Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: bfbagain: Not sure how to ask this

  1. #1
    bfbagain
    Guest

    bfbagain: Not sure how to ask this

    I'm not even sure if it makes sense.

    We know that penetration affects bet ramps. We also know that it affects index generation for specific systems. But that's not what's on my mind.

    What's on my mind, is the distribution affects of shallow penetration. We know that more hands per hour is better for whomever has the edge, e.g., casinos in most cases. Therefore it's in their best interests to deal deeper cut games, as in 6 deck shoe games. But we consistently see deteriorating conditions across the casino landscape, and I'm curious as to whether or not - since they too employ math consultants, and certainly those that are in the casino's corner and that maybe their math consultants have figures (results) that are basically different than ours.

    Empirically speaking, and only empirically speaking, when more than two decks are cut off of a 6 deck game, it seems that the casino's edge is considerable more than it is off the top.

    Here is why I'm having difficulty. Obviously we know that there can be clumps of cards that seem to stay in place throughout certain shuffles. If you're tracking, you can get a pretty good handle on them, and it's to your favor. Of course, there also low card clumps that can also stay in place. I also notice, again empirically, that if a dealer has larger than normal grabs, e.g., 52-60 cards in each hand, that it seems (again) that these clumpings stay in place, and try as you might, i.e., cutting in as many places as possible, doesn't seem to affect how the cards are dealt.

    I've observed this at one casino in particular, with an amazing degree of awe. Granted, it's probably just voodoo, but when you push as many large bets as I have, and my tracking is up to snuff - after all, when paint is expected, it is being delivered, it makes me wonder.

    So, are there any sims that the casino's have used, that are different in expectation from what players have and expect, to justify in the casino's minds that they are in better shape with shallower decks, albeit the lost hands played, than they would be in deeper dealt games?

    Sorry for the convoluted nature of this, as I'm clearly having a prolem with properly formulating a question, but how much more of an edge (I guess this is the question) does the casino enjoy - if any - over the basic strategy player due to more decks cutoff? And can this be shown mathematically, that the edge doesn't change, e.g., an LV strip game with DAS/LS/RSA/S17 is .26 If this game had 2 1/2 decks cut, can we know for certainty that this edge - assuming a zero count - is the same after 1 deck is dealt? 2 decks? 3 decks?

    Thanks for reading, if you got this far. :-)

    cheers
    bfb

  2. #2
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Not sure how to ask this

    At least you were honest about it: You don't have a very good grasp of the concepts involved here.

    "Sorry for the convoluted nature of this, as I'm clearly having a problem with properly formulating a question,"

    I noticed! :-)

    "but how much more of an edge (I guess this is the question) does the casino enjoy - if any - over the basic strategy player due to more decks cutoff?"

    Short answer: None. But that would be true only if the casino dealt a predetermined number of rounds, rather than down to a cut-card. Any extra edge over the BS player has nothing to do with penetration -- which is entirely irrelevant to the BS player -- but rather to the cut-card effect.

    "And can this be shown mathematically, that the edge doesn't change, e.g., an LV strip game with DAS/LS/RSA/S17 is .26"

    Now you're saying the edge doesn't change. Make up your mind!

    "If this game had 2 1/2 decks cut, can we know for certainty that this edge - assuming a zero count -

    UGH!!! Now, you're introducing a count, when a minute ago, we were talking about playing BS, which has NOTHING at all to do with a count of zero. You're making things terribly complicated.

    "is the same after 1 deck is dealt? 2 decks? 3 decks?"

    If you're asking whether, with a count of zero, the edge is the same no matter what the penetration, then you're asking about the floating advantage, and, clearly, the answer is no. (You have read that chapter in BJA3, right??)

    If you're asking whether, fo rthe BS player, the edge is the same no matter what round of the shoe you're playing, the answer is yes, provided you don't deal down to a cut-card but rather use a predetermined number of rounds.

    Do NOT ever confuse BS with "a count of zero," however.

