Do casinos really make mistakes by barring marginal counters?

[Tassie]

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).

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.

I have merely skimmed your comment and math. But a cursory look at it tells me that this is a positive expectation game for players and negative expectation for the casino.

So casinos lose money ($1,216 in this case) because of +0.50-1? HE and not due to any advantage play. They were dolling out 50c to every other lucky player and few were luckier than others.

Freightman,

I lived in Canada for many years. So I am giving you a chance to take your point further (or refute others).

[21forme]

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.

Did you file an SAR, if they have those in Canada?

[Sharky]

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.

X2

...they evaluate what they can...your skill level...and your action...NOT your br...they can't

[BoSox]

I have merely skimmed your comment and math. But a cursory look at it tells me that this is a positive expectation game for players and negative expectation for the casino.

So casinos lose money ($1,216 in this case) because of +0.50-1? HE and not due to any advantage play. They were dolling out 50c to every other lucky player and few were luckier than others.

Freightman,

I lived in Canada for many years. So I am giving you a chance to take your point further (or refute others).

I would like to take a shot at this. Most all casinos managements teams are completely stupid, with a history as proof. They are overly arrogant and susceptible to manipulation into creating an advantage play they are not even aware of, as it does happen all the time. Unless a few assholes inform them.

[Freightman]

Freightman,

I lived in Canada for many years. So I am giving you a chance to take your point further (or refute others).

Thank you for gracious invitation, to which I really don't give a shit, nor wish to spend additional time debating.

[Tassie]

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.

The law of large number applies here. An HE of -20? is nearly useless if 3 players play this game for 3 minutes betting 18 times every 5 years.

An HE of -.10? is hugely profitable if a trillian small transactions occur every hour for 10 years. This holds reasonable even if all players are skilled (assuming no operational costs for casinos).

Being skilled doesn't mean larger than the law of the large numbers.

In reality, there are slack periods for casinos with high operating costs that cut into their profits. Hence there is a need to watch some skilled players - not all players.

[Freightman]

Did you file an SAR, if they have those in Canada?

Not an SAR as such, as far as I'm aware. Levels of observation at the cage are as follows.

$3000 - ID is not taken (though some stores have that policy). A general description of the individual is taken for the Casino advisor to keep track of, should there be additional cash outs by the same individual.
$9000 -either buy in or cashout, ID is taken. The Federal threshold is 10k, however, a Provincial threshold is reached at 9k.
$10000- buy in or cashout is reported to the Feds (Finntrac)

[Freightman]

X2

...they evaluate what they can...your skill level...and your action...NOT your br...they can't

Actually, they most certainly can, by inference. However, few are properly skilled in the art, which includes behavioural observation.

[Tassie]

Thank you for gracious invitation, to which I really don't give a shit, nor wish to spend additional time debating.

Such a Canadian reply: an aversive tendency to issues and life in general.

[lij45o6]

I have merely skimmed your comment and math. But a cursory look at it tells me that this is a positive expectation game for players and negative expectation for the casino.

So casinos lose money ($1,216 in this case) because of +0.50-1? HE and not due to any advantage play. They were dolling out 50c to every other lucky player and few were luckier than others.

The player +EV *is* the AP.

The house edge for the theoretical game is (-101 + 100)/2 = -0.005 units per round.

That means, on average, the house is *giving away* 0.5 USD per 100 USD bet per round.

Whether or not N players "win" or "lose" is immaterial. The reality is that with respect to each event, the house is donating to the player.

The maths hold and many, many simulations can demonstrate that the house bank will decrease as t increases to infinity.

What the discussion predicates on is if the player has a high RoR (in this case hovering around 91-99% !) even with a theoretical advantage, does the lone player hold a threat to the casino, even when under-banked playing a +EV player game?

My opinion comes down to both no and risk. Each house has a level of risk they are willing to take; hence why many AP's talk about a joints "choke point". Measuring that point is difficult and risky.

Hence, many casinos take the "risk adverse" approach, and I would invoke the idea of: "risk and reward are inversely proportional."

A single player under-banked does not hold my casino hostage. However; concurrent AP's do. Hence, another reason casinos back of anyone of suspected counting. It is not the single player who is a threat, it is the continuous onslaught of AP's that show a -EV game for my casino! Remember, the long run will show us; however:

"In the long run, we are all dead."

-J.M. Keynes

[Freightman]

Such a Canadian reply: an aversive tendency to issues and life in general.

Not at all. I truly don't give a shit, nor do I wish to bang my head against the wall with a DBS type inquiry. In blunt terms, I would much rather tell someone to fuck off and enjoy the weather from my deck, but thats just me.

[lij45o6]

fuck off and enjoy the weather...

Still Canadian when you tell me off and to enjoy the weather...sorry. In the US, we only get the first part. Lucky us.

[Sharky]

Actually, they most certainly can, by inference. However, few are properly skilled in the art, which includes behavioural observation.

...so you are suggesting:

GM to PC: ..." you allowed him to continue to play when surveillance suggested he was skilled..."

PC to GM: ..." Yes, sir...but our metrics (TIMEX watch, Garanamials wardrobe, etc) suggested he was underfunded...

LMFAO.....u OOZE phoniness