The future or end of AP Play?

Quote: Paigowdan

Yes, exactly - back offs, and the need for back offs, are the problem, and often the innocent player gets caught in the net. Sweat Stinks. I say:

1. Reduce or eliminate back offs, pit paranoia, surveillance hawking, bad will, and all the time, effort, and expense incurred by that crap.
2. By making the BJ games impossible, or next to impossible to count, to include side bets.

The open invitation of having vulnerable games without heavy monitoring is asking for AP trouble.
So is having vulnerable games WITH heavy monitoring, - as backing off a card counter to save the table's rack, also incurs heavy expenses and bad will.

So, it seems that the solution is simply to have no vulnerable games, essentially. And such things as hard to count Blackjack variants such as 2-to-1 Blackjack, and using CSMs, and using shuffler machines do help. The 'balancing act' solution is a poor solution.

Except that the industry WANTS beatable games. There is nothing better than the public thinking they can beat the casino. This is just a huge draw. I have been told a number of times that the period just after the release of the books 'Beating Vega's and 'Bringing down the house' as well as the movie '21' was a huge plus for the casino industry. Wannabe card counter ascended on Vegas and AC and lost their shirts. lol

Quote: kewlj

[Except that the industry WANTS beatable games. There is nothing better than the public thinking they can beat the casino. This is just a huge draw. I have been told a number of times that the period just after the bookings 'Beating Vega's and 'Bringing down the house' as well as the movie '21' was a huge plus for the casino industry. Wannabe card counter ascended on Vegas and AC and lost their shirts. lol

True, - but it is fundamentally dishonest when you think about it. If such an approach comes from industry advertising, there's a bit of a problem.

To lure them in with "beatable, countable, oh-so-delicious games," - C'mon down, y'all - and then nail them with back offs when they honestly try to beat the games in a way the advertising is alluding to is just wrong.

To offer 10x odds on dice as a player-beneficial advert is fine. Nothing unusual or improper about taking or laying odds on dice. But advertising "Deep Penetration Shoes on BJ!" is aimed luring and hanging counters, if backed off, or getting the house hit, if not backed off. I mean, who else in the world is that advert targeting? Saying "Good rules - Double on any two cards" is fine, and is different. So is "$5 blackjack tables open 24/7" is fine also.

The casino knows that the house edge is their source of income, and that it pays the bills and its workers. To advertise "+EV player games!!" when it isn't the case is wrong, and is saying something very different than "You may be a winner!" It is more like saying, "You WILL be a winner!" when it isn't the case.

Quote: Paigowdan

No. Often, there are periods where a house is targeted or hit - an unknown team hits it.

This is from the guy who says AP is dead? How can unknown teams hit casinos "often" if those teams don't exist?

Quote: MathExtremist

Quote: Paigowdan

No. Often, there are periods where a house is targeted or hit - an unknown team hits it.

This is from the guy who says AP is dead? How can unknown teams hit casinos "often" if those teams don't exist?

Yes, AP teams DO exist. It is dead as a viable endeavor to do; doesn't mean that many don't try it, some with success for a while. And card counter hits are relatively rare enough, but they can be costly, and they can cause loses, so any heavy losses are "too often."

For that matter, actions ranging from committing identity theft to sneaking guests into a Buffet are "dead" as an intelligent endeavor in one's life. People do these things also. There is a long list of things that people do - which ultimately lead nowhere very good.

I meant a dead thing to do, as in "whack," especially for a member of the gaming profession. Yes, it is my opinion. Yes, many are enamoured of it.

Quote: Paigowdan

The telecomm industry pretty much covered the Phreaking loopholes, resulting in inexpensive phone service for all, as no one can now game the system.

Huh? Landline phone service is dead. It was ridiculously expensive for overseas calls before dying, especially compared to IP. There's very little demand left, so companies have to compete on price in its last days.

Quote: Paigowdan

Quote: P90

We all know that too. A key feature of this product, a feature that drives a lot of its sales, is that it can be beaten.
Yes, maybe this particular player isn't going to beat it, or even try, but the sale to him depends on implied suggestion that he could.

I disagree. 95% of players don't notice or care about the "performance" of BJ - all of this H17, DOA, DAS, 60% pen, etc, is the stuff only we know here, really.

They don't know the specifics. But they do know the idea. They do know it happened and keeps happening.
This is major advertising for blackjack, it lets it be seen in a different light than dead-end losing games, gives it a special aura.
It's what keeps it the quintessential casino game these days, rather than just a major game.

And that's why you are offering it, because it sells. In that specific beatable form, not a CSM cripple - that you have to sell on price (lower limits).

More people want to play a game that is possible to win more frequently as a result of getting better.

If you disagree with this assertion, personally I think you need to have your head examined.

Getting an advantage to win more than you lose is just a simple extension, and is relatively obvious to see that it's true.

But even just with pure luck, things work pretty good. Just not _as_ good.

You need the allure to get something to become _really_ popular.

" Again, a spend a dollar to save 25 cents mentality."

Truer words were never spoken. Casino's offer beatable BJ games because they are more profitable in the long run !

Quote: P90

Huh? Landline phone service is dead. It was ridiculously expensive for overseas calls before dying, especially compared to IP. There's very little demand left, so companies have to compete on price in its last days.

That was one example from a while ago, but it did concern a service that was hacked, or gamed.

Quote: P90

They don't know the specifics. But they do know the idea. They do know it happened and keeps happening.

There is a mystique or a panache to Blackjack to some degree, and it sells the game. However, People play blackjack, or any other table game like craps or three card poker, simply to gamble. I don't play craps knowing that some try to do dice-sliding; people do not play three card poker saying, "y'know, this game is cool to play because some people try to see the hole card for a delightfully illicit advantage."

People play blackjack because it is a fun and simple game to play: Hit, stand, double, - and hope that the dealer busts. The vast majority of Blackjack players couldn't set a Pai Gow hand to save their lives, and can't name most of the bets in craps and say how they work. Forget about mastering card counting. People know it is not beatable the first time they get creamed, or witness a back off, often to wide eyes.

Quote: P90

This is major advertising for blackjack, it lets it be seen in a different light than dead-end losing games, gives it a special aura.
It's what keeps it the quintessential casino game these days, rather than just a major game.

Many view craps as the quintessential casino game; some feel it is Roulette, or even Baccarat. James Bond plays Baccarat and Roulette, and that helped.
No question that it is a major game. And the public press on it via the Movie "21" the books, the 'hacker-esque' mystque of its countability Helped the game. But for that matter, surveillance doesn't call down to the pit and say, "Let the guy at 3rd base on BJ #6 run the game to the bone - as he is adding mystique to the game!" Surveillance says: "He goes." (I think of Richard Dawson on Family Feud: "Survey says......") [as an aside, Please watch this clip, it absolutely classic! Now these are some typical ploppie Blackjack players!]

So if a game has 50% penetration, it makes absolutely no difference to the newbie who is playing the game "because it is so cool and beatable." The only one who would "un-choose" that game is one with the intention of counting cards, and who is an undesirable, anyway.

Quote: P90

And that's why you are offering it, because it sells. In that specific beatable form, not a CSM cripple - that you have to sell on price (lower limits).

Blackjack sells because it is fun and easy to play, and because the casino is clean and maintained, and because the dealers shower, and because you get comped to the Buffet and the movies.

Quote: Paigowdan

Blackjack sells because it is fun and easy to play, and because the casino is clean and maintained, and because the dealers shower, and because you get comped to the Buffet and the movies.

So why don't you make it H17, BJ pays 1:1? All these 4 reasons remain.

Quote: Paigowdan

Surveillance says: "He goes."

Of course.
And before modern gaming math and corporations, when mob openly ran the casino, the same was said about most any big winner. Except "goes" didn't always mean 86.

Now that everyone is wearing suits, casinos have wised up and count winners/losers as EV rather than absolute outcome, but the mindset is still the same.

Quote: Paigowdan

To lure them in with "beatable, countable, oh-so-delicious games," - C'mon down, y'all - and then nail them with back offs when they honestly try to beat the games in a way the advertising is alluding to is just wrong.

A rare bit of self-criticism and honesty.

And this behavior is part of the reason for this whole Robin Hood attitude about counting. No such attitude about hole-carding, it's done quietly, without pride in it, just to make cash. Card-counting on the other hand is almost advertised.

There are plenty of ways to close the loophole, it's kept open on purpose; so there is nothing morally wrong in taking advantage of it. Is it practical or not? Depends on who you listen to.
But in no way is it any more of a moral wrong than playing for bonuses in online casinos. Counters just honestly take advantage of what is being offered. And if you keep offering it, yet throw people who do it out when you find them - well, who does it reflect poorly on?

Quote: P90

So why don't you make it H17, BJ pays 1:1?

Very good idea that has been thought of. One new BJ variant does pay 1:1 on a blackjack if dealer shows 7 or higher, and 2:1 if dealer shows a 6 or less, to average to 3:2 on Blackjack, - having the payout follow the count, precisely to nullify the counter's advantage.

Quote: P90

And before modern gaming math and corporations, when mob openly ran the casino, the same was said about most any big winner. Except "goes" didn't always mean 86.

I am NOT going to say: "Ah, those were the good old days, eh, Frankie and Tony?" - as some might expect.
I despise punishing legit winners, and assaulting or acting out in any way against an AP player caught. Everybody gets respect.

Quote: P90

Now that everyone is wearing suits, casinos have wised up and count winners/losers as EV rather than absolute outcome, but the mindset is still the same.

Suits view it for what it is - a business, and they have to deal with such things as loss prevention, theft of services, and other threats to the business, as one would do in any business. It is now a business mindset, and not a mob mindset, bad apples aside. But honestly, if you've read books by card counters and AP-er's, even open cheats like Richard Marcus, you will see a very biased "us-versus-them" mob or clique-ish, elitist mentality on display on the counters' part.

Edit: Just as the movie 21 glamorized and glorify card counting (which ain't about glory and glamor), the movie "Casino" (some Joe Pesci scenes here) makes gaming seen like a corrupt industry with Joe Pesci Backrooming going on all the time, in some people's view, and as justification for various acts and postures of Robin Hood-ism, the real story is that gaming is a great and legitimate business to us. Yet the Hollywood fantasies are pointed to all the time, and believed. You got Robin Hood the card Counter, and Joe Pesci, the shift manager. Sheesh.

Quote: P90

There are plenty of ways to close the loophole, it's kept open on purpose;

A lot of things continue on in gaming, as in many industries, not on purpose, but instead due to apathy, ignorance, fear of change, etc.
I remember one time we had a rule on SuperFun-21, where if you surrendered on a double down, it could only be if the player hadn't double down for less. The fact of the matter is that if you can surrender after a double, it mathematically doesn't matter if you doubled down for less or not, so as long as you return one-half of the bet in action. I even checked with the excellent Mike S. on this. When I asked this question of pit management, and pointed out that it was mathematically incorrect....their response was (I swear to G-d):

"Well....it's because....uhmmmm.....ahem.....aarummm.....It's because it's ALWAYS been done that way Dammit!!!.....now go away kid.....you're bothering me!"

Instead of:
"You know, that's a good point. I shall forward this idea to corporate management for consideration" - as in most other industries.

Quote: P90

so there is nothing morally wrong in taking advantage of it.

Opinion.

Quote: P90

Is it practical or not? Depends on who you listen to.

It should be looked into.