Question about card counting cameras

Hi,

I have a question. I read somewhere that some casinos implemented card reading technology in their cameras that could count the cards and alert the floor staff when the count was too far in the players favor and instruct the dealers to shuffle. They supposedly removed this because it was bad for business when the players caught on. My question is, mathematically, in the long run, does this really give the casino an edge?For example, suppose one billion hands at $10 a hand were played from a six deck shoe that was shuffled when 52 cards remained. Assuming basic strategy was adhered to, obviously the expected loss would be 1,000,000,000xHEx10. But suppose instead that every time the true count of the shoe reached some arbitrary value in the players favor, the cards were shuffled. (If that threshold was never reached in any one shoe, then the shoe was shuffled was shuffled at 52 cards remaining). What would be the expected iloss be in this case?

James

Im taking a punt here, but I guess unless the table is full of counters (and I mean GOOD counters) this would actually lose the casino more money. The count would have to be astronomical for it to be worth the effort.

The tables were known as Mind(something) tables. MindReader, perhaps. This was decades ago and I believe the commission held hearings at some point on it.

Frankly if the casino really cared about card counting all they would have to do is close down those low limit tables.

Casinos focus on bet variations as a tip off to counters. They often count the deck themselves and confirm that the bet variations are indeed in synchrony with the count and then they engage is a pattern of escalating intimidation until the card counters leave or get firmly backed off from Blackjack.

None of this changes the fact that the much feared and much looked at card-counters are no more a threat to the casino than the guy who packs away a dozen of those seventy five cent hot dogs or who stuffs himself at a buffet or the like. Casinos may not particularly care for the player who takes a hotel room there and steals extra coffee and extra shower caps from the maid's cart, but they don't really see it as a much of a factor on the bottom line.

If one person at a table is card counting and four are simply playing blackjack, the shuffle will affect all and perhaps annoy some but it will be aimed at the card counter. That is not much of a cost to the casino.

Quote: james121515

1,000,000,000xHEx10. But suppose instead that every time the true count of the shoe reached some arbitrary value in the players favor, the cards were shuffled. (If that threshold was never reached in any one shoe, then the shoe was shuffled was shuffled at 52 cards remaining). What would be the expected iloss be in this case?

The expected loss would obviously be some other arbitrary value :)

James,
Such a thing is possible: all of the facial recognition type software and fingerprint matching software (image pattern recognition) would make it easy for surveillance to read and count down decks and betting amounts. And it would not be bad for business because players have absolutely zero knowledge, input or say as to how surveillance crews enforce game protection at any moment in time. Also know that casinos would not let a table game dump money for more than a very short period of time without the game and its events being put under a microscope and changes being made, but likewise, casinos simply don't re-shuffle until the cut card is hit, positive count or not: they just flag the counters through the positive counts and flat-bet them or send them to the crap table or door. Theoreticals of 1B hands of "such-and-such" scenario are simply that: theoreticals. Somebody here might give the math answer, but you won't see premature reshuffling of a shoe in a casino without the casino being blacklisted on every BJ forum.

About seven years ago Bally's introduced The "MindPlay-21" Control Systems for Blackjack tables, which counted down decks from the shoe while monitoring betting amounts via chip readers on the betting spots. Counters were immediately spotted on any bet raise on a positive count - BOOM! I think it was tried at the Hilton, and went over like a Plutonium Ballon, - PLOP! Bettors who simply "doubled up to catch up" on a positve count were also nailed inncocently.

By 2006, MindPlay LLC went bankrupt due to everyone avoiding that system like the plague, without any market penetration of that "counter-busting" system occurring. The was a Jubilee of Joy and Celebration on every Blackjack Forum....

Surveillance crews alredy monitor BJ counters as part of their jobs, so casinos using technology to assist Game Protection (as casino operators refer to it) or Game Bastardization (as counters prefer to call it) is happening. If it can be SEEN in an unobtrusive way as a a "house threat" (which is surveillance's job), then it gets addressed.

Most floormen track heavy action and counting threats if they can; they certainly track heavy action alone. My game design business partner who used to floor at the Fiesta Henderson spotted counters pretty readily, and he was proud of it. I was always suspicious whenever off-duty floormen jump betted while playing BJ in casinos themselves. I deal to a lot of dealers and floormen on Pai Gow and Dice, never a problem.

Counters aren't much of a problem for casinos now. The stories of "Bringing down the house" and "21" are history. And neither will - or should - casinos themselves count. But tracking players - yes.

The more hands the casino deals the more profit it makes. Anything that slows down the dealing, including premature shuffling, reduces the number of hands dealt costing the casino money. Sweating a counter who may or may not win is counter productive.

The new generation of casino managers and surveillance personnel are starting to realize this and seem to understand that counters can easily be dealt with on an individual basis.

And surely someone will devise a bj game that confirms to BJ basically as it is played today,
yet increases the house edge as bets are increased. 2 percent should be all that required to
nullify any counter's edge. Increased incrementally so non-counters are only slightly affected.
But instead of being able to beat the game, counters spreads would have to go far beyond
the 4 to 1 needed today. Spreads of 20 to 1 should wake up even the sleepiest pit boss

MindPlay was discontinued because of a host of technical problems as well as perception problems. The casinos always claimed that they never used these machines to order premature shuffling of the deck when the count was high. They only used them to catch card counters or cheats.

The shufflemaster product does count the order of the cards coming out of the deck. I believe that they use this product combined with cameras to look for various kinds of cheats. If two players block the cameras and switch cards, the shufflemaster product will confirm that the cards are not being played in the order they were dealt.

If they are keeping track of the count, then the question becomes what to do with this information? If you convey it to the dealer, he can silently tip off a partner who is playing to increase his bet. Perhaps they can relay the count to surveillance so they can verify if someone is correctly card counting. In any case they do not routinely shuffle early.

I think that such a system will be replaced with one using RFID transmitters in the chips. While the primary use would be for comps, they could also easily follow unusual betting patterns. If a team is working you would notice if someone keeps showing up at the table making large bets if he is being signaled by a teammate.

But, as someone said earlier, the biggest defense is simply to make enough subtle rule changes so that a card counter would have a very difficult time overcoming them and remaining covert. Then you only need to monitor the select number of tables with a low house edge and a high minimum.

Regardless of whether or not the table is full of counters or non counters, OF COURSE it is in the casino's best interest to take any game which has turned into a player advantage situation and return it to a house advantage situation. Depending on the exact rules and number of decks, BJ has a small house edge against basic startegy, but that calculation presupposes a random count. If only negative count situations were allowed to be played then the overall house edge would obviously be higher. Remember, bad players also tend to benefit from a positive count, too.

The higher house edge on average has to be balanced against the loss of hands played due to shuffling (and possibly annoying players, for more lost hands).

It would be interesting to see a simulation or formula that determined the actual money earned per hour vs the count threshold. I could see it being a concave curve, with some optimal count threshold for shuffling. Not too often, but shuffle up the very favorable player decks.

Quote: SOOPOO

Remember, bad players also tend to benefit from a positive count, too.

Yeah, but bad players will more readily give it back.

And bad players that do manage to take it home, are more likely to tell better stories to other, presumably, bad players, encouraging more casino visits.

I don't think any casino is going to re-shuffle because of a high count. Not when they can do things like restrict doubling and lower the payout of blackjack.

With the average blackjack table in Nevada now paying 7 times the average penny machine, and 10 times the average multi-denomination machine, I think the days of blackjack dominating table games are over.

The bar top machines that pay 1:1 for blackjack, and the Shufflemaster machines with the video animated dealers will probably be replaced. I think that someday it will be banks of machines and a live dealertainer walking between them serving drinks and talking to the customers about the game.

Quote: pacomartin

I don't think any casino is going to re-shuffle because of a high count. Not when they can do things like restrict doubling and lower the payout of blackjack.

