Face
Administrator
Face
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
March 12th, 2011 at 12:21:53 AM permalink
For those of you who participated in my shuffle question pertaining to my places' new shuffle and the possible AP this prevents vs. the cost of a lengthy shuffle, I have finished my audit using actual live wagers and have come to an amount. Since I thought some may be interested in how it panned out and because most here like numbers / bits of trivia, I thought I'd share.

The old shuffle took an average of 1:58 to complete, whereas this new one took an average of 3:56. It's just two minutes, what's the big deal? Right?

On a sad table, where 4 players averaged just a little over $10 per wager, it came to losing almost $22.00 p/hr. A full table of $60 average bettors resulted in a loss of over $61.00 per hour, and a sample taken of one of our high rollers showed a loss of a staggering $6,100 p/hr! I knew it was bad, but the real life numbers almost knocked me from my chair.

I spent a good 3 days reviewing footage and spreadsheets to estimate patron volume; different conditions such as high volume 'event' days (shows/concerts), average days, slow days, and removed Christmas week entirely as we might as well be closed due to the low volume. In each and every scenario, I used the lowest possible estimate just to get the 'best case scenario', as in we're losing AT LEAST this much. The numbers blew me away.

I had opined that I felt like we failed to get autoshufflers for fear of spending tens of thousands in rental and maintenance, all the while tossing hundreds of thousands out the door on the shuffle. I may have been a little off.

Our high roller loss alone, taken from the actual number of visits in one calendar year, and using '2hrs' as the length of visit (2hrs was THE LEAST any of them spent) resulted in a loss of over ONE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS p/year! Once I figured in all the aforementioned volume conditions, again using the absolute lowest estimates available, the total estimated loss for our entire operation was $9.1 MILLION DOLLARS P/YEAR.

NINE. POINT. ONE. MILLION. DOLLARS. PER. YEAR.

It's just two minutes, right?
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
March 12th, 2011 at 1:41:49 AM permalink
Quote: Face

NINE. POINT. ONE. MILLION. DOLLARS. PER. YEAR.
It's just two minutes, right?


Wow. Its good to see numbers ... though it probably should have been in the same thread.
One thing that seems to make it even worse: you based the nine million dollars on the first two hours a player is at the table. I would think that as fatigue and alcohol consumption start to show their effects, the exasperation with lengthy shuffles mounts and players become more prone to leave the table and go elsewhere. That would add to the nine million dollars.

And its all due to this imagined but utterly non-existent player who is going to do something nasty to them if they don't spend that two minutes extra to shuffle up.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 110
  • Posts: 7804
March 12th, 2011 at 4:27:35 AM permalink
I am NOT saying that wasting time by extra shuffling doesn't cost your casino lots of money, but I will guess that you did not factor in the fact that some patrons will lose the exact same amount of money, just in a slightly longer time frame. I may lose my $300 stake in 4 hours instead of 3.5 hours, and unless there is another gambler waiting for my seat for that .5 hour I will already be gone the cost will be less than you calculate. Additionally, the player who now 'lasts longer' at your casino may preferentially 'like' it better than the casino next door where he always seems to lose quicker, thus having him chose your casino instead. It would almost be the same if I go to a real 3:2 BJ table and count how much money my casino is 'losing' by not just paying 6:5. Of course there will be some savings in personnel, fewer drinks, etc.. by getting the player out in 3.5 hours instead of 4, but unless there are new gamblers waiting to lose money at your casino that presently are unable to find a seat, your real numbers will be far lower than you calculate.
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
March 12th, 2011 at 6:02:12 AM permalink
Yes. Good Point.
Its not every player that is going to get up and leave the casino in a huff because he has suddenly reached the unknown magic "tipping point" wherein these cumulative two-minute pauses have added up to a decision-point of leaving.

Its not as if the casino decided to close its doors for part of the 24 hours and deny ALL their customers the ability to gamble. Its more like closing its doors to the select few who react to the unreasonable delay.

Its more a potential loss of nine million dollars, but then of course there is no need for a casino to expose itself to such a huge potential loss in the face of only imagined enemies who are memorizing shuffles or something.
buzzpaff
buzzpaff
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 5328
March 12th, 2011 at 12:40:32 PM permalink
I have long suspected that some of the least knowledgeable people in the casino industry worked in the blackjack pits. Of course I am biased. Went to dealers school in Colorado while on leave from AT&T. ( long story) Was in 90-91 when it was an era of " open the doors and let the suckers in". And if you had Las Vegas on your resume you could get a management job in Colorado. I shilled at auditions at BJ school, worked as dealer, socialized with dealers and pit bosses from other casinos, etc. I gave up arguing about basic strategy, counters, and piss poor management in general. I am a former shop steward and VP of CWA local.

