Do casinos really make mistakes by barring marginal counters?

[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.

[Three]

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." ?

Let's put int in terms we can all understand. People argue that 100 players each with a $1000 BR is like a 100 player team with a $100K BR. The problem with this argument is most will bust out without the benefit of the others winnings to cover their losses. Most won't be disciplined enough and have the constitution to follow the game plan and add to the expected number of bust outs. Those that pass that bar a lot will not reinvest their winnings and end up failing because despite winning their BR shrinks during a bad run. Pretty soon many of these players bust out. Of the ones that still aren't gone many don't really understand what they are doing well enough to avoid bad situations that will be hard to win in. they will play just because they showed up and play poor game offerings causing their results to be far worse than sim results and cause a number of these players to fall to attrition. Very few will have the casino smarts and discipline to make any significant money. Most will get discouraged after a bad beating eats their profits and quit a loser to whatever casino let them play. Now how is that the same as a 100 man team sharing a $100K BR.

[Freightman]

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.

You're missed the point, not once, not twice, but multiple times.

The underfunded, but skilled player, cannot handle the variance of the game, which a skilled properly funded player can. Ergo, as skilled as he may be, he will be ground into the dust. What is difficult to understand?

[RS]

Let's put int in terms we can all understand. People argue that 100 players each with a $1000 BR is like a 100 player team with a $100K BR. The problem with this argument is most will bust out without the benefit of the others winnings to cover their losses. Most won't be disciplined enough and have the constitution to follow the game plan and add to the expected number of bust outs. Those that pass that bar a lot will not reinvest their winnings and end up failing because despite winning their BR shrinks during a bad run. Pretty soon many of these players bust out. Of the ones that still aren't gone many don't really understand what they are doing well enough to avoid bad situations that will be hard to win in. they will play just because they showed up and play poor game offerings causing their results to be far worse than sim results and cause a number of these players to fall to attrition. Very few will have the casino smarts and discipline to make any significant money. Most will get discouraged after a bad beating eats their profits and quit a loser to whatever casino let them play. Now how is that the same as a 100 man team sharing a $100K BR.

The benefit of the others covering their losses is a moot point if we're looking at it from the casino's POV. Obviously a player shouldn't play so under-funded, but that doesn't mean the casino should welcome them with open arms. The other reasons you gave are attributes of a player without skill. There are a million other reasons why a casino might welcome an under-funded player, perhaps he has a bad drug problem and if he's on a bad run, the casino expects him to go hit the slots...or maybe his friend is a big (ploppy) player and kicking him out would dissuade the BP from playing there.

Let's use simple math to see how this would work in a real world. Again, I'll use coin-flips because there is absolutely no ambiguity there. 1024 players each have $100. A win pays $101, a loss is -$100. If you want to run a sim with a thousand players playing BJ and show the results, go ahead (it's not going to support what you or Freightman think, though).

Round #1
512 have $0
512 have $201

Round #2
512 have $0
256 have $101
256 have $302

Round #3
512 have $0
128 have $1 (no more play)
256 have $202
128 have $403

Round #4
512 have $0
128 have $1
128 have $102
192 have $303
64 have $504

... And so it continues

There were 1024 flips in round #1, 512 in round #2, 512 in round #3, and 384 flips in round #4. That's 2,432 flips if my math is right. At 50c in EV per flip, the casino should be down $1,216.

512*0 + 128*1 + 128*102 + 192*303 + 64*504 = 103,616

103,616 - 102,400 = $1,216

Eventually what's left is a few players who have significantly sized bankrolls and the casino is still down. What's the point in backing them off now? The casino is still down money -- although it's better than waiting & hoping the AP is gonna lose.


If I ran a casino and I discovered a pit boss (or whoever is in charge) didn't back off an advantage player because he was waiting for that player to get on a cold streak (dafaq?), the boss would be fired for incompetence. I'm sorry, I just think that's absolutely hilarious.


EDIT: Hopefully I did all the math there properly so I don't make a fool of myself. =\

[RS]

You're missed the point, not once, not twice, but multiple times.

The underfunded, but skilled player, cannot handle the variance of the game, which a skilled properly funded player can. Ergo, as skilled as he may be, he will be ground into the dust. What is difficult to understand?

Prove your point using math, then. I understand "X% of players will be up Y%, casino will be up/down ____, and here's the math:". I don't understand flippant responses where someone is trying to prove a mathematical point yet they expressly avoid using math.

I just did, it shows the casino will still be down and you'll eventually end up with 1 or a few players with "significant" bankrolls. My example only showed a few rounds, but using logic one can deduce after many more rounds, the casino will be down even more money, won't make it up, and they will still have the same problem -- an AP beating them. Actually, the problem would be even worse (if run by Freightman), because he'd instruct the bosses NOT to kick out the player who's up a bunch, because that player, for some reason, "can't handle the variance" and "will eventually lose". smh

[Freightman]

Prove your point using math, then. I understand "X% of players will be up Y%, casino will be up/down ____, and here's the math:". I don't understand flippant responses where someone is trying to prove a mathematical point yet they expressly avoid using math.

I just did, it shows the casino will still be down and you'll eventually end up with 1 or a few players with "significant" bankrolls. My example only showed a few rounds, but using logic one can deduce after many more rounds, the casino will be down even more money, won't make it up, and they will still have the same problem -- an AP beating them. Actually, the problem would be even worse (if run by Freightman), because he'd instruct the bosses NOT to kick out the player who's up a bunch, because that player, for some reason, "can't handle the variance" and "will eventually lose". smh

If I was the critter evaluating me, I'd back me off realizing - I can't break this guy either through skill or bankroll. But I'm not evaluating me, rather the hordes of wannabe counters with a few bucks, some skilled and funded, others not.

Im not interested in your self justification, and will comment as follows.

Presumably, u have a bankroll, and are familiar with the concepts of risk of ruin, variance and standard deviation. Understand how those concepts apply to you, and others. Hopefully this simple statement will steer you on the right direction.

[Three]

Eventually what's left is a few players who have significantly sized bankrolls and the casino is still down. What's the point in backing them off now? The casino is still down money -- although it's better than waiting & hoping the AP is gonna lose.

You are assuming that everyone does perfect play. We know hardly any will in BJ. The skilled counters are almost as likely to bust out as those that don't have what it takes in the short term. Then more than half of those that survive a while will bust out because they will not have the discipline required to follow a simple plan. If we know this will happen the casino should know it even better.

[BoSox]

You are assuming that everyone does perfect play. We know hardly any will in BJ. The skilled counters are almost as likely to bust out as those that don't have what it takes in the short term. Then more than half of those that survive a while will bust out because they will not have the discipline required to follow a simple plan. If we know this will happen the casino should know it even better.

+1, I am with you on this one Three.

[Freightman]

+1, I am with you on this one Three.

Agreed.
My shift at the casino is almost over. Most memorable cashout was $9.00, patron asking if I could handle the payout. I answered in the affirmative, further inquiring if he wanted large bills.