You left out the tens of thousands that bust out theirBR every year. that's probably $50+ million in casino profits that winning AP's have to erase before AP's in general start costing casinos a penny.
Doesn't this go back to the "debate" -- Should a casino allow a card-counter / AP to continue playing even if he is over-betting his bankroll but playing with an advantage? If I'm not mistaken (perhaps Norm or DonS can chime in here) -- from the casino's perspective, the casino should NOT allow these players to continue playing, because for however many bust out, a select few will hit the positive side of the variance and wipe out those player losses (casino's wins) and then some.Originally Posted by Tthree
Even if that wasn't the case -- how many people do you think fit into the "high ROR / likely to bust out" group? How big of a bankroll do you think they have? I don't know how many people there'd be -- but at a $5k bankroll, that's 10,000 people for $50M in casino profits. I don't think there are 10,000 people a year who decide to start card-counting / AP and bust out. I also suggest the average bankroll for such a player is lower than $5k.
"Everyone wants to be rich, but nobody wants to work for it." -Ryan Howard [The Office]
I have nothing to do when I wake up at 3 AM so I just estimated using some wrong numbers I am sure, but it's worth thinking about. This is assuming a 6 deck game and just a $20 average bet which is probably much too low if you throw in high rollers.
AAA Doc.jpg
Play within your bankroll, pick your games with care and learn everything you can about the game. The winning will come. It has to. It's in the cards. -- Bryce Carlson
RollingStoned, you are correct. Although I would have said the same thing as what Tthree said in the post above yours, because casino goons read these pages, and could believe this shit.
I agree with what you are saying, and believe the casinos over paranoia is costing them much more profits in the long run.
The answer is not to allow APs to play with impunity; rather, the answer is not to obsess over their inevitable presence to the point of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
It is aberrational to think that providing horribly cut games with horrible rules is the road to a) nirvana of eliminating card counters, and b) greater casino profits. Clearly, it isn't. Some of the proofs that it isn't are: a) that's what's being done now, and b) casino profits are worse than ever, which leads to c) virtually all casino managers are brain-dead, lobotomized individuals double-digit IQs.
Don
I do not understand this part. You have 2% edge and your optimal bet is $200 and you bet $1000. How is betting $1000 will reduce your advantage. It will increase your chance of going bust, is that what you meant.
Back to the original argument. The casino bottom line is not determined by how well each individual player gambling career is going but based on the aggregate outcome of bets. The more value of bets waged when the player has an edge, the worse for the casino. So, 100 AP waging $1000 when they have 2% edge is the same for the casino regardless of how many of these 100 players over or under bet their own bankrolls.
Suppose that you have an "advantage" of 2% according to the rules and strategy. But, you have a $2,000 bankroll and a bet spread from $100 to $1,000. You do not really have a 2% advantage because you will probably quickly run into a situation where you cannot make the correct play according to your strategy. Some percentage of players over-betting their bankroll will hit a wall. They do not have the advantage that they think they have.
Reductio ad absurdum
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
It's argumentum ad absurdum. At some point, advantage is affected by over-betting. A large percentage of beginning counters grossly over-bet. IMO, it's stupid for casinos to have a hair trigger when it comes to backing off players.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks