DorothyGale
DorothyGale
Joined: Nov 23, 2009
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 639
August 2nd, 2011 at 8:01:18 AM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

Double 11 against A is the correct play in a 6 deck H17 game, but most inexperienced players will deviate from that.

My bad -- thanks.
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
August 2nd, 2011 at 8:01:43 AM permalink
Quote: DorothyGale

And, for the note above, almost all players stand on hard 12 against 2 & 3. It is not common knowledge at all to hit these hands -- and many players get yelled at when they do hit them.

Either you and I play at totally different casinos or I am missing alot by being soused. Based on what I've observed I would say that the "average" player does indeed know to hit until 13 if the dealer's up card is either 2 or 3. Oh sure some people forget or add too slowly or, like me, get too soused but in general I've observed that most players will indeed go to 13 in such a situation.

I think the main contributor is going to be the tendency for players to shy away from hitting 16, even though they "know" they are supposed to do it. Intellectually knowing they should hit, but actually hitting until 17 are two different matters. I would program in an absolute Stand at 16 and see what the results are.
DorothyGale
DorothyGale
Joined: Nov 23, 2009
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 639
August 2nd, 2011 at 8:05:52 AM permalink
Quote: Tiltpoul

My guess is that casinos kind of balance out the good players (who know proper strategy) against ones who throw it to the wind, average it out, and then round up. If the casino is that astute to a good player, they could always go back and fix the numbers appropriately.

Many of us here work for casinos -- so this is not guesswork ... most casinos rely on the database software provider who gives them several standard values to use, depending on the strength of the player ... most smaller casinos leave the setting on "medium" (half way between hard and soft players), mainly because they don't know any better and are not good at evaluating player strength ... most on staff don't know basic strategy. If you're lucky and it's a good day, the Director of Table games knows basic strategy.

This is a very important question for those in marketing who base their reinvestment on accurate estimations of a player's theoretical worth. I've seen values from 1% to 3% used as the default settings for player edge ... in real $$$ terms, this leads to huge errors in marketing reinvestment.

--Ms. D.
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
Alan
Alan
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 582
August 2nd, 2011 at 8:31:56 AM permalink
Quote: FleaStiff

...snipped.

I think the main contributor is going to be the tendency for players to shy away from hitting 16, even though they "know" they are supposed to do it. Intellectually knowing they should hit, but actually hitting until 17 are two different matters. I would program in an absolute Stand at 16 and see what the results are.



I'm interested in this too. What is the value/loss to a player that stands on 16 vs. hitting a 16(like you're supposed to do)?
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
August 2nd, 2011 at 8:43:17 AM permalink
Quote: DorothyGale

I've seen values from 1% to 3% used as the default settings for player edge ... in real $$$ terms, this leads to huge errors in marketing reinvestment.


That's one of the biggest selling points for e-tables -- accurately tracking play for comp (marketing) purposes. Still, even for a smaller casino, couldn't you get close on an aggregate level simply by looking at total table performance and adjusting overall marketing spend accordingly? There would be outliers in either direction -- some players getting under-comped and some players getting +EV including comps, but overall you'd do reasonably well? The only way you could improve that aggregate approach would be to do more accurate tracking and more player segmentation, both of which require additional effort and cost. That's only worth it if you know the extra ROI is there to be had -- otherwise you're just wasting time and money. Specifically, if you're going to spend an extra 100k/year on labor and systems to recapture 100k/year in inefficient marketing spend, that's pointless. How inefficient is the marketing reinvestment that you're talking about?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
August 2nd, 2011 at 8:55:41 AM permalink
Quote: DorothyGale

I've seen values from 1% to 3% used as the default settings for player edge ... in real $$$ terms, this leads to huge errors in marketing reinvestment.

Yes, I would imagine any "default value" indicates a lack of an attempt to refine that value for a particular casino's demographics and actual experiences. Indeed, I would venture that such things as 'hands per hour' are values that were originally selected for ease of memory and ease of multiplying. I think that any software used to determine the value of a player as far as comps etc. is probably not as precisely refined as it should be mainly because no one has the courage to refine it.

I recall one fairly recent experience wherein a slot player was dropped from a certain list due to a major corporate revision memo and then the slot player called the host who tried to obtain a waiver and failed and then a new list came out of the computer and suddenly the slot player was back onto that list of eligible comps that she so coveted. If there are that many situations of 'no', 'no'...'yes'. Then something is definitely wrong with the software settings somewhere.

I've no idea how variable this is though. Consider how dealers sometimes have empty tables and sometimes are inundated with players. Its difficult to schedule games and dealers when there is such an ebb and flow to the crowds. If its that unpredictable as to number of people who will show up and what they will want to play, then its going to be unpredictable as to their styles of play as well.
Tiltpoul
Tiltpoul
Joined: May 5, 2010
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1573
August 2nd, 2011 at 9:03:07 AM permalink
Quote: DorothyGale

This is a very important question for those in marketing who base their reinvestment on accurate estimations of a player's theoretical worth. I've seen values from 1% to 3% used as the default settings for player edge ... in real $$$ terms, this leads to huge errors in marketing reinvestment.

