Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
May 9th, 2013 at 1:46:54 PM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
May 9th, 2013 at 1:49:09 PM permalink
Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I think it all boils down to proper training of procedures.



It may look like there are also some table game design elements and considerations, in a Ralph Nader sense.

If you owned a car with no seat belts, no air bags, no head rests, and got severely crippled in a very minor fender-bender, one can "claim" 100% driver error, and in a sense, be 100% correct.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
GBV
GBV
Joined: Jun 12, 2012
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 110
May 10th, 2013 at 6:34:59 AM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan


15. Then we went into the base game of Baccarat, - which is effectively uncountable, in spite of the fact that the 8-deck shoe is dealt right down to the gristle. The same $100 per round shoe yields pennies – 15c with a one-time bet every 1,786 hands. However, side bets for baccarat CAN be countable. Furthermore, in Baccarat, the side bet count might not generally rise as linearly as it does in BJ, where there is generally equal weighting between “pro” and “anti” key cards. In Baccarat, it is often, but not always, the final stub or deck of the shoe that can get ‘hot.’ For this reason, one counter-measure that may be applicable is to place a yellow cut-card one deck out from the end of the shoe, to signal a “side bets now closed” point (discussed earlier at WOV).



The one-deck cutoff solution is frankly terrible. It would cost the casino a fortune.

The number of players capable of beating the side-bets is a tiny fraction of regular gamblers. It is not even the case, as with BJ, that the public is aware those bets can be beaten. There aren't any books on the subject for example, or forums, or whatever.

The lost profit from bets that would have been made by regular gamblers would greatly exceed the potential profits of AP's. Not to mention players who would be alienated by such an arbitary rule. Try telling a mug on a hot streak that he can't bet-those players go mental.
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
May 10th, 2013 at 6:36:34 AM permalink
Yes, I do agree. The "yellow card cut off" was one of the game protection options considered for Bacc side bets.

It actually works very well, and is a very minor and trouble-free mechanism to implement. And it is also 100% against the spirit of the game and loses some action. I can see it on an online Bacc game. For many Bacc side bets, most, it is remarkable how non-linear, how dramatic the last deck can rise in count for some games. Like "Ignition."

One Bacc side bet I worked on, I had to raise the HE to high single digit/double-digits, to avoid the yellow card cut-off.

In looking at a game, I do not always view or say, "well, only a few can exploit it, and that's good enough for me." If I can get it all the way there with the game being the same, but protected, I will. I often see: 0%/100%, a boolean "Yes - it can be beaten," and "No, it cannot," as a goal, - I may try. And yes, I do know the costs. Sometimes it isn't acceptable that "most players" don't know how or try to take it down; one team can do serious damage, and out goes the install. Pink Slip.

There are also many ways to dilute key cards in a deck composition if you're working with a shoe: pay table items that depend on different key cards, payout amounts, symmetrical play, etc. It's a rough balancing act.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
Paradigm
Paradigm
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2218
May 10th, 2013 at 8:22:04 AM permalink
What about placing a lower max bet limit to the side bet after the last deck yellow card cut off?

Perhaps a $25 max per 7 player stations and no "over the back" play allowed on side bets during the last deck of the shoe. That should mitigate the lost revenue from missed betting opportunities while preventing a great deal of exploitation during this portion of the shoe.
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
May 10th, 2013 at 8:34:58 AM permalink
That mathematically works, but is very non-standard; changing the table game limits mid-play is a serious casino pit operational problem, a non-starter.
By having a live table game that is either non-countable, or so trivially countable, it is effectively safe.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
Zcore13
Zcore13
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
  • Threads: 39
  • Posts: 3422
May 10th, 2013 at 9:33:01 AM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan

In looking at a game, I do not always view or say, "well, only a few can exploit it, and that's good enough for me." If I can get it all the way there with the game being the same, but protected, I will. I often see: 0%/100%, a boolean "Yes - it can be beaten," and "No, it cannot," as a goal, - I may try. And yes, I do know the costs. Sometimes it isn't acceptable that "most players" don't know how or try to take it down; one team can do serious damage, and out goes the install. Pink Slip.



You are going to miss out on some good games with your views. The first priority should be if players are going to find it fun to play. How easy it is to learn and play and other player based subjects should be looked at first.

You act like game protection and worrying about it has just been invented. Not flashing cards, shuffle issues, card marking (morphed into edge sorting now) and many, many other protection issues have been around forever. It is the houses job to train the dealers correctly and make sure procedures are being followed. The places that have people taking advantage of their procedures are generally places where the department is lazy, too friendly with their staff, aftaid of confrontation or many other poor management reasons. It all comes down to training, management and leadership.