    Don

  3. #3
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: One other thing

    You did have another question. You wondered whether there might be a method to the casinos' apparent madness, when they offer poorly cut games over well-cut ones. The answer, of course, is no.

    Casinos are run by brain-dead imbeciles with the IQ of earthworms. They are so pathetically stupid that it is painful. They cut shoes poorly to discourage card counters, who constitute about 1%, if not less, of their population of players. In the meantime, they spend thousands upon thousands of extra hours a year shuffling, instead of dealing, to the 99% of their clientele who don't know the difference between a double down and a double-decker bus.

    But, the casinos will continue to do this because it is more important to them to discourage one counter from playing than it is to win millions more per year from the 99+% of losers who flock to their tables.

    Now, if that isn't the profile of grossly incompetent moronic idiots, then I don't know what is.

    Don

  4. #4
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: I can't say it better

    The "shuffle time" is VERY costly to the casinos. Much more than the CCE.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  5. #5
    bfbagain
    Guest

    bfbagain: Risk and Risk Adversity :-)

    > At least you were honest about it: You don't have a
    > very good grasp of the concepts involved here.

    Hopefully, you'll take my comments in the spirit they're given, i.e., with sincerity and respect, which I try to give to everyone.

    Forgive me if I disagree with your above stated premise. I'll try, albeit unsuccessfully I presume, to give an explanation, along with the risk (see title of post) of asking such a convoluted type question (that's the convoluted part). What risk? Well, I knew going in that I might receive the kind of response I received. That's ok. Really. The reason is that I was more or less typing the scattered thoughts - as I was thinking them - that everyone goes through when they attempt to contemplate issues in their minds. Normally, at the risk of sounding stupid, we would never utter them, until they were properly formulated, and at least appear to be somewhat cogent. That was my risk. I deliberatly did not do that - as I'm a risk taker by nature - because I'm not real sure that anyone really has asked or conducted what I was thinking about, as scattered brain as it may have appeared. Clarification: Of course it has been thought of (that's the floating point issue), but I was thinking more from the casino perspective, and who they're getting their information from. I hope that makes sense. I still don't see, what the hell they see. It's not that I don't understand, it's what do the casinos understand or don't understand and is there, was there, that we (I) are all somehow missing.

    Even at this late date (in BJ development re:all the available math), why is that casinos are still so consistently paranoid about a threat that is all but non-existent in the big picture.

    I was just thinking out loud - kinda, and actually wanted the kind of response I received. I wasn't, nor am I, insecure about what I know or don't know. If I was, I wouldn't have asked the question here, as it is well-known that you don't suffer things like this well. :-) No biggie.

    As to your opinion on casinos and their intellectual prowess, I concur wholeheartily. maybe I'm just (still) incredulous that they approach their games and game protection as they do. Honestly, I don't get it.

    What I do get is that their mentality is so steeped in greed that they just can't live until every last nickle is squeezed from every last soul. I have always believed that, but knowing that the casino business is no longer (for the most part) run by casino people, but by business, accounting, and corporate management types, and people like you and I, IMO, just naturally have a different outlook on life than people who gravitate to casino employment. An additional one percent profit, for example, whether it be on $100, or $100 billion dollars, should be the goal of any business. To deliberately reduce profits, and especially in a shareholder environment, just goes against all accepted principles of business. I wonder how the casino accounting departments justify this to their boards, shareholders at meetings etc., if at all. Are all these people braindead?

    I can see it now, a shareholder gets up at a meeting and asks Gary Loveman why he doesn't increase the penetration on six deck games, and provides the sims to prove how much more the company would be earning if they did so. I wonder how that could be explained away.

