Scalability of Teams

[houyi]

Hi all,

I've asked a few posters about this via PM but no responses so taking this to everyone at once. Feel free to PM me if you prefer.

Essentially, I'm curious as to the scalability of teams and why larger teams have not been created. The largest teams I've heard of seen to cap out at around a few million under management. Why is this? The labor should be relatively easy to train properly and one could hypothetically keep training as burnouts inevitably occur. The EV per player is both enticing and relatively easy to predict in comparison to many other more "feast or famine" businesses. Are there indeed much larger teams of which I am not aware? Is trust of individual players the limiting factor? What is the bottleneck in this business?

Thanks for your replies.

[Shadowless]

When the pie has to be split into too many slices, and the people who made the pie possible are continually getting the smaller slices without additional incentives, that's when issues of fairness arise. Equity theory is relevant. Too much effort from the team players are put into the endeavor, and too little is given back.

From the management and investor perspective, team players as interchangeable and replaceable. When a player gets backed off at all properties, he or she is no longer useful or needed and needs to be replaced. Sometimes when team players earn enough capital, they team up with other members to form smaller teams to split the pie smaller. Their earning power may be less, but they bear all the risk and reap all the rewards. However, this is not possible if they have been previously identified as an advantage player whilst playing on the team.

A team and its bankroll can only be so big. And the amount that can be bet is limited by the table maximum and how long the casino will allow the action. With smaller teams, trust is paramount. When investors and managers are in the picture, trusting their players is their issue.

[houyi]

When the pie has to be split into too many slices, and the people who made the pie possible are continually getting the smaller slices without additional incentives, that's when issues of fairness arise. Equity theory is relevant. Too much effort from the team players are put into the endeavor, and too little is given back.

From the management and investor perspective, team players as interchangeable and replaceable. When a player gets backed off at all properties, he or she is no longer useful or needed and needs to be replaced. Sometimes when team players earn enough capital, they team up with other members to form smaller teams to split the pie smaller. Their earning power may be less, but they bear all the risk and reap all the rewards. However, this is not possible if they have been previously identified as an advantage player whilst playing on the team.

A team and its bankroll can only be so big. And the amount that can be bet is limited by the table maximum and how long the casino will allow the action. With smaller teams, trust is paramount. When investors and managers are in the picture, trusting their players is their issue.

This makes some good sense, but several of the issues you pointed out could be solvable. Why even give players equity? Why not instead save equity for investors and give a wage (with potential bonus based on good performance) to players? I believe this is how many teams operate anyway?

Why can a bankroll only be so big? Why not just train more players? It's not any harder to train people to count than it is to train them to perform many offices duties in professional services.

[Jabberwocky]

This makes some good sense, but several of the issues you pointed out could be solvable. Why even give players equity? Why not instead save equity for investors and give a wage (with potential bonus based on good performance) to players? I believe this is how many teams operate anyway?

Why can a bankroll only be so big? Why not just train more players? It's not any harder to train people to count than it is to train them to perform many offices duties in professional services.

How many people here are actively involved with team play? My guess is very few. Tilton tried it but gave it up.

[Three]

I turned down all the recruiting offers I got. Only one of them was really temping. I figure I would be the big earner so unless I have a need for financial backing why bother. I don't want to burn my name or face because management wants me to play a certain way either.

[Jabberwocky]

I wouldn't go beyond a two man operation. -I've always played solitary which fits my style as I don't enjoy taking orders.

[Shadowless]

This makes some good sense, but several of the issues you pointed out could be solvable. Why even give players equity? Why not instead save equity for investors and give a wage (with potential bonus based on good performance) to players? I believe this is how many teams operate anyway?

Why can a bankroll only be so big? Why not just train more players? It's not any harder to train people to count than it is to train them to perform many offices duties in professional services.

Equity theory refers to the team members' perception of fairness in the distribution of resources for their efforts, not ownership of the bankroll or team.

Initially, members agree to the terms of the team but become dissatisfied when they realize they are giving up a large proportion of their profit to investors and managers who aren't out on the playing field. Players usually leave teams once they can save up enough capital to venture off on their own. Other reasons for disbandment include only playing on a team as a means to an ends. For example, saving money to invest in a home, pay for further schooling, etc.

When I said the bankroll can only be so big, I meant that investors will usually not invest much until they see results. Once results are seen, investors would want to negotiate the terms to further favor them, and if the players dislike or disagree with the terms, then there is no team. The problem with replacing good performing players is that investors may scale back until the new players can show a profit, and trust is also an issue since there is a lot of money involved.

Team play is not for everyone. The idea of not risking one's own money to play is enticing, but players will usually wise up when they realize they are being used and will be replaced once they are no longer useful (backed off/barred).

The way I like to think of teams, investors, and players is a 2x2 matrix.
One axis represents bankroll, the other axis represents skill.
A player with high skill and a high bankroll can play solo.
A player with high skill and a low bankroll may be interested in joining a team.
The investor may have no skill or blackjack knowledge, but a high amount of money to invest.
Someone with no skill and no bankroll should not be getting into this, or should be trained and then join a team.

[Goatlife]

its not scalable. You not gunna lay bets bigger than 2x2k and the casino will choke so there really is no point to have a bankroll over a million dollars if your counting cards. lets say you go on a rampage and you are blessed enough to have zero people steal from you ( I garentee you people will steal from you regardless if you believe it or not now, you can lose for 500 hours plus and that's when shit hits the fan or people get frustrated and just quit with investor's eating the loss).

with that being said, there is about 12-15 casinos you can bet 2x1500 to 2x2k for about 25 hours or more depending on the store. Once you burn out of them and once the casinos sees everyone coming to the tore with the same fucking state id, its going to be pretty obviously that they will be on high alert.

team play aint gunna work, you might be able to grind out 500 max games too but your not gunna get rich doing that but you will make a good living. all in all your betting just hitting those 12-15 casinos urself first. Then if you want to start a team you wil have more experience and now the ins and outs of it. After that you will realize its not worth it.

[Goatlife]

ur also playing one of if not the most wealthiest areas of the country. I promise you the casinos aren't used to seeing big action like there seeing in your current rotation of stores. This might be a shock to you when you get out there and travel and you will see that chunky black action is not in abudance by ploppies which makes it even harder to have ur play blend in.

[Dieter]

This makes some good sense, but several of the issues you pointed out could be solvable. Why even give players equity? Why not instead save equity for investors and give a wage (with potential bonus based on good performance) to players? I believe this is how many teams operate anyway?

Incentive pay works. Even regular businesses have profit sharing programs. Doing much of the work, taking a high risk position only to burnout for the benefit of the investors while you get a modest flat salary isn't going to appeal to many of the people with AP skills.

Why can a bankroll only be so big? Why not just train more players? It's not any harder to train people to count than it is to train them to perform many offices duties in professional services.

There are a limited number of places that people can ply their craft. Once a bankroll gets too large, unit size gets to be larger (smaller units are wasting time), and that means playing higher limit tables. As the limits increase, the number of opportunities decrease (and the scrutiny/heat may be greater).

[Masterhoudini]

1.) size- bigger ain't always better, it's how you use it. What is the efficiency of a huge team with an 8 figure bankroll? There are simply not enough stores that will take huge action- multiple orange chip-grey chip would be your target. Where then are you going to place all your team members? At the high stakes level, the target market is simply too small. The result is too many mouths to feed and not enough pie- everyone goes hungry. The fact is, solo and two man operations work best at this level. There is just no point of a big solo player or two man team with big enough bank (to sustain 2x1500 or 2x2000) to branch out. You can gorge yourself eating the whole pie or half a pie. The incentive is greater, with little to no risk of #2.

2.) trust, greed and loyalty. It is totally inevitable that someone on your team will steal from you. What's your recourse when someone walks away with 100k cash?

Teams worked really well in the mid shoe everywhere age. Nowadays I think the game has evolved such that the team game (especially large ones) is not an efficient way to go about it.

[NotEnoughHeat]

I think when we look at size we have to consider the approach as well. It seems like so far everybody has been assuming a spotters & BP approach.

I'm not sure where I would go to find more info on this but many months back I read somewhere about a team with +100 members. If I remember correctly it was a loose association of solo players that just passed around a bank to players and everyone would get a cut of the winnings or EV (which one, I can't remember).

However, security issues in this type of structures would be quite damning, but I'm suppose it's possible to make it work with the right people and the proper procedures.

[Marvin]

Others have already answered most of OPs points; I'll add my 2 cents.

You don't need additional bankroll for more players as long as you have enough to provide session and trip bankrolls.
If you have a 1M bank, it will support 50 people equally as well as it will support 10 people, unless those 50 people always play in geographically different areas. Heck, if the players always do group trips then this bank will support 200+ players without problems. Now, do you know 50 people that you trust completely with your money, how about 200? How many of them need cash enough to spend their time APing in smoky casinos?

You need a larger bank to exploit low edge, high limit, high tolerance games, and there just aren't that many of them around. And if you find such games, then deploying an 8+ figure bank against them may not be the best use of capital.