally exposes his card.
Rule:
Option 1 : The player should travel back in time a few seconds and close his eyes so as not to see the accidentally exposed card.
Option 2: The player should immediately forget the card he saw. If his is unable to do so with help he should carry with him specially designed forgetfulless pills (to be available in the future, so he must travel forward in time to obtain them) and immediately take this pill.
Option 3: The player should immediately instruct his brain not to process the visual information or use his brain to process this information. If his unable to do so without help, a hammer would be available (dealer will provide) and he should start immediately hammering on his head untill such time as the brain processing cababilities have diminished to that of a jellyfish.
Option 4: The player should inform the dealer that he accidentally shown his card and that he has seen it. The casino immediately wins without any reference to the outcome
Option 5: The player should inform the dealer that he accidentally shown his card and that he has seen it. The specific hand becomes void.
(I can of like Option 5. I would be very glad for such rule acctually)
So any better ideas of how the rule on holecarding should be.
More to come for card counting.
Quote: Boney526....I also don't think AP will go away. That doesn't really make sense. IMO, the casinos waste way too much $$$ trying to stop APs, and if they put less resources to finding card counters, IMO, they'd make more money.
Neither do I think that AP will ever go away. But it should be better managed, - instead of the casino charade it can be.
The whole "cat-and-mouse" side-game of trying to get the maximum return on the basis of "whatever you can get away with" regardless of protocol will always be a part of the human condition, and the gambler's effort.
I also agree that casinos waste too much $$$ trying to stop APs. So I say by making the basic design of the game more AP proof, - more "maintenance-free AP Proof," really, - without the need for back-offs, without the need for constant surveillance vigilance, without the need to 86 people, etc. - simply by using CSMs, by using 50% penetration, by using rational table limits, and the like, the issue is handled.
A BJ game with reasonable table limits and lower penetration is not noticed by regular players, or does it change the game's odds or playing style for non-counters who pretty much flat-bet or play in narrow ranges, and who don't employ counting. It would simply thwart those who do try to count, thereby reducing or eliminating this as an issue, by making card counting not feasible.
Quote: AceTwoDefinition: Hole carding is when the dealer accidentally exposes his card.
Dealer Flashing is when the dealer accidentally exposes his card. Hole Carding is when a player takes extra steps to see the hole card when it would not normally be "flashed enough" or visible when not taking these extra steps. What we are generally talking about here when we say hole carding is finding a dealer who flashes, which occurs often with new break-in dealers.
Quote: AcetwoOption 1 : The player should travel back in time a few seconds and close his eyes so as not to see the accidentally exposed card.
Option 2: The player should immediately forget the card he saw. If his is unable to do so with help he should carry with him specially designed forgetfulless pills (to be available in the future, so he must travel forward in time to obtain them) and immediately take this pill.
Option 3: The player should immediately instruct his brain not to process the visual information or use his brain to process this information. If his unable to do so without help, a hammer would be available (dealer will provide) and he should start immediately hammering on his head untill such time as the brain processing cababilities have diminished to that of a jellyfish.
Option 4: The player should inform the dealer that he accidentally shown his card and that he has seen it. The casino immediately wins without any reference to the outcome
Option 5: The player should inform the dealer that he accidentally shown his card and that he has seen it. The specific hand becomes void.
(I can of like Option 5. I would be very glad for such rule acctually)
I use option #5, telling the dealer to learn some game protection to keep his job, and to run to clean G-ddamn game. Indeed, I tell him the card I saw (Ace of Diamonds), while flashing him my King-high Three card Played hand. Dealer training.
Or they can buy or lease a CSM/ASM, which adds additional expense. And many gamblers don't like shuffling machines. In order for management (of casinos) to find the right balance of cost vs protection, they cannot go overboard. I do believe 50% penetration w/o shuffling machines is WAY overboard, and would likely decrease revenue.
As for CSMs, it would depend. If the more revenue is lost to players who distrust them than is saved by disallowing APs and speeding up the game, then it'd be a smart move. Otherwise, it isn't.
Instead of looking at it from an ethical POV, just think of it in dollars and cents. The amount of revenues lost by half decking regular players, or paying for a lease or ownership of a CSM will be higher than the money saved by preventing AP. The other thing you are doing is preventing aspiring, but losing APs from playing in your casino. Obviously the house shouldn't care about counters who are bad at what they do, should it? A counter who loses track, doesn't play correct strategy, lacks discipline or a lacks high enough bet spread is still a losing player - and often these "APs" lose more than average gamblers.
That's why casinos spend too much time and money concentrating on removing AP. To be quite frank, maybe 1 out of 100 players know how to count, or attempted to learn, and maybe 1 out of 25 of them know how to do it well. Out of those, maybe 1 out of 10 is properly financed. Should casinos spend time looking for potentially well financed, very skilled blackjack players? Well.... sure. But they probably should spend no time worrying about the guy spreading their bets between $5-40 against 8 decks, because even though it's very likely he's counting, he's probably STILL LOSING.
Quote: 24BingoFunny how now that it suits you you run the numbers assuming all non-counters play BS.
That isn't even the relevant point. If they don't play BS, the only effect is that the casino makes more money. The point is that just because there is one counter at the table, a table will still make more money with higher penetration.
So why lower penetration? It makes more sense for the casino to raise penetration. (make it deeper, that is.)
Quote: Boney526That isn't even the relevant point. If they don't play BS, the only effect is that the casino makes more money.
Not necessarily. It just increase the variance. and that can work both ways. But thats another issue.
Quote: CroupierNot necessarily. It just increase the variance. and that can work both ways. But thats another issue.
Playing anything other than BS may or may not increase variance, but will increase the house edge unless you're playing something better than basic strategy (like counting indices.)
If you don't accept that as factual - then I don't know what else to say. The casino makes more money against someone who plays off the top of their head, and somewhat randomly, than someone who uses a basic strategy. Simple as that. The actual result of any particular session, of course, will deviate from the average.
Quote: Boney526That isn't even the relevant point. If they don't play BS, the only effect is that the casino makes more money. The point is that just because there is one counter at the table, a table will still make more money with higher penetration.
So why lower penetration? It makes more sense for the casino to raise penetration. (make it deeper, that is.)
The more money the casino makes per non-AP, the greater the EOR, so to speak, of a counter.
Granted, it's probably true either way, or they'd have done it by now. But to this point in the thread, Ibeatyouraces has been insisting that "ploppies" make up for counters, and it's funny to see him change his t... actually, I may have been thinking of someone else. Whoops.
Quote: 24BingoThe more money the casino makes per non-AP, the greater the EOR, so to speak, of a counter.
Granted, it's probably true either way, or they'd have done it by now. But to this point in the thread, Ibeatyouraces has been insisting that "ploppies" make up for counters, and it's funny to see him change his t... actually, I may have been thinking of someone else. Whoops.
It was him, I was assuming for arguement's sake that his statement is true. And it probably is, if you think about it.
A counter, if starting at the minimum and playing a 1-12 spread with 75% penetration is likely to have (something like) an average bet of 2.25 units at (around) a 1.25% advantage. Every one else at the table, playing the minimum (a conservative estimate), is playing at around a very conservative .5% disadvantage. Say there are 4 other players per table, but 10 other tables open. With 75% penetration, the house could get around 400-500 hands per hour per table. With 50%, they may only get 250-350 per table. That one counter is like a drop in the bucket as compared to slowing the game down by reshuffling at the 50% level. Especially when that counter may not even be good enough to attain advantage, and all the other players certainly don't play well enough to only have be against a .5% HE. Unless the increase in game speed from converting all games to CSMs and ASMs is worth the cost, I don't think it makes sense for casinos to take many counter measures against counters - except those playing at a high skill level and with big bets. Obviously they should crack down it there are many counters swarming in - but the odds of that are slim unless the game is ridiculously easy to beat.
I and another player are the only two people playing. At 3rd base, I start with 7,6 vs a dealer 10. I hit and get a 3. So, 16 vs a 10.
1. I hit! BS says 16 vs 10 is hit
2. But wait! It's a 3-card 16 vs a 10. That's a stand (composition-dependent BS). So I stand
3. But wait! 1st base had 10,10. So it's really no different than me having a 10,6 with 3rd base having had a 10,3, hitting, and catching a 7. So it's like a 2-card 16. So I hit.
4. But wait! I remember that last hand, the dealer drew a 6-card 21 after 1st base and I both stood on stiff totals. So I stand.
Arguably, these are all card counting to some extent, and based on the fact that the index number for this play is 0:
#1: based on the knowledge that the average 16 vs 10 hand leaves the deck in a negative count.
#2: counting only your cards and the dealers card, based on the card that the average 3-card 16 vs 10 leaves the deck with + count.
#3: seeing the cards that are staring at you in the face and realizing that they leave the deck with - count.
#4: having a short-term memory that lasts longer than 30 seconds and realizing that the last 2 hands leave the deck with a + count.
We can keep going, with option #5 that remembers the last 2 hands, option #6 that remembers the last 3, etc, etc.
Basically, out of all the public information out there, I want to know how much of it I am required to ignore, by the unwritten house rules which define fair and ethical play. After all, I wouldn't want to "cheat".
Quote: Boney526But, PGD, decreasing penetration means the dealer has to shuffle more often, and so, less hands per hour for non counters. Or they can buy or lease a CSM/ASM, which adds additional expense....
Very True.
It's a cost trade-off situation, but with technology and hardware becoming cheaper by the day, it's getting more common.
At the casino I deal at, we have a "24/7 - 365" $3 Blackjack table that is a CSM with the "Bust It!" side bet. It gets anyfrom from $3 action to $500 per bet action. It is a "maintenance-free" Blackjack table, count-proof as far the CSM is concerned, and is about as AP trouble-free as a $5 Pai Gow Poker table.
Quote: Boney526Instead of looking at it from an ethical POV, just think of it in dollars and cents. The amount of revenues lost by half decking regular players, or paying for a lease or ownership of a CSM will be higher than the money saved by preventing AP.
Again, true. Having a mix of Count-Proof "Ploppie" BJ tables allows us to focus floor supervision and surveillance resources on the few deep-shoe, juicy and delectable $25 "quarter-plus" tables that are indeed quite countable. Better to watch two "risky tables" very well - with six tables "taking care of themselves," - than to watch eight equally vulnerable tables for counters, and being too thined out to do so properly as a result.
Quote: Boney526The other thing you are doing is preventing aspiring, but losing APs from playing in your casino. Obviously the house shouldn't care about counters who are bad at what they do, should it?
They do. If you're counting and losing, it is the same as counting and winning, and justifies the back-off on the action alone. It is committing the back-off offense itself that justifies the back-off, not winning or losing. However, some (of the more slimy and sadistic) floormen will indeed wait until the tide turns, and THEN back off the card counter - just at the point he is ready to feast on the "hot shoe." Broke AND backed off, and ready to taste the spoils, now that really sucks....
And that's unethical, too. Like I've been saying, a casino operation should have no countable tables, or a lot of "maintenance-free" BJ tables - with a few "good, juicy, countable" tables under the scrutiny spotlight. The Flypaper tables.
Say, someone who uses the A-5 count, with a 1-8 spread but doesn't use proper basic strategy. If I own a casino - I want that player playing. Then again, I'm looking at it as if I (as the casino) am just another AP - although I'm a corporation. I'd still want that action b/c I think I have the edge in that situation.
Such a situation is a rarity - I suppose, but the point, in a less exaggerated context is that most counters pose no threat to casinos. And I really think there's more benefit to having a deeply dealt game and watch out for big action counters, but then again, I don't work in the industry.
I'm not refuting what you're saying. If that's how you feel, fine. Just saying I don't think there's a big benefit to making everything count proof.
Quote: WongBoHole carding and counting are not gray areas,
They are green areas,and casinos love the business that rumors of winners and pros bring in,
As long as no laws are violated, these are part of the game,
And can be controlled completely.
They need security to watch the dealers and staff as much as the players...
There is not a lot of money lost to AP compared to the gain.
Quote: teliotIn the future, APs will be much more educated and sophisticated in the methods they use to beat casinos. The number of strong APs is exploding. Only the most uneducated AP still thinks of beating a casino as counting cards at blackjack. The opportunities for APs show no sign of slowing down, rather, these opportunities are accelerating. The future of game protection will most certainly involve educating casino management and game developers. But first, it has to involve these people recognizing that APs are legally beating their games. Without moralizing about cheating, these players are *legally* beating *all games*.
I am doing my best to head towards an educated future through my blog. But APs have a multitude of powerful methods I know nothing about.
There is no possible future where APs won't find bountiful highly lucrative opportunities.
Quote: teliotThere is no possible future where APs won't find bountiful highly lucrative opportunities:
This is an absolutely crucial comment on Eliot's part. But the number of APs with be both very few and limited by casino operators' tolerance and whim. AP's do not decide how many AP survive and thrive, operators do.
While some of the casino draw is a night out for ploppies, a huge draw for some is the belief that the games are beatable. That certainly helped Blackjack's popularity. I believe this is either a mistaken belief (a certainty for the vast majority), or a possibility for a few Green Beret/Royal Army SAS level players to do it legally - Yes.
In the expectation that they are generally truly or easily beatible - no. Otherwise, the casinos' lights would be dark, which is not the case.
That they're legal beatable by a handful of elite casino killers....yes. And that number is maintained as both "limited" and unnecessary, as casino operators will survive on regular "ploppie" players alone.
And Casino operators themselves DO want the mystique and allure of "Our games are beatable - ARE YOU GOOD ENOUGH TO TAKE US DOWN?" - with print ads of Daniel Craig "007" wearing a Rolex and sipping Santori Whiskey at a table....with the connotation of: [James Bond:] - "the count is +9, watch me bust an Ian Fleming move, my lady Goldfinger....child's play for me, you see...." (This wasn't Keith Taft's life experience with fancy casino play...) It's a known draw and can be a part of marketing...in terms of cinematic product placement, I cheer every time I see 007 at the tables in a film...but I worry that ploppies around the world are saying, "if casino play is good enough for 007, then let me be so cool, too. Losing my paycheck at the casino is James Bond cool," - as it is card counting.
Ford Motor company would have killed and paid to see 007 drive off in a 2013 Ford Fusion Turbo, - with its Aston Martin styling....so yeah, there is an elite "expert" panache to being able to count cards. It helps in some ways.
I do favor a "flypaper approach" for blackjack - many ploppie tables that are unbeatable: CSM, low penetration, no need to survey or watch.......
with a few juicy games: 6-deck 80%+ penetration, H17, DA2, DAS, RSA, split to 4 hands, etc. in the spotlight. "Look at the great games we offer..."
