Thread Rating:

Poll

31 votes (39.74%)
47 votes (60.25%)

78 members have voted

Mewtwo
Mewtwo
Joined: Jul 28, 2010
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 7
July 30th, 2010 at 6:30:03 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

But it does happen in other businesses. Several years ago my wife and I would eat at Old Country Buffet several times a week. At that time, they had a regular customer who was this huge fat guy who would come in at 2pm, eat and eat, linger over his dessert for a couple hours while he read a book, then get hungry and go thru the line again and again. He was eating what 4-5 regular customers ate. They finally barred him from the building. The manager told me they can do that as long as the customer was abusing the intent of what the restaurant was offering.

Casinos are enertainment venues, they aren't there for a player to make a living. Its perfectly within their rights to barr anyone trying to do that and succeeding.



It does happen in other businesses - and it shouldn't happen there either.

Was the person that was barred being abusive? If not, was he costing the business a significant amount of money - specifically, was he (and others like him) enough to send the business into the red? If not, then they shouldn't have been able to lay down the banhammer on him.


Quote: ahiromu

How can so many people here have the perception that they have the right to play blackjack? The casinos set their rules in order to maximize profits... something that we can all agree on. When setting these rules they assume, for the most part, that people aren't counting and playing the game THAT THEY FUCKING OFFER in a way that THEY FUCKING WANT IT TO BE PLAYED. When someone is counting and making this game with a reasonable negative EV into a positive EV game, this throws off their entire business model which equates into lower profits for their employees (bonuses) and shareholders... the only two people that they are accountable to. I was wrong before, this has absolutely nothing in common with kicking out blacks or native americans (racial reasons) which has happened in our past. If you can count and get away with it, more power to you. If you get caught, then hopefully you understood the risks before.



If a casino has set its minimums and maximums at specific levels, then they should have to take a bet anywhere within that range without having issue with it. Don't want people spreading 1 to 50? Don't offer a game with a 1:50 spread.

My argument here with what you said is the same as the other one I'm replying to here - the casino should only be allowed to intervene when the group of counters at their casino is pushing their blackjack figures from the black into the red for them or comes damn close to doing so. If a casino takes in 10 million dollars over a period of time on their blackjack games and loses 250,000 to counters over that same period of time, for a net of 9.75 million dollars, then I honestly don't feel they should be allowed to do anything to stop them or change the rules of the game. Now if the casino was losing 90% of its profits or more because of counters, then I could understand them having to take some kind of action.

One other thing bugs me - "If you can count and get away with it". Counting shouldn't be something that's "gotten away with". I'm amazed at the perception of card counting that has been allowed to propogate within groups of gamblers and non-gamblers alike.

For the record, I don't actually count cards, but I've been the one to have arcade games changed detrimentally solely because of my play, and I'm a bit bitter about them being able to do that - that angry feeling I have from being punished for using your brain extends to those who count as well.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3412
July 30th, 2010 at 7:17:32 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

The equivalency in craps would be lower odds in line bets, not more prop bets.

At that most casinos in the Strip and Downtown offer 3,4,5 odds, unless they offer more like 10x at the Stratosphere, 20x at MSS, 100x at Casino Royale (and otehr off strip joins like Rampart). The only exception I know of is the Fremont which only offer 2x odds.



The difference between 6=5 and 3=2 blackjack is a lot bigger than the thousandths and ten=thousandths of one percent difference in house advantage for, say, 5X odds and 20X odds.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3412
July 30th, 2010 at 7:21:32 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Such a pronouncement might be arguabel if we were talking about one casino or one corporation. Since most casinos offer 6:5 21 rather than 3:2 BJ, there must be some rational motive for doing so.



The rationale is similar to the one that keeps many dealers standing on their feet for hours at empty tables. Some MBA`s have clearly told the operators that it is more profitable to stand around and wait for the higher rollers. It would be most interesting to see whether anyone else has other ideas about why the casinos act as they do.
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5988
July 31st, 2010 at 7:23:07 AM permalink
I've gone back and forth on this one.

All of the Vegas casinos could go the same way that they did for three card poker, for example, changing the odds from 1-4-6 to 1-3-6 to extract more money from the players.

What is mean is that there are several variations to deal and play blackjack. Casinos could all switch to CSMs all of the time and deal more hands per hour and vary the rules around to create competition.

Dealing from a 8 deck, 6 deck, 4 deck, 2 deck, or 1 deck shoe just invites the counters and those with suspicions about CSMs rigging the game. Casinos make alot of money from people who believe they can beat the game by playing the shoe games and using a rudimentary count. Casinos only lose money from those who can truly count and can play a disciplined, advantage game without getting caught.

Therefore, I think it's wrong to ban the advantage players because the only reason that shoe dealt games remain for the casinos is to bring in those who think they can beat the game because it is shoe dealt. I don't think it's fair, inotherwords, to not ban unsuccessful counters but to ban successful ones.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
JerryLogan
JerryLogan
Joined: Jun 28, 2010
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 1344
July 31st, 2010 at 12:29:54 PM permalink
I've been reading all the back & forth about the banning of AP BJ players and it got me to thinking. I kind of agree with casinos' rights to do that because they can do anything they want with players. But as a vp player it makes me think even further. We have great promotions all the time, whether they be locally advertised for the public or in mailers to us out-of-towners. We also have a good portion of at least self-proclaimed vp advantage players, many of whom are well known in LV and elsewhere. Yet THEY are never blocked from playing, banned, or on some blacklist, and you tend to think that casinos have these promos mostly to get them IN for their heavy play.