--Ms. D.



Maybe it's just the Midwestern casinos that I mostly play at, but I find that the difference between 1 and 3% would be minimal on a lower limit player, especially at the rate the casinos return.

For example: assuming 80 hands an hour, at a $10 average min. bet, for four hours of play.
80x4x$10= 3200 wagered
a) 1%= 32 x 40% (which would be WAY generous IMO), = 12.80 returned to the player
b) 3%= 96 x 40% = 38.40 returned to the player

To an advantage player, that would be a HUGE difference, I agree. As most of the readers on this forum are interested in that, then yes there would be a possibility of huge errors in marketing reinvestment.

However, a few things crop up that lead me to believe that it wouldn't make much of a difference in the overall bottom line.
1) The players you most likely are referring to are going to GENERALLY be lower level players. Yes, there are bad $100 players, but in GENERAL, they are fewer in number.
2) Only casinos that return at a rate of 40% would notice that big of a difference. Again, the casinos I play at are lucky to return at 20% to table game players. I remember at one casino I was betting $50 a hand on DD BJ, probably had a good 6-8 hours of play, and I got a buffet and a room (that retailed for $29 a night). Unfortunately, in limited casino markets, you have few options. And with the big corporations (i.e. Caesars, MGM) returning at a lower rate, I just don't see the difference as being a big issue for the majority of their players.
3) The lower level players that would be affected are also the least likely to use the full value of comps. The casino plans on this, I know, but again, if somebody is not being rated, then theoretically that person is giving 100% to the house in terms of long-term value.

Now that's not to say that the casino couldn't be exploited for that difference. And there is some risk if the pit staff is not more attune to higher dollar players. Then I could see it being a bigger problem...
"One out of every four people are [morons]"- Kyle, South Park
DorothyGale
DorothyGale
Joined: Nov 23, 2009
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 639
August 2nd, 2011 at 9:06:17 AM permalink
Quote: Tiltpoul

Maybe it's just the Midwestern casinos that I mostly play at, but I find that the difference between 1 and 3% would be minimal on a lower limit player, especially at the rate the casinos return.

For example: assuming 80 hands an hour, at a $10 average min. bet, for four hours of play.
80x4x$10= 3200 wagered
a) 1%= 32 x 40% (which would be WAY generous IMO), = 12.80 returned to the player
b) 3%= 96 x 40% = 38.40 returned to the player

Minimal? What if your database has 4000 such players? And you were rewarding each player 20% of their theoretical win in comps. And each player played 4 hours a day, 80 hands an hour, and about 52 days per year (1x per week)?

--Ms. D.
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 184
  • Posts: 10436
August 2nd, 2011 at 9:06:57 AM permalink
I too would be interested in the fractional percentage that the stand on 16 option does. In fact, I'd like to see the fraction for all minor deviations.

If I remember correctly, there was a thread where the fraction was stated, along with the comment that it was small enough to not matter.


For what it's worth, you can count me as one of the people that does not follow perfect basic strategy.

I'll even go so far as to announce the first time I stand on 16 that I always do that - unless the dealer shows an ace.
If I remember, I will also surrender the 16 to a ten if the casino allows surrender.
I WILL hit a 12 vs 2 or 3, but will not hit a 13 vs 2.

Otherwise, I generally follow basic strategy, and have a card on me that I'll reference.

However, here's a biggie:

I prefer tables where the dealer hits a soft 17.

This logic is because I stand on a weak hand with a dealer showing a 6, hoping the dealer to bust after taking a card. I EXPECT the dealer to at least take a card!

This feeling was cemented in my mind when I was at Mohegan Sun a few years back. Their cards have tribal leaders depicted for the K, Q, J. (In fact, if you buy a deck, there is an insert that tell you the names of these people.). Thier faces appear with a blue background. The Ad, Ac, and Ah look normal. I.E. A small pip with a white background. However the As is actually a large arrowhead with a blue background. I stood on a weak hand and then momentarily cheered when I saw the dealer turn the card showing the blue background, knowing it was the best possible scenario for her to draw a bust card. Then I realized it was the arrowhead, and she stood on 17!
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ 覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧 Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
DorothyGale
DorothyGale
Joined: Nov 23, 2009
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 639
August 2nd, 2011 at 9:08:20 AM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

I too would be interested in the fractional percentage that the stand on 16 option does. In fact, I'd like to see the fraction for all minor deviations.

That is a bit of research, isn't it? I'm certainly not up to it.

--Ms. D.
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"

  • Jump to: