Do casinos really make mistakes by barring marginal counters?

[Dbs6582]

A comment made by houyi in a recent post caught my interest. He said: “I think we can all agree casinos waste their time on at least 90% of would-be counters, for a variety of reasons.” I’m starting a new thread since I don’t want to hijack his thread in another direction.

This thought appears to be the mainstream view in the AP community, and I couldn’t disagree more based on my experience and what I see other APs saying. I’ve always wondered why so many APs believe this.

First my experience: I’ve played fairly extensively in various parts of the country (but not much in Vegas) for over 20 years and only seen one person backed off and barred...and that was me. From the casino perspective, it was a good move since I have a winning game. From my perspective, it obviously wasn’t a good move since I like taking money from a casino. The two casinos that backed me off got it right, the many that did not back me off got it wrong...that is from the perspective of the casino trying to return as much money as possible to their shareholders (which is why a business exists).

I’ve also seen many young APs come through my local casinos and not get backed off. As with most APs, I can usually spot another AP within 10 to 15 mins. I’ve got to where I can most the time spot them as they are cashing in their money for chips. When I see their ramp with the first positive count, my original assumptions are confirmed. Just the other day I played with a young AP who was ramping from $10 to $500 on DD and got away with it for 2 hours before he left with a couple thousand. I know this pit crew and they aren’t the sharpest knives in the draw. If I was a pit critter, I’d have backed him off within 15 mins. Again, I’ve never seen another AP backed off and I’ve seen quite a few APs play with some pretty aggressive spreads. If anything, I think casinos are making mistakes by not backing off APs sooner to protect their business and shareholders.

This brings me to my second point. I read comments on this site and many others on how much all the APs are making in casinos, but then they claim casinos are making mistakes when they get backed off. This makes no sense to me. If they’re playing a winning game, the casinos didn’t make a mistake by backing them off. In most states, casinos have a right to back off APs. Therefore, it’s in their interest to back off or bar APs since their business model isn’t to give money to their customers. Joe748 claims to have made $400,000 in his first year playing blackjack and many on this site believe him. If this is true, the casinos clearly weren’t doing their job. Any compentent casino should have seen he was an AP and backed him off long before he took 10s of thousands from a casino. The church team claimed to make close to 4 million (and I believe this story) from casinos but then you’ll hear them complain that casinos made mistakes by backing them off. What???

I guess my point is I think casinos make far more mistakes by not backing off real APs with winning games sooner, than the reverse (backing off would-be counters who are really losers).

Something else to think about. The very fear of being backed off keeps most of our spreads low and within casinos tolerance. If we weren’t afraid of being backed off, we’d be much more aggressive.

Maybe this problem is more of a Vegas problem, where the casinos back off marginal players. I don’t know since I don’t have much experience in Vegas. But in my area, I can assure you casinos are not backing off marginal players....in fact, I don’t see them backing off anybody, even very good players.

[chucky baby]

A comment made by houyi in a recent post caught my interest. He said: “I think we can all agree casinos waste their time on at least 90% of would-be counters, for a variety of reasons.” I’m starting a new thread since I don’t want to hijack his thread in another direction.

This thought appears to be the mainstream view in the AP community, and I couldn’t disagree more based on my experience and what I see other APs saying. I’ve always wondered why so many APs believe this.

First my experience: I’ve played fairly extensively in various parts of the country (but not much in Vegas) for over 20 years and only seen one person backed off and barred...and that was me. From the casino perspective, it was a good move since I have a winning game. From my perspective, it obviously wasn’t a good move since I like taking money from a casino. The two casinos that backed me off got it right, the many that did not back me off got it wrong...that is from the perspective of the casino trying to return as much money as possible to their shareholders (which is why a business exists).

I’ve also seen many young APs come through my local casinos and not get backed off. As with most APs, I can usually spot another AP within 10 to 15 mins. I’ve got to where I can most the time spot them as they are cashing in their money for chips. When I see their ramp with the first positive count, my original assumptions are confirmed. Just the other day I played with a young AP who was ramping from $10 to $500 on DD and got away with it for 2 hours before he left with a couple thousand. I know this pit crew and they aren’t the sharpest knives in the draw. If I was a pit critter, I’d have backed him off within 15 mins. Again, I’ve never seen another AP backed off and I’ve seen quite a few APs play with some pretty aggressive spreads. If anything, I think casinos are making mistakes by not backing off APs sooner to protect their business and shareholders.

This brings me to my second point. I read comments on this site and many others on how much all the APs are making in casinos, but then they claim casinos are making mistakes when they get backed off. This makes no sense to me. If they’re playing a winning game, the casinos didn’t make a mistake by backing them off. In most states, casinos have a right to back off APs. Therefore, it’s in their interest to back off or bar APs since their business model isn’t to give money to their customers. Joe748 claims to have made $400,000 in his first year playing blackjack and many on this site believe him. If this is true, the casinos clearly weren’t doing their job. Any compentent casino should have seen he was an AP and backed him off long before he took 10s of thousands from a casino. The church team claimed to make close to 4 million (and I believe this story) from casinos but then you’ll hear them complain that casinos made mistakes by backing them off. What???

I guess my point is I think casinos make far more mistakes by not backing off real APs with winning games sooner, than the reverse (backing off would-be counters who are really losers).

Something else to think about. The very fear of being backed off keeps most of our spreads low and within casinos tolerance. If we weren’t afraid of being backed off, we’d be much more aggressive.

Maybe this problem is more of a Vegas problem, where the casinos back off marginal players. I don’t know since I don’t have much experience in Vegas. But in my area, I can assure you casinos are not backing off marginal players....in fact, I don’t see them backing off anybody, even very good players.

Wow...I sure would like to know where your area is!!!

[Dbs6582]

Would-be counters are usually very obvious as to what their intentions are. At a non-sweaty store they don't care. At a sweaty one they get backed off. Sure it is probably a mistake, the casino should let them play to see if they get on a losing streak or see if they are even playing a winning game. But pros not being backed off sooner is definitely not something to complain about or even bring up!

I’m not complaining about it. I guess you missed my point. I’m wondering where all these casinos are that are backing off all these marginal counters. If it’s occuring, I’ve never seen it. I’m wondering why this is the prevalent thought in the AP community? It’s not a big deal...just something I’ve never understood.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

The "problem" is that casinos use a broad brush
and backoff incompetent amateur cards counters.

[Dbs6582]

The "problem" is that casinos use a broad brush
and backoff incompetent amateur cards counters.

Flash, I'm responding to your post, but I could have just as easily responded to Three, Freightman, Bosox or Bubbles's posts since they were trying to make the same point. I've made this point before but I didn't get any meaningful responses, so I'll try again. It's probably because I wrote it in a sarcastic way, but there is a lot of merit to what I said.

The popular view by APs is the casinos are losing revenue when they kick out marginal counters. I think the opposite is occurring. When casinos do this, it increases their revenues because now they have given this incompetent amateur card counter a belief their game is strong enough to beat the casinos. I just listened to another podcast today where a marginal counter said after he was backed off the first time, it made him feel proud that he had a game that was a threat to the casinos. It made him play again quickly and lose more money to the casinos.

What do APs think happens when these incompetent card counters get kicked out of a casino? Go home and never play in a casino again? Of course not. They get into their car and drive immediately to another casino and play bj, eventually losing all their money. Since they think they're just experiencing some bad variance, they get some more money from working or friends and lose it too.

It's just like what all the bj books and internet sites have done to casinos profits. It's caused them to explode. These resources give the marginal counter a belief they can win. All these things (bj books, bj internet sites, casinos kicking out marginal counters) increases revenue for the casinos.

And when the resident ploppies sees a counter get kicked out, this also increases revenue. While I didn't see it happen, when a travelling bj team visited one of my local casinos and got kicked out, I heard stories about this from the locals for a couple months. It showed them the game could be beat and they were buzzing about it. During this time, it seemed like more ploppies were showing up and losing more money playing bj.

If casinos were smart, they would kick out more marginal counters to increase revenues. Yes, they would lose revenue temporally, but in the long run their revenue would increase. It's kind of like losing the battle, but winning the war.

Btw, why do APs care if casinos are losing revenue with some of the moves they make, like kicking out marginal counters, or putting the cut card too far forward? Aren't we supposed to want the casinos to be less profitability. Isn't this one of the reasons APs take money from casinos? I sometimes get confused if APs want casinos to be more profitable or less profitable.

[Sharky]

....I sometimes get confused if APs want casinos to be more profitable or less profitable.

don't...we want them to be MORE profitable - best scenario, I win and EVERYONE else loses

[Freightman]

Mr. Contrary
There's more counters than we think. Casinos recognize this. Those with half a brain will let them play for a while before making a decision, which in many cases, they don't have to - why?

Counters bust out because
- they're properly financed but are not good enough
- they're good enough, but are not properly financed
- they're neither good enough or financed

So, why bounce them.
I would think a good chunk of this board is not properly financed, or good enough. The remainder are both good enough and financed. That doesn't account for much, especially considering that they're degrees of good enough.

[RS]

Mr. Contrary
There's more counters than we think. Casinos recognize this. Those with half a brain will let them play for a while before making a decision, which in many cases, they don't have to - why?

Counters bust out because
- they're properly financed but are not good enough
- they're good enough, but are not properly financed
- they're neither good enough or financed

So, why bounce them.
I would think a good chunk of this board is not properly financed, or good enough. The remainder are both good enough and financed. That doesn't account for much, especially considering that they're degrees of good enough.

The casino should worry about skill, not if the player is properly financed. It logically makes no sense (for the casino) to care if a player is financed properly or not.

[Freightman]

The casino should worry about skill, not if the player is properly financed. It logically makes no sense (for the casino) to care if a player is financed properly or not.

You're wrong. No one is immune from negative variance. Further, the poorly financed Player will end up minus his bankroll, relegated to red chipping, and all if the joys that entails.

[Freightman]

You're wrong. No one is immune from negative variance. Further, the poorly financed Player will end up minus his bankroll, relegated to red chipping, and all if the joys that entails.

Ever notice when you're thrashing them in a casino doesn't fifer free drinks, and they bring you free drinks. They want you playi long enough for the tide to turn.

Or the classic Casino where Ace Rothstein says " but I knew" with his philosophy of keep em pksying. Variance can be ugly.

[RS]

You're wrong. No one is immune from negative variance. Further, the poorly financed Player will end up minus his bankroll, relegated to red chipping, and all if the joys that entails.

I'm not talking about it from the player's POV, but from the casino's. The casino should back off a player who possesses the necessary skill, whether he's properly financed or under-bankrolled.

Take the following example. I'll use simple math for it, mostly because BJ math eludes me.

A casino offers a game where you can bet on a 50/50 coin flip. They pay you 101-to-100 (so your $100 bet either loses $100 or wins $101). Should the casino care whether there is ONE player with $10,000 BR or if there are 100 players each with $100 BR? If you were running this casino, would you say, "Wait, HOLD ON, no! This is wrong, we're giving the PLAYER an advantage, close the game immediately!! I don't care if a player has $100 or $100K!" ? Or would you say, "Well, let's only let the under-funded players play. If someone has $300 [or some arbitrary number] or fewer, they can play. Anyone with more, can't." ?

Ever notice when you're thrashing them in a casino doesn't fifer free drinks, and they bring you free drinks. They want you playi long enough for the tide to turn.

I've never noticed that, no. But if they are doing that, then that's a great example of a casino doing something they shouldn't be doing (unless it's a subtle way to tell you to leave). Whatever they've lost is a sunk cost.

[Freightman]

I'm not talking about it from the player's POV, but from the casino's. The casino should back off a player who possesses the necessary skill, whether he's properly financed or under-bankrolled.

Take the following example. I'll use simple math for it, mostly because BJ math eludes me.

A casino offers a game where you can bet on a 50/50 coin flip. They pay you 101-to-100 (so your $100 bet either loses $100 or wins $101). Should the casino care whether there is ONE player with $10,000 BR or if there are 100 players each with $100 BR? If you were running this casino, would you say, "Wait, HOLD ON, no! This is wrong, we're giving the PLAYER an advantage, close the game immediately!! I don't care if a player has $100 or $100K!" ? Or would you say, "Well, let's only let the under-funded players play. If someone has $300 [or some arbitrary number] or fewer, they can play. Anyone with more, can't." ?


I've never noticed that, no. But if they are doing that, then that's a great example of a casino doing something they shouldn't be doing (unless it's a subtle way to tell you to leave). Whatever they've lost is a sunk cost.

You'd likely be fired if you worked for the casino. Reason is lost profits.

[RS]

You'd likely be fired if you worked for the casino. Reason is lost profits.

I'm talking about should a casino kick out a player who is underfunded yet is skilled and plays with an advantage? The math says yes, they should, whether the casino is up or down to that player. If you want to respond to what I'm talking about and what this thread is about -- go ahead.

The discussion isn't about whether I'd be fired or not from the casino. I've seen a dealer almost get fired because his boss didn't give him (the dealer) the proper/modified schedule. I've seen plenty of other idiotic things that casinos do.