I see a disconnect between how casinos view BJ AP's and vp AP's. Any ideas why?
7craps
7craps
Joined: Jan 23, 2010
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 1778
July 31st, 2010 at 12:55:25 PM permalink
Quote: JerryLogan

But as a vp player it makes me think even further. We have great promotions all the time, whether they be locally advertised for the public or in mailers to us out-of-towners. We also have a good portion of at least self-proclaimed vp advantage players, many of whom are well known in LV and elsewhere.

Yet THEY are never blocked from playing, banned, or on some blacklist, and you tend to think that casinos have these promos mostly to get them IN for their heavy play.


I personally know a vp high roller who can not use players cards at some casinos and is actually banned from playing vp at a strip casino. I will not name names unless he wants to post here.

Bob Dancer has a current article about these happenings at his website HERE
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
7craps
7craps
Joined: Jan 23, 2010
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 1778
July 31st, 2010 at 12:58:17 PM permalink
Quote: JerryLogan

I see a disconnect between how casinos view BJ AP's and vp AP's. Any ideas why?



great point. should start a new thread.
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
JerryLogan
JerryLogan
Joined: Jun 28, 2010
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 1344
July 31st, 2010 at 7:54:18 PM permalink
Quote: 7craps

I personally know a vp high roller who can not use players cards at some casinos and is actually banned from playing vp at a strip casino. I will not name names unless he wants to post here.

Bob Dancer has a current article about these happenings at his website HERE



All the more interesting. Two points to make: First, I'd love to know who it is that's banned as a AP. I say that because, although I used to be on the Dancer bandwagon with expert play and all that, I was doing nothing but losing and have since switched over to the Rob Singer line of thinking (which is a combo of AP & his own creation). He openly wrote that he's banned from playing vp at Planet Hollywood because he won a ton there in 2008, and he was banned from Harrahs and I believe Bellagio in the early 2000's for the same reason prior to it being sold once or twice.

I wish there were a way to verify what Dancer says in that interesting article, because in Singer's video e-newsletter which I got yesterday he mentions how he's caught Dancer making things up for that column in the past. As I've said, I play a lot in LV and I've met and know a LOT of AP's, and I've never heard any of them say they've been banned from playing anywhere or unable to use a slot club card (that's a new one).

We VP players have a bigger "game" to play than BJ players if we want to understand the ins & outs, that's for sure.
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 421
  • Posts: 23046
August 2nd, 2010 at 2:27:12 AM permalink
Quote: Mewtwo

It does happen in other businesses - and it shouldn't happen there either.

Was the person that was barred being abusive? If not, was he costing the business a significant amount of money - specifically, was he (and others like him) enough to send the business into the red? If not, then they shouldn't have been able to lay down the banhammer on him..



The guy was huge, at least 450 pounds. He thought paying 9 bucks meant he could stay there for 6 hours and eat lunch, read a book while they put out the dinner food, and eat his weight in chicken and roast beef all over again. Dang straight they should have bounced him, thats not what the buffet was there for. They also throw out people who waste food. Its all you can eat, not all you can fill your plate with and throw away.

And casinos don't say 'come here and make a living'. They say 'come here and try your luck'. If you don't like that, go someplace else for entertainment.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
Lhornbk70
Lhornbk70
Joined: Jul 26, 2010
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 40
August 3rd, 2010 at 6:22:40 PM permalink
I am against banning card counters (advantage players) for a couple of reasons. First, I have noticed that some have defended the practice because they say the casinos should be able to set the rules and ban players who don't follow the rules. But, I have never seen any casino that actually had a sign posted saying that card counting is against the rules. Or that varying bets is against the rules. If they want to ban players for counting, they should make it explicit that their rules don't allow that. Another option would be to simply establish table limits with smaller variances ($5-$50 instead of $5-$500, for example, and $25-$500 instead of $25-$1000) which would make it much more difficult for counters to vary their bets as much as they like. Casinos are perfectly happy for players to start increasing their bets if they've been losing to try to win their money back, so if they're going to allow that they can't really object to people varying bets for other reasons. Either allow variance, or don't allow variance.

But, I have a much larger objection that no one has talked about yet. Very simply, unless the player admits doing so, or is caught with some sort of device to help them (which would be an entirely different matter anyway), it is impossible for the casino to PROVE that he was counting. And it seems to me that if they can't prove it, they can't ban someone for it. I realize that they would have a lot of circumstantial evidence (huge wins, huge variances in bets, always guessing right when they split or double down and so on, etc.), but that is not proof. The player could easily claim luck, and it would be virtually impossible for the casino to prove otherwise. So unless the casino is going to ban everyone who manages to win consistently and take large amounts of money from them on a regular basis, they should not be allowed to ban only those who might be counting. (And yes, I know it's highly unlikely that anyone would win on a consistent basis by pure luck, or just playing basic strategy. But it's not impossible, and we've probably all heard of people who had incredible strings of luck who won thousands or even tens of thousands at once without counting cards.)

I will also say that I think it would be okay for a casino to kick out a team of counters, but only if they had substantial video evidence of signals being passed between players, and could show a correlation between the signals and how the players bet and whether they won or lost.

  • Jump to: