onetoomany: Why don't the casinos just eliminate

[Sun Runner]

Respectfully, I disagree ..

> Bean counters can quickly quantify labor costs
> but cannot quickly quantify the opportunity
> cost of lost business or game speed based on
> an uncertain number of customers.

As I have said before, most card players do not give the bean counters the credit they deserve. These are not your grandfathers bookkeepers. They learn how to quantify labor costs in Accounting I -as freshman.

> Game speed works to the casino advantage in all situations.

Probably true, back in the day, when they were overun with people wanting to play BJ. It may not be true now; all the gamblers may be migrating to slots. None the less, I don't believe saying it's all about game speed is accuarte; I don't think it is that linear anymore.

There are seven prople in the casino this afternoon -you and six ploppies. The bean counters have shut down all but one table. The average bet for the ploppies -$25. The average bet for you -$100. They are losing at the rate of 2%; you are winning at the rate of 2%. All seven of you are averaging 50 hands per hour. You are earning $100 ph; the six of them collectively are losing $150 ph -the casino is loving it at $50 ph.

The bean counters go home; some moron [] opens another pit in the back -and you slide over and are lucky enough to start playing alone.

Same fact only you now get 100 hands ph and the six ploppies are still probably getting not much more, if any, than their original 50.

They are still losing at the rate of $150, you are now winning at the rate of $200. The casino is hating life because they are a net loser now at $50 ph.

The bean counters show up at 8:00 the next morning and wonder what happened to that $50 an hour EV they had budgeted for.

I don't pretend to have studied game table management. I do understand a little about game speed and if you and your compadres are left to play alone -as fast as you can -it's bad for them.

I also don't know what a typical dealer costs the casino an hour, but I KNOW it's less than what a table full of ploppies lose in an hour. Now, knowing that, I don't comprehend why more tables are not open -but I don't believe it is entirely because the green-eyeshade dudes at Harrah's are sweating a $15 (?) an hour dealer payroll. I think the answer probably lies somewhere in their belief that when they open that other table, or the third or the fourth -it won't fill up with rubes -it will fill up with you.

Respectfully, I believe a large part of table management is to try and control losses to people like yourself.

I wish they worried about me as much -but they probably don't.

SR

[bigplayer]

casinos often do try to control flux by keeping tables full....this also keeps earnings down. The same $100 counter you refer to in your second example which drags earnings down will be much more likely to be a $100 ploppie who will not play at a full table with $5 bettors. This casino loses the action of the $100 ploppie.

Casinos that are afraid of flux are just like counters who are afraid of flux...neither make the money they should. Flux is inherantly part of playing a winning game for either.

Bean counters would prefer for steady month to month results rather than having to explain to corporate honcho's that they were just unlucky that month. When you have fast games and lots of big action players the casino has the potential to have fantastic daily and weekly variance. But in the end they make much more money getting in more hands. It always comes down to action * edge and action is directly correlated to hands per hour. There simply aren't that many card counters relative to the universe of players. For any casino to open or close tables for fear of card counters is possible (as some are quite paranoid) but inherantly a very dumb idea.

[Sun Runner]

As always, the back and forth with you helps me refine my thoughts.

Originally you stated that ..

"The reason they keep tables full and many closed is simply to cut labor costs."

I simply disagree.

They either believe that counters pose a greater probem to their financial future than you (and I) do and are making decisions accordingly or they have quantified the flux and their own ROR and are happy with it or both.

I know a guy who trades stocks for a living. Early on in his carreer he was earning a huge ROI. Huge. Now he has put together a sizeable BR and his ROI, while still huge, is about a tenth of what it was in those early years.

Sound familiar? The larger the BR, the harder it becomes to replace, and the lower the ROI you become willing (happy) to take.

The casino's have a huge BR to protect, corporate suits to please, some have stockholders to coddle, and I imagine, some have financial statement targets that must be hit quarterly that are tied to banking arrangements.

If they didn't have some or all of those constraints, I agree, they could up the ante a bit, accept a little wider flux, open up some tables, and in the long run see the increased profits pour to the bottom line.

They may not have that luxury.

Maybe only guys like Benny Binnion did.

But they don't close tables because they can't quantify the labor cost of an employee or two. They can.

Thanks again for the insite.

[bigplayer]

you misquote me...I say it is easy for the csino to quantify labor costs...but difficult to quantify potential lost business by giving too many dealers the "early-out".

When you have a known savings and an unknown cost too often the known savings (labor costs) is the choice.

I say that casinos close tables to save labor costs...you say it's due to paranoia about card counters. If you are correct my point is still accurate in that it is a stupid assumption on the part of the casino's. Keeping tables closed to prevent card counting is the worst game protection example I've ever heard of. In fact, a casino could guarantee that no card counters get down any action by just closing all blackjack tables.

[Sun Runner]

> you misquote me...

Certainly un-intended.

> I say that casinos close tables to save
> labor costs ...

And I think that is to simplistic.

> If you are correct my
> point is still accurate in that it is a
> stupid assumption on the part of the
> casino's.

To recap, they may have reasons you and I do not share.

> Keeping tables closed to prevent
> card counting is the worst game protection
> example I've ever heard of.

May be, but we are back to the original question and I still don't think it is about (all about) saving a couple of dollars an hour in payroll.

> In fact, a
> casino could guarantee that no card counters
> get down any action by just closing all
> blackjack tables.

Of course, and they don't want that. So they find a balance between letting the civilians come and play and slowing you down while monitoring your play.

Look, I just don't think they are totally ignorant and that the only issue before them is payroll management.

Could they be that stupid!? Really?

Anyway I've beat this horse enough. Thanks for posting along.

[Zapp]

Assuming a card counter is at every table betting blah,blah,blah, and all ploppies are betting the minimum is far fetched. These are not realistic conditions. If a casino manager followed your theory he would have to a complete moron with a mental problem of extreme paranoia.

It's too easy to make up the rules to fit a story. It's not a case of "Well what if?" but rather...what is".

> Respectfully, I disagree ..

> As I have said before, most card players do
> not give the bean counters the credit they
> deserve. These are not your grandfathers
> bookkeepers. They learn how to quantify
> labor costs in Accounting I -as freshman.

> Probably true, back in the day, when they
> were overun with people wanting to play BJ.
> It may not be true now; all the gamblers may
> be migrating to slots. None the less, I
> don't believe saying it's all about game
> speed is accuarte; I don't think it is that
> linear anymore.

> There are seven prople in the casino this
> afternoon -you and six ploppies. The bean
> counters have shut down all but one table.
> The average bet for the ploppies -$25. The
> average bet for you -$100. They are losing
> at the rate of 2%; you are winning at the
> rate of 2%. All seven of you are averaging
> 50 hands per hour. You are earning $100 ph;
> the six of them collectively are losing $150
> ph -the casino is loving it at $50 ph.

> The bean counters go home; some moron []
> opens another pit in the back -and you slide
> over and are lucky enough to start playing
> alone.

> Same fact only you now get 100 hands ph and
> the six ploppies are still probably getting
> not much more, if any, than their original
> 50.

> They are still losing at the rate of $150,
> you are now winning at the rate of $200. The
> casino is hating life because they are a net
> loser now at $50 ph.

> The bean counters show up at 8:00 the next
> morning and wonder what happened to that $50
> an hour EV they had budgeted for.

> I don't pretend to have studied game table
> management. I do understand a little about
> game speed and if you and your compadres are
> left to play alone -as fast as you can -it's
> bad for them.

> I also don't know what a typical dealer
> costs the casino an hour, but I KNOW it's
> less than what a table full of ploppies lose
> in an hour. Now, knowing that, I don't
> comprehend why more tables are not open -but
> I don't believe it is entirely because the
> green-eyeshade dudes at Harrah's are
> sweating a $15 (?) an hour dealer payroll. I
> think the answer probably lies somewhere in
> their belief that when they open that other
> table, or the third or the fourth -it won't
> fill up with rubes -it will fill up with
> you.

> Respectfully, I believe a large part of
> table management is to try and control
> losses to people like yourself.

> I wish they worried about me as much -but
> they probably don't.

> SR

[Sun Runner]

> It's too easy to make up the rules to fit a
> story. It's not a case of "Well what
> if?" but rather...what is".

.. what is it?

Simply telling me I'm wrong is easy. Why do all those tables go unused?

[Zap]

> Simply telling me I'm wrong is easy. Why do
> all those tables go unused?

Well it certainly is not because of the casinos fear a card counter might sneak over to it. Uh, why are not all the slots used all the time?...called lack of a crowd.

A card counter is only a prick in the skin to a casino. You seem to think that everything in blackjack is based around a card counter.

You're wrong...excuse me mmm,I mean I disagree.

Zap#

[Sun Runner]

> Well it certainly is not because of the
> casinos fear a card counter might sneak over
> to it. Uh, why are not all the slots used
> all the time?...called lack of a crowd.

The slots may not be used all the time .. but they are open for use all the time.

> A card counter is only a prick in the skin
> to a casino.

I happen to agree .. but I also think they feel differently. Otherwise, they would not be bringing the heat, going to court to keep us out, wasting millions of dollars on the Griffin etals, 86'ing players that are long run losers just to 'be sure', etc.

> You seem to think that
> everything in blackjack is based around a
> card counter.

When it comes to the casino protecting their BR, they are not worried about the civilians.

> You're wrong...

Wouldn't be the first time.

[Saboteur]

The casinos maximize the number of players at a table to minimize the number of dealers they have to watch. Theft by employees in collusion with players is a far greater problem than counters. You don't want twenty dealers with two or three players at each table if you can have ten dealers, each dealing to six players. One renegade dealer can hand over the difference between slow play and fast play for the entire shift to his buddies in just a few hours.

[Ouchez]

[fat chris]

All the talk about slot machines has reminded me of an article I read a about a year ago. A man in New Jersey was attempting to study slot machine payouts at Atlantic City, and after testing numerous machines on several days he concluded that the cheap slots would allow the player to win more than normal the first few "pulls". As the number of credits per pull increased, winning became more requent. He also said that by winning a few times in a row, then cashing out, then repeating the process he was able to make a small profit over time.

Has anybody heard this story or anything similar? If so, is this legal?

Also, some casinos list slot pay-out odds as 2:1 for a 1 unit gain and 1:1 for a push. These valuse are in fact incorrect (1:1 would be a one unit gain, not a push). Does the slot consider the coin they "return" to the player that was used to make their origional bet to be "payout?" Is the returning of money in this way factored into the percentage payout that casinos display?

[bigplayer]

in the manner your friend suggests. The slot payouts are not listed as x To 1 but instead as x FOR 1. Returning your bet is part of the return.