Yes, Elliot is brilliant and has brought to light some new techniques, but this kind of thing has been happening since day one.

ZCore13
I am an employee of a Casino. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
May 10th, 2013 at 10:00:18 AM permalink
Quote: Zcore13

You are going to miss out on some good games with your views.


No.
We are looking at all games that have great play merits, including some that are clearly countable but worth taking on. However, in these circumstances, game protection parameters will be known and defined, and safe game protection guidelines specified. [However, I did reject one game that was a "Slxngo" level countable game, and was also rejected by other departments as uninspiring.]

Quote: Zcore13

The first priority should be if players are going to find it fun to play. How easy it is to learn and play and other player based subjects should be looked at first.


Yes, we know, trust me. That is the top priority and fundamental basis of any game selection that may occur. What I am saying is that the complete package for the game offered considers everything, even game protection.

Quote: Zcore13

You act like game protection and worrying about it has just been invented. Not flashing cards, shuffle issues, card marking (morphed into edge sorting now) and many, many other protection issues have been around forever.


It's as old as sand, eternal in this business, and I know what's around; and no, I'm not worried about game protection, just focused on my tasks. I like this area, and that's an area generally considered to be the casino's job, anyway. However, a manufacturer is responsible for ALL details of a product, to the best of our ability, and if we release a product that'll burn an operator, we'd have some explaining to do. Sometimes even if their dealer made the error.

Quote: Zcore13

It is the houses job to train the dealers correctly and make sure procedures are being followed. The places that have people taking advantage of their procedures are generally places where the department is lazy, too friendly with their staff, aftaid of confrontation or many other poor management reasons. It all comes down to training, management and leadership.


All of this is true, and we know that there may be some failures, incorrect procedures, AP openings, and the like, as to what goes on in the casino operator's end of things. But when we release a table game product, we have to be as thorough as possible, and do as much as we possibly can to place a much lighter burden on our customers' operational end, all things being equal. There is a very big difference between, let's say 21+3 as a side bet, and another side bet, in terms of game protection and its ability to be run down on a live game. While I agree that the game protection end really depends on the operator's ability to train and enforce game procedures, there is a lot that can be done in the manufacturer's hands to make it as trouble-free as possible, when it gets to them to put it on the floor.

Quote: Zcore13

Yes, Elliot is brilliant and has brought to light some new techniques, but this kind of thing has been happening since day one.

ZCore13



Zcore13, you are very correct: game protection and its issues are as old as the hills.
However, what is relatively new is a pro-active manufacturer's focus on this end, - so that we don't have to burden the end casino operator with extra work or vulnerabilities. What I said above in the starting post was something about not bringing unused cards out in mid-play if possible, where they can get hole-carded and edge-sorted. It's little things like that that make a huge difference in game protection. If a manufacturer or distributor can arrange a shuffler machine to keep cards off of the table until they are really needed, or re-allocate pay line weightings in a game or side bet to reduce "key card dominance," then the end operator has less to worry about, and is burned less often, - their mistake or not - on game protection. Currently, game protection is very manageable, but it is an area for some improvement.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
Zcore13
Zcore13
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
  • Threads: 39
  • Posts: 3422
May 10th, 2013 at 10:16:50 AM permalink
I like all your asnwers, but the fact still remains... Lucky Ladies is one of the top countable games. It's also one of the most popular games. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure when you (or Bob or Dean or whoever) is selling the merits of Lucky Ladies to a Casino, you are not telling them, "Watch out, this game can be counted and beat". More likely, you're telling them "This is a great game. You are going to see an increase in hold on your games of X% and your players are going to love it."

I've was in sales for 13 years. You sell your strong points, not your weak ones. That's just the way it is or you don't make it. You're fooling yourself if you think 100% game protection is, one going to happen. And two, going to be pointed out by the sales staff if it's a downside of the game.

ZCore13
I am an employee of a Casino. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
Paradigm
Paradigm
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2218
May 10th, 2013 at 10:29:40 AM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan

That mathematically works, but is very non-standard; changing the table game limits mid-play is a serious casino pit operational problem, a non-starter.


I hear what you are saying here, but it seems that operationally cutting off betting at the one deck left point in the shoe is no more operationally difficult than limiting betting after the one deck card has been hit. Both require an adjustment to the betting limits once the card has been hit, now we are just discussing what that change is going to be.

  • Jump to: