My casino is trying to make more money by making people bet less. Please help.
STOP!
Upper management is going to do what they are going to do. All the math explanations in the world are not going to make them see reality. Just DUAD, move on if you find a better place, and go with the flow. It is not just the casino industry that is run by such people.
That's all I can say.
The casino is exercising good business sense to disallow that play. If they recently raised the table minimum from $10 to $20, I'm assuming it's because the table is overly busy, and they want to weed out the lower-roller players.
So if the players bet 1000 on banker and 1010 on player you wouldn't let them play because they are only risking $10.Quote: DeucekiesThere is no "Double-zero" that can make both the Player and Banker bets lose. A tie pushes both bets, and you said a Banker-Six gets paid half-time. Either way, the most the player ever stands to lose or win in your situation is below the table minimum.
The casino is exercising good business sense to disallow that play. If they recently raised the table minimum from $10 to $20, I'm assuming it's because the table is overly busy, and they want to weed out the lower-roller players.
Quote: DeucekiesThere is no "Double-zero" that can make both the Player and Banker bets lose. A tie pushes both bets, and you said a Banker-Six gets paid half-time. Either way, the most the player ever stands to lose or win in your situation is below the table minimum.
The casino is exercising good business sense to disallow that play. If they recently raised the table minimum from $10 to $20, I'm assuming it's because the table is overly busy, and they want to weed out the lower-roller players.
You're an idiot if you really don't understand how the house edge works in this situation.
In fact, if I were running the casino I would welcome this play. They're paying me my house edge for $50 in action for only $10 worth of variance.
Quote: HunterhillSo if the players bet 1000 on banker and 1010 on player you wouldn't let them play because they are only risking $10.
Let's see what we have here.
B 1000 win - Win 950
P 1010 lose - Lose 1010 = Lose $60
B 1000 lose - Lose 1000
P 1010 win - Win 1010 = Win $10
The house has an opportunity to win at least the table minimum in that situation. At that level, you allow the play, provided you find someone foolhardy enough to lay 6:1 odds on a hand of Baccarat.
The OP mentioned $30 and $20. Let's look at that.
B 30 win - Win 28.50
P 20 lose - Lose 20.00 = Win $8.50
B 30 lose - Lose 30
P 20 win - Win 20 = Lose $10
B 20 win - Win 19
P 30 lose - Lose 30 = Lose $11
B 20 lose - Lose 20
P 30 win - Win 30 = Win $10
In these situations, the house does not have a chance to win at least the table min, and the odds are more even than in the extreme case you mentioned above.
Yes, the house gets its commission with less variance, which is a good thing. The key here in my mind is still that the table min was recently increased. To me, that means that the table is busy, and seats are at a premium. As a casino, you don't want min-bet players, and in this case less-than-min-bet players, locking up seats while potentially higher-rollers have to stand back and wait for a seat to open up. If it's dead, maybe allow it, but at least on a busy night, I stand by not allowing the play on the $20 table mentioned in the OP.
Quote: DeucekiesLet's see what we have here.
B 1000 win - Win 950
P 1010 lose - Lose 1010 = Lose $60
B 1000 lose - Lose 1000
P 1010 win - Win 1010 = Win $10
The house has an opportunity to win at least the table minimum in that situation. At that level, you allow the play, provided you find someone foolhardy enough to lay 6:1 odds on a hand of Baccarat.
The OP mentioned $30 and $20. Let's look at that.
B 30 win - Win 28.50
P 20 lose - Lose 20.00 = Win $8.50
B 30 lose - Lose 30
P 20 win - Win 20 = Lose $10
B 20 win - Win 19
P 30 lose - Lose 30 = Lose $11
B 20 lose - Lose 20
P 30 win - Win 30 = Win $10
In these situations, the house does not have a chance to win at least the table min, and the odds are more even than in the extreme case you mentioned above. I stand by not allowing the play on the $20 table mentioned in the OP.
I can only hope that you are a casino manager.Happy days are here again
Quote: HunterhillI can only hope that you are a casino manager.