    Well, as you can see, I'm rambling again. Gots to go, and increase my profit margins.. :-)

    Thanks for responding, as I just wanted someone to say - with 100% conviction, again - what I believed. I probably could have gotten it in a different manner, but I chose that, and it is what it is.

    bfb

  6. #6
    bfbagain
    Guest

    bfbagain: On further review

    It might also be helpful to know my frame of mind at the time I was thinking about this.. :-)

    I have recently been making a tour (a brief one) of surrounding casinos in one specific area. The penetration at most, which has been consistently bad for many ( not just a few) years remained as it has been, i.e. bad. However, there was a report to me that one partucluar place, not too long ago, was consistently cutting 1 deck on their six deck shoes across the board and shifts. I happened to visit this place very recently, and to my surprise (not really) they had reverted their penetration to not (what I had known it to be, which was a fairly consistent 75%), but to a full 2 1/4 decks being cut. And mind you, this is a relatively low limit place, so even if they had a team storm through there, they couldn't have been hurt that bad. They may be small, but they are part of a larger casino corp.

    Questions: 1) Why go to 1 deck from 1 1/2?
    2) Why then go 2 2/14 deck from 1?

    Sometimes, trying to figure out these people must be like watching inmates at an insane asylum.

    What possible results were they looking at? Who could be advising them?

    See what I'm saying? Is that nuts or what?

    Just thought I'd share that.

    bfb

  7. #7
    pm
    Guest

    pm: Question

    There really aren't very many hand-shuffled shoe games around, are there? As a general question....if a place has shoe games with ASMs, wouldn't the effect of poor penetration on their bottom line be relatively minimal? If it is, then why wouldn't they offer poor penetration? Isn't that an okay trade-off, take a small e.v. hit and stop having to worry about counters all the time? Their e.v. drop would even be mitigated to at least some small extent because nobody could count there.......??

  8. #8
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: One issue I've wondered about

    Shuffle time costs the casinos real estate and personnel costs. And these are very high costs. But, I?ve always wondered how much it changes the total amount lost. A large segment of visitors set aside a gambling budget. They will play until it is lost. Most of them will lose it more slowly if the play is slower; but will still lose the same total amount either way. Of course if they get bored waiting for the shuffle, they may wander off to a competitor.

    > The "shuffle time" is VERY costly to the
    > casinos. Much more than the CCE.

    > Sincerely,
    > Cac

  9. #9
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Answers to "all of the above"

    I'll try to answer both of you at the same time. Let's begin here: Trying to figure out or understand why a casino does something is an exercise in futility. At least for the blackjack portion, casinos are run by total mental hernias -- so pathetically incompetent as to make one physically ill to think about it. I try not to.

    As for the argument that poorer cuts don't really hurt the bottom line all that much, it is absolutely false. Blackjack is a volume issue. How many hands can you get out on the table per hour? You have an edge over 99+% of the players, so you want to have as much action as possible. Having an edge over 100% of the players, if that edge is reduced by, say, 20% (dealing 4 decks instead of 5) of what it is over the 99+% is just plain stupidity. Of course, that is what you can expect from most casinos.

    Recently, I was in Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. The former deals 4.75-5.0/6; the latter deals 4.0-4.25/6. The former is the most profitable casino in the history of the planet. The latter is like Avis -- reduced to "trying harder," because whoever runs their BJ games is a consummate asshole.

    Enough. I can feel my blood pressure rising already. :-)

    Don

  10. #10
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: One issue I've wondered about

    > Shuffle time costs the casinos real estate and
    > personnel costs. And these are very high costs. But,
    > I?ve always wondered how much it changes the total
    > amount lost. A large segment of visitors set aside a
    > gambling budget. They will play until it is lost. Most
    > of them will lose it more slowly if the play is
    > slower; but will still lose the same total amount
    > either way. Of course if they get bored waiting for
    > the shuffle, they may wander off to a competitor.

    Suppose there were only one dealer at one table in the casino. Suppose you came in with a budget to lose x amount of dollars, and the dealer had to keep dealing until you did. And the dealer is paid by the hour.

    Would it be better for them to deal 4/6 or 5.5/6?

    Somewhere along the way, it costs casinos to be shuffling cards instead of dealing them. It can't possibly be otherwise.

    Don

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.