Do casinos really make mistakes by barring marginal counters?

[BoSox]

The premise is if someone is skilled, they should be kicked out. If they aren’t skilled, they should be allowed to play.

You, or at least some here, are trying to make the point the casino should just allow an underfunded yet skilled player to play, seemingly because his small BR will likely go bust. Yet you’re trying to prove your point saying that player doesn’t play perfectly? What?! If someone doesn’t play perfectly (or well enough), then the size of his bankroll doesn’t matter at all, since he’s playing a losing game. Interesting how you have to turn it into a player playing a “weak game” to justify him not being a threat, although minor, to the casino.

From every indication it seems like you would not only want every card counter removed "if detected"regardless of experience but are also implying the game is easy for all card counters and they are all threats and become successful. Which side of the table are you working?

[RS]

From every indication it seems like you would not only want every card counter removed "if detected"regardless of experience but are also implying the game is easy for all card counters and are threats and become successful. Which side of the table are you working?

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. If I ran a casino, I would remove the skilled players whether they have a big bankroll or a tiny bankroll (not taking into account other factors, like if he's gonna go play slots and give up way more EV...or if he brings friends who'll lose way more...etc.). I'm not sure where you come up with the idea that I said or implied the game is easy for all CCers and are threats and become successful.

Obviously as an AP I don't want CC or any APs to get removed from the casino, since I like every other AP are in it to make money. The discussion isn't about what I or others "want" or would like to happen. The discussion is about what the casino should do regarding skilled yet under-funded APs.

I said or implied a SMALL PERCENTAGE of them become successful and overall are a threat to the casino (although likely minor threats). It's the law of large numbers. Do you guys really think there's a difference if 1 person has $100k or 100 people each have $1k? Do you walk into the casino and play a few hour session and every time say, "I'm just playing in the short run, just because I'll get another 1,000 hours in this year, it doesn't mean I'll win, because I only play 3-4 hour sessions."? Do you think there's a difference between 1 AP playing 100 sessions in a year vs 100 APs playing 1 session each in a year? I mean that's just comically absurd.

[BoSox]

I said or implied a SMALL PERCENTAGE of them become successful and overall are a threat to the casino (although likely minor threats). It's the law of large numbers. Do you guys really think there's a difference if 1 person has $100k or 100 people each have $1k? Do you walk into the casino and play a few hour session and every time say, "I'm just playing in the short run, just because I'll get another 1,000 hours in this year, it doesn't mean I'll win, because I only play 3-4 hour sessions."? Do you think there's a difference between 1 AP playing 100 sessions in a year vs 100 APs playing 1 session each in a year? I mean that's just comically absurd.

For what its worth I do not think you should point that above quote out.

[Three]

Do you guys really think there's a difference if 1 person has $100k or 100 people each have $1k?

Of course the difference was explained. One guy with a big BR can withstand the downswings. 100 underfunded guys will keep busting out. They don't get the benefit of the other guys win to keep them playing. If you don't understand take your point of view to the absurd. How about 20,000 people each with a $5 BR playing $5 tables. Almost none of them will survive the first shoe. The few that survive aren't going to have $100K between them. Do you see the difference now?

[Three]

You, or at least some here, are trying to make the point the casino should just allow an underfunded yet skilled player to play, seemingly because his small BR will likely go bust. Yet you’re trying to prove your point saying that player doesn’t play perfectly? What?! If someone doesn’t play perfectly (or well enough), then the size of his bankroll doesn’t matter at all, since he’s playing a losing game. Interesting how you have to turn it into a player playing a “weak game” to justify him not being a threat, although minor, to the casino.

There are many reasons why they should let the small fish play. They all add up. I don't know why you can't understand that multiple factors work together. Obviously a plug and play simple approach guy and not an understand the big picture and modify approaches to take advantage anywhere it can be found.

[RS]

There are many reasons why they should let the small fish play. They all add up. I don't know why you can't understand that multiple factors work together. Obviously a plug and play simple approach guy and not an understand the big picture and modify approaches to take advantage anywhere it can be found.

Okay, how about this then.

I'll get 1,000 people and give them each $100.

Every day, you flip a coin for each of the people (EG: Flip a coin for John, maybe it lands on heads, then another one for Bob, that one on tails, then for Alice, then for Susan...etc.). If it lands on heads, you pay the person $110. If it lands on tails, they give you $100. Once a person's balance falls below $100, he's out. Every now and then, I'll bring in another 1,000 people each with $100. You can play as long as you want.

Is that something you'd want to do? Using your logic, that would be excellent for you, because you'd make a killing on all those small fish players and they'd each have an insanely high ROR.

[Three]

If it lands on heads, you pay the person $110. If it lands on tails, they give you $100. Once a person's balance falls below $100, he's out. Every now and then, I'll bring in another 1,000 people each with $100. You can play as long as you want.

LoL. My logic obviously went right over your head.

This was already shown not to apply because no skill is needed to gain the advantage. The advantage is built into the game. The point is underfunded players are beginners that haven't learned everything they need to know to be APs. They think they will make a profit but will make mistakes, use poor judgement, have poor discipline, and simply lose their BR to normal swings even a skilled player would have. Some will get lucky. But few of them will develop the skill set required to not give it back. The most important skill is BR management. Even with a decent BR their chances are slim if they don't get a handle on BR management.

[RS]

LoL. My logic obviously went right over your head.

This was already shown not to apply because no skill is needed to gain the advantage. The advantage is built into the game. The point is underfunded players are beginners that haven't learned everything they need to know to be APs. They think they will make a profit but will make mistakes, use poor judgement, have poor discipline, and simply lose their BR to normal swings even a skilled player would have. Some will get lucky. But few of them will develop the skill set required to not give it back. The most important skill is BR management. Even with a decent BR their chances are slim if they don't get a handle on BR management.

Damn you're stupid.

I'm not talking about players with poor skills. I'm talking about people who are SKILLED yet are also under-funded, as I've said for the umpteenth time. Being under-funded doesn't mean someone will automatically not be skilled.

Of course there are reasons the casino may allow someone to play, while the size of that person's bankroll shouldn't matter. Like you said, someone who's poorly disciplined, makes mistakes, etc. is likely not going to be playing a winning game. The casino should absolutely allow someone who's playing a losing game to play. Wait...did you really think I was suggesting the casino should back off losing players? LOLOLOL

RS, casinos do not always follow the correct logic, let's keep it that way.

Agreed.

[BoSox]

Damn you're stupid.

I'm not talking about players with poor skills. I'm talking about people who are SKILLED yet are also under-funded, as I've said for the umpteenth time. Being under-funded doesn't mean someone will automatically not be skilled.

Of course there are reasons the casino may allow someone to play, while the size of that person's bankroll shouldn't matter. Like you said, someone who's poorly disciplined, makes mistakes, etc. is likely not going to be playing a winning game. The casino should absolutely allow someone who's playing a losing game to play. Wait...did you really think I was suggesting the casino should back off losing players? LOLOLOL

Three, is very far from being stupid. Have you ever seen someone working the art of deception? You are missing the big picture.

[Three]

Damn you're stupid.

I was thinking the same thing about every one of your posts and the idea that you would support players being backed off. I was just too polite to say it. There are a bunch of other pros here telling you the same thing. Yet you single me out to call stupid. I guess I have an enemy.

I'm talking about people who are SKILLED yet are also under-funded,

Well the five players that fit that disruption aren't mush of a threat. If they were skilled why wouldn't they have a BR? Skilled means understanding BR management. If they are playing underfunded they don't understand BR management and can't be skilled, by the definition of a skilled player. Think about it.

[Three]

Of course there are reasons the casino may allow someone to play, while the size of that person's bankroll shouldn't matter.

If you have played in the casinos for any length of time you have learned most casinos let red chippers play but back the same players off as soon as they start playing for higher stakes. Why? The answer is obvious to everyone else. The only way to infer a players BR is his bet size and spread. If he is red chipping you can infer he is underfunded. Green chip and up you must assume they have a sufficient or large BR. They may not but you just have no way of knowing. So the casinos obviously understand the concept that everyone else here gets but still alludes you. They have rated a red chipper as a skilled player but let him play because of the inferred small BR. Once he starts green chipping the BO comes because they already know he is a counter but now assumes he is better BRed.

[Three]

The casino should absolutely allow someone who's playing a losing game to play. Wait...did you really think I was suggesting the casino should back off losing players? LOLOLOL

Actually, that is usually when the BO comes. They wait until you are losing to back you off. I would think you would know that. Of course they don't wait forever.

[Freightman]

Actually, that is usually when the BO comes. They wait until you are losing to back you off. I would think you would know that. Of course they don't wait forever.

As strange as it may seem, don't believe I've been backed off while losing. I've been asked to sign up for loyalty cards immediately prior to backoff, at least twice. Guess they mostly got tired of waiting.