With the average blackjack table in Nevada now paying 7 times the average penny machine, and 10 times the average multi-denomination machine, I think the days of blackjack dominating table games are over.

The bar top machines that pay 1:1 for blackjack, and the Shufflemaster machines with the video animated dealers will probably be replaced. I think that someday it will be banks of machines and a live dealertainer walking between them serving drinks and talking to the customers about the game.

Blackjack dealers, ask not for who the bell tolls, it tolls for thee. SIGH

maybe I am missing something, but when the deck is favorable for players, it is favorable for all players at that table. So if the casino can accurately define a time when the players have an advantage, time 'wasted' is not relevant. The casino will be losing money, not making money, during the time it could be breaking even by shuffling. Unless of course you have REALLY bad players at the table.

Shuffling isn't really considered "time wasted," as much as just a required part of dealing a game: there'd be no game without it on hand-shuffled games. Just Get it done, then onto the next deal, as a normal part of the process. Certainly, casinos want dealers to shuffle quickly and thoroughly, and they do, as fewer players like playing a CSM machine (which is a continuous shuffler machine table).

Please note that for casino to commit preferential shuffling is a major no-no, same as players who commit "Wonging," or jumping onto a 6-deck shoe mid-deal when it gets hot, as far as the house is concerned. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Indeed, the occurence of a "hot shoe" is normal, and gives the casino the very opportunity to let advantage players reveal themselves, and to know "who is who," - and this game protection is part of the job of every floorman and surveillance worker. Casinos aren't afraid of counters, and have no desire to backroom these advantage players, as in the bad old days of the mob-run Las Vegas of 40 years ago. Advantage players simply get warned, and are then asked to play dice or Pai Gow poker. There's nothing for the casino pit to get hostile or unfriendly about, just tell the player he's too good for us, and to try some craps or another game.

The foolish casino sweats the money and becomes a hostile nit-picking "sweat house," and a wise casino doesn't sweat the money or get hostile to players: players can sometimes get very upset and bossy and officious when rejected for play. We in the crew just have to swallow it and say, "I'm terribly sorry, Sir, - just play some dice or Pai Gow, or see a movie or something...we run the games, not you, and we have to back you off."

Being polite and patient about such things, and letting it slide within reason is much better than screaming and panicking and hounding the table, and calling for the National Guard whenever some player jumps his bet to five times his shoe starting bet. I once had a Shift Manager complain to me about the player "running the table" on me when he FLAT BET and won $500 because of a lucky streak. I pointed out that "He was not counting, he was flat betting and got lucky. Every bet was exactly the same size - $50. Besides, as a dealer I cannot make the call to back off any player, that'll be out of bounds for a dealer. If surveillance and your floormen didn't complain his winning some money, who am I to berate our customers for winning. And I didn't alert the floor because he was flat betting, not counting, AND using his player's card. You can call him on the phone."

It is much better for a casino to get a ton more "win, action, and drop" business with a nicer game at a reduced hold percentage, than to kill of table traffic to a mere trickle with a higher (and oppressive) game and hold percentage. A $500,000 BJ drop at a 10% hold percentage is $50,000, - but a $100,000 BJ drop at 20% hold percentage is $20,000. A wise casino takes $50K over $20K from more and fairer business any day of the week. You look at the real dollar cash income for the house, not the hold percentage of table x.

Quote: Paigowdan

Pease note that for casino to commit preferential shuffling is a major no-no.

Indeed, the occurence of a "hot shoe" is normal, and gives the casino the very opportunity to let advantage players reveal themselves, and to know "who is who," - and this game protection is part of the job of every floorman and surveillance worker.

Advantage players simply get warned, and are then asked to play dice or Pai Gow poker. There's nothing for the casino pit to get hostile or unfriendly about, just tell the player he's too good for us, and to try some craps or another game.

In calendar year 2010 Nevada revenue was $975 million from blackjack.
In calendar year 1995 Nevada revenue was $963 million from blackjack.

A casino is not going to further alienate the public by shuffling hot shoes. The rule changes have eliminated the real danger from card counters, and they are simply "backed off", sometimes politely, sometimes not so politely. Nobody is run out of the casino, and certainly no-one is roughed up in a back room.

While still very important, blackjack is not a growth game.

Baccarat went from $623 million in 1995 to $1198 million in 2010. There was a lot of hope that mini-baccarat would popularize the game, but it went from $65 million in 1995 to $75 million in 2010.

Blackjack is still under $300 million a year in Macau where baccarat exceeds blackjack by a ratio of 75:1 last year.

Quote: dwheatley

The higher house edge on average has to be balanced against the loss of hands played due to shuffling (and possibly annoying players, for more lost hands).

Even the card counters will lose sometime and they generally eat in the casino and may often employ a beard who gambles slightly. If a man is sitting there at a BlackJack table counting cards while his wife is plugging quarters into a slot machine, the casino can still be ahead of the game right there.

Counting cards is a diversion for the players and a nuisance for the casinos.

Quote: james121515

Hi,

I have a question. I read somewhere that some casinos implemented card reading technology in their cameras that could count the cards and alert the floor staff when the count was too far in the players favor and instruct the dealers to shuffle. They supposedly removed this because it was bad for business when the players caught on.

Some posters here seem to say the cameras had the technology, but why use the eye? The shoe is a better place for it. Here in PA they just put in a BJ Table with electronic chip play. Buy-in and cash-out the same, but hand by hand no cheques change hands. The cards are still dealt from a shoe. Your hand value shows on a screen as well as on the cards in front of you. Now, if it can read the cards there is no reason to think a running count is not being taken. And this is far more accurate than the eye trying to catch the cards.

As to the second point. I don't buy "players caught on." If players line up to play 6:5 synthetic-BJ I find it hard to believe a counting-shoe will drive them away.

BTW: Other than trying to play the first hand at a table I saw little reason to play these tables. I like the feel and sound of the cheques.

Quote: AZDuffman

Some posters here seem to say the cameras had the technology, but why use the eye? The shoe is a better place for it.
BTW: Other than trying to play the first hand at a table I saw little reason to play these tables. I like the feel and sound of the cheques.

Which casino in PA? Does the shoe look like this Shufflemaster product?


Obviously if the shoe is reading the cards, and all betting is done electronically, you can easily tell if someone is counting cards. But the next question is why use a show at all? Why not use a RNG and "deal" the cards electronically. That way you can "shuffle" every time you deal.

But you answered your own question. People like the real cards and the real chips. This attempt was a way to keep the real cards in play, and give up the chips. Most people assume that widespread use of RFID will be part of play in the future.

But you answered your own question. People like the real cards and the real chips. This attempt was a way to keep the real cards in play, and give up the chips. Most people assume that widespread use of RFID will be part of play in the future.

Plus after a while it is just chips, not money. Sam Farha and Chris Moneymaker battle would have wound up very different if
each had cash in the game. Easy to call a big bet when your only investment was a $40 satellite. At the time Chris was hoping for the $200 third place money in the satelite.

Quote: pacomartin

Which casino in PA? Does the shoe look like this Shufflemaster product?

Obviously if the shoe is reading the cards, and all betting is done electronically, you can easily tell if someone is counting cards. But the next question is why use a show at all? Why not use a RNG and "deal" the cards electronically. That way you can "shuffle" every time you deal.

But you answered your own question. People like the real cards and the real chips. This attempt was a way to keep the real cards in play, and give up the chips. Most people assume that widespread use of RFID will be part of play in the future.

Rivers in Pittsburgh installed them special for WoV East. OK, made that part up but that is the same day they opened them up. I forget exactly the loopk but do remember it was a Shufflemaster(R) Product so I assume that is the one.

I do give Rivers credit for being about the only casino in the known universe ripping out slots and adding table games.

Ad The Isle in Blackhawk to that list. Slots were dead on second floor and being converted to 14 poker tables, My bet is less than action than slots though. Too many poker tables in Blackhawk already