I edited my post with an additional point at the end that is relevant to this discussion.
Let's say the house edge is 1% (just using round numbers for simplicity).
If someone bets $20. The house makes 20 cents / hand.
If someone bets $20 on 1 spot, $30 on another spot, the house makes 50 cents / hand.
I don't have baccarat .. but know enough about the game to tell you that like Black Jack .. the house edge is somewhat hidden and not really obvious. The reality is that one side wins about 52% of the time but you pay a 5% commission taking your actual win below below 50% .. and the other side only wins 48% of the time so no commission is needed.
It's similar for craps with Pass / Don't Pass!
When looking at bets like that management should know that the bets are essentially separate .. and you add the absolute values of theoretical rake (you don't subtract the difference). As I don't know too much about Baccarat I'm not sure about the specific odds in question .. but as long as the casino still makes an after promotion theoretical profit on each bet independently, then they are idiots for refusing the bets!
Quote: sc15You're an idiot if you really don't understand how the house edge works in this situation.
In fact, if I were running the casino I would welcome this play. They're paying me my house edge for $50 in action for only $10 worth of variance.
Personal insult. 3 days.
B $10 win - Win $9.50.
B $30 win - Win $28.50
P $20 win - lose $20 = Win $8.50 = 15% commission. And it goes up from there.
Dummy Up and Deal. Its not your job to do anything else but dummy up and deal.Quote: onenickelmiracleDeal as directed.
And its a great way for you to relax about it.
Come on, Babs. He said "you're an idiot if you really don't..." I understand this as "don't play the idiot, we know you are not really". OK, correctly he should have written "you would be an idiot if you really didn't..." but in the heat of conversation, nobody does that.Quote: beachbumbabsPersonal insult. 3 days.Quote: sc15You're an idiot if you really don't understand how the house edge works in this situation.
Let not the WoV forum become a church or something...
The casino shouldn't care about being able to win table min or not. After all, the casino can also lose $$ equal to the player's bet if the player wins.
Anyone who has a casino-sized bankroll would bank a 20/30 bet on bacarrat or even 1000/1010. Only an idiot wouldn't bank those bets.
I'm not calling anyone an idiot, I'm just saying what an idiot would do.
Quote: RSsc15 is stating a truth. Does deucekies not get banned for trolling? Either he is trolling or he is an idiot (I'm saying he's trolling if he's not an idiot)....and since he's not an idiot (according to BBB), then he must be trolling.
I'm insulted by this as well. I realized my error on the topic and addressed it.
This is a discussion board. We're here to discuss. Someone who is mistaken does not have to be an idiot or a troll. I'd like to think my post history would indicate enough competency to earn me the benefit of the doubt, so to be referred to as a troll is an insult.
Quote: DeucekiesI'm insulted by this as well. I realized my error on the topic and addressed it.
This is a discussion board. We're here to discuss. Someone who is mistaken does not have to be an idiot or a troll. I'd like to think my post history would indicate enough competency to earn me the benefit of the doubt, so to be referred to as a troll is an insult.
I say RS be banned for six days.
Three days for calling Deucekies a possible Troll and three days for calling him a possible idiot
Quote: kubikulannCome on, Babs. He said "you're an idiot if you really don't..." I understand this as "don't play the idiot, we know you are not really". OK, correctly he should have written "you would be an idiot if you really didn't..." but in the heat of conversation, nobody does that.
Let not the WoV forum become a church or something...
1. People have been banned several times specifically for calling other people "idiots". The links are in the list. The precedent was set, and not by me.
2. The membership has an expectation of consistency whenever possible. That's a tough standard to meet, but in this case it would be inconsistent for me not to apply the same standard to the same word usage re: sc15's ban.
3. RS's comments were in discussion of what got said. He is technically in default of the same standard, but in context and with the disclaimer that he's discussing the infraction (despite his phrasing) I'm stopping at a warning. Do not make personal accusations or insults here, sir.
4. Deucekies was not, in my opinion, trolling the thread; he was stuck on a wrong understanding/line of reasoning and suddenly the light dawned. Been there, done that, and it's clear in the thread that's what happened. Hard to have a discussion containing a difference of opinion when everybody's claiming the other side's trolling, so I'm not willing to take that stance in this case.
5. Not a church. But people can have manners. There are plenty of forums that tolerate snide, abusive, personal insults. This one doesn't. Each member can choose for themselves where they prefer to participate.
I will also mention that I was on vacation from this forum for a few days, but received a complaint so signed in to address it that day. The fact that there was a complaint factors into whether there would be a suspension, because I agree it was marginal. Some folks on here would not have cared about the phrasing, others would and did, and the language itself has been deemed a suspension offense.
I'm moving on, and I hope that the rest of you will as well.
Based on this, the opposit should actually be promoted in Baccarat and in other games like say roulette (on even money bets).
You increase your minimum bet limits, the player is apprehensive in playing the higher bets and the friendly dealer tells the player this big 'secret' of how actually to keep on playing (or risking) the same money as before.
You increase the bet limits by 50% and with this 'secret' advise you increase the Turnover by 250% and the player is still happy because he thing he is still only risking the $20 previous lower limit.
That's about the best advise a casino can get of how to increase the amounts that people bet with them being happy believing that they are still beting lower amounts. It should Number One Topic in Casino Management 101 course.
Quote: AceTwoI am never suprised by the ignorance of Casino Management of basic math and the wrong decisions like this that effect negatively their profits.
Based on this, the opposit should actually be promoted in Baccarat and in other games like say roulette (on even money bets).
You increase your minimum bet limits, the player is apprehensive in playing the higher bets and the friendly dealer tells the player this big 'secret' of how actually to keep on playing (or risking) the same money as before.
You increase the bet limits by 50% and with this 'secret' advise you increase the Turnover by 250% and the player is still happy because he thing he is still only risking the $20 previous lower limit.
That's about the best advise a casino can get of how to increase the amounts that people bet with them being happy believing that they are still beting lower amounts. It should Number One Topic in Casino Management 101 course.
I read somewhere that not all casino bosses are mentally incompetent. They do things like this wrong on purpose. There is a gist to an order they receive from on high. If they use discretion to deviate from the norm, and something goes wrong, they are afraid of losing their job. If they deviate and it's a success, so what? They don't care if the casino makes or loses money. They care about their job.
This is in no way, shape, or form intended to suggest that most critters are intelligent, nor even human. But the OP should just give up unless he can get every single pit boss to agree. I knew a dealer who had an issue with a dumb procedure. So he started a petition to try and foster such agreement among dealers and supervisors. He was reprimanded.
To me, that's like observing a card-counter make a mistake (hit 12v6 in a positive count), and when a teammate says "why'd you hit that 12v6?" instead of the player saying "I made a mistake I shouldn't have hit that hand", he essentially makes up an excuse saying "I did it for cover".
The subject is so damn simple, the more money wagered at a HE is subject to that HE, anyone who spends a decent amount of time on this forum or who is an AP should understand that concept. Babs, I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from. (John says 2+2=5, Suzy tells John he's wrong and explains why, John insists 2+2=5, Phil calls John an i****, rightfully so.)
Playing both sides should be welcomed. The casino sets the limits on a game (say 1% HE) because they want to make at least 1% of a seat's action per round. At a $50 min table where someone is betting both sides, the house can either make 1% of $50 per round on that seat, or they can make 1% of $110 ($60 one side $50 on the other). It isn't how much money the house can win in a single round, it's how much they expect to win (edge) per round, because after all, the casino does take some risk when a high roller or whale sits down (high roller may win).
Betting $110 on one side or betting $60 on one and $50 on the other.....the casino is making the same $ per round (edge/expectation), but has considerably less risk with the 50/60 bettor than the 110/0 bettor [assuming both sides have the same HE).
Quote: RSMaybe it's in a different thread or the post is in this thread but is somehow hidden from my view, but I don't see any post from deuceskies addressing his error.
Read.