People from Vegas put in strict work rules despite no union LOL Talking about 3 table pits with pit bosses and a table games manager. I watched several small casino's close while I was a BJ dealer, cashier, slot tech and world's ugliest barmaid after the girl went home. I have seen similar bad management at AT&T. The last fiasco was was called Process Manager's. Fresh kids right out of business school summoning managers to New Jersey. Where they would be told they had been doing things all wrong. I sometimes accompanied my second line manager. If the NEW process was something we had tried in the past, it would only take 2 days to talk them out of it. Something really new might take 3-5 days. You never want it to get to a trial state, because all trials in AT&T are successful. John Nachio is now in prison for doing at Qwest what he did at AT&T

Not that good management is not worth every dollar they earn. Hilton was being paid to manage a casino in Blackhawk and it was a disaster. Opened later than expected and then had to closed early some night because not enough money to pay if big jackpots were hit. 2 years later Ameristar bought it, added 4 star hotel, and now has 28% of Blackhawk market. Young lady who managed it during change-over actually started as clerk in promotions at Ameristar.

I sure as hell would not sit there for 4 minutes between shoes. Must really be great for morale. Think anybody is tipping while dealer shuffles. As for house edge, hell, what about the drop? Any chance of using old shuffle one weekend and new shuffle the next??? Or has high management enlightened you yes with their superior knowledge about your field of expertese ??
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
March 12th, 2011 at 2:41:55 PM permalink
>I sure as hell would not sit there for 4 minutes between shoes.
Don't little old ladies play Bingo every other hour?
>Any chance of using old shuffle one weekend and new shuffle the next?
That would only work if people would yell, "stop screwing around with the cards and deal them" and then get up in a huff and leave.
In reality, a four minute wait would cause people to not be back the next weekend. Therefore you would have less money on the day that you had the sensible shuffle procedures.
Face
Administrator
Face
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
March 12th, 2011 at 4:05:13 PM permalink
Quote: FleaStiff

Wow. Its good to see numbers ... though it probably should have been in the same thread.
One thing that seems to make it even worse: you based the nine million dollars on the first two hours a player is at the table. I would think that as fatigue and alcohol consumption start to show their effects, the exasperation with lengthy shuffles mounts and players become more prone to leave the table and go elsewhere. That would add to the nine million dollars.



Quote: SOOPOO

I am NOT saying that wasting time by extra shuffling doesn't cost your casino lots of money, but I will guess that you did not factor in the fact that some patrons will lose the exact same amount of money, just in a slightly longer time frame. I may lose my $300 stake in 4 hours instead of 3.5 hours, and unless there is another gambler waiting for my seat for that .5 hour I will already be gone the cost will be less than you calculate. Additionally, the player who now 'lasts longer' at your casino may preferentially 'like' it better than the casino next door where he always seems to lose quicker, thus having him chose your casino instead. It would almost be the same if I go to a real 3:2 BJ table and count how much money my casino is 'losing' by not just paying 6:5. Of course there will be some savings in personnel, fewer drinks, etc.. by getting the player out in 3.5 hours instead of 4, but unless there are new gamblers waiting to lose money at your casino that presently are unable to find a seat, your real numbers will be far lower than you calculate.



I understand that $9.1 mil isn't accurate based on not only the thoughts stated above, but for a multitude of other random, non-measurable events. Color up's, table fills, drink spills, other gameplay halting events, it goes on and on. However, to believe one could estimate such a number of these events, or to actually view the amount of footage to come to a proper estimate, would be mind melting. All I could do is work with what I had, that being actual numbers taken from actual tables, calculate an estimated amount, and use the lowest possible estimate gathered from the real-life wagers.

If Fleastiff happens to be right, and you could somehow figure in the actual amount rather than my lowest estimate example, the cost may very well be greater than $9 mil. Due to how severely low my estimates were, I'd put the actual at more like $15-$18 mil.

On the other hand, if conditions mirror more of SOOPOO's opinion, and included other such info I hadn't thought of, it could very likely be a lot less.

However, regardless of any unmeasurable incidents, I would highly doubt that given the information that anything could erase a $9.1 mil loss. Even if it was just $1 mil, or a couple hundred thousand as I supposed in the earlier thread, is that worth chasing ghosts? This guy thinks not.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.

  • Jump to: