Jim: penetration

[Jim]

I wonder why some casinos deal 67% of a shoe, some 75% and others 85%. A deep penetration provides more hands/hour. This means more potential profit for the casinos.

[Don Schlesinger]

> I wonder why some casinos deal 67% of a
> shoe, some 75% and others 85%. A deep
> penetration provides more hands/hour. This
> means more potential profit for the casinos.

Would that you were a casino manager! :-)

Those that deal more deeply recognize the simple truth that you have expressed. Those that don't represent the majority of casino managers who feel threatened by card counters and who don't understand that, in trying to beat every patron, they compromise their bottom line.

Regrettably, there is no IQ test to become a casino manager. :-)

Don

[quark]

> Those that deal more deeply recognize the
> simple truth that you have expressed. Those
> that don't represent the majority of casino
> managers who feel threatened by card
> counters and who don't understand that, in
> trying to beat every patron, they
> compromise their bottom line.

Don, I've seen a lot of arguments on that point. I really don't know what to believe!

One one hand, the casinos that deal deep penetration will be a draw for counters everywhere. This doesn't seem like something they would want.

On the other hand, they might draw a lot of "would be" counters (like myself, probably) that probably don't yet have the skills and bankroll to beat the game.

BS players might play more hands per hour, but would it REALLY make up for the loss of the "counter drawing" deep penetration?

Beter question... if YOU inherited a casino, and you were out to make it profitable for yourself, how would you handle that? Try to strike a happy medium? What would that be?

[quark]

As a new counter with KO, I have been to the casinos about 10-12 times. Winning or losing $200-300 each time. I'm probably down a couple of hundred, but am not unhappy at this point. But after reading all I can get my hands on, (haven't got YOUR book... YET!) It seems to be a very long grind to a winning game. So be it! I'm mostly in it for the fun... like it to be a profitable hobby, but...

I'm curious... What would have been the advantage in the pre-Thorp days. For instance... if someone were to be counting cards with one of the best systems out there today... playing in the 60's at single deck dealt to the end of the pack, how profitable would that be? I know that a lot would depend on the rules, but I'm assuming that most rule sets in use at that time were pretty standard.

So what would it be like with 100% penetration?

[chgobjpro]

I would deal to less than one deck on a 6D game until I was threatened. Once someone jumped bets at end I would take measures on future shoes. I would also have my pit staff be on the look out for backcounters. In fact if a few jumped in with very large bets at end of the shoe I would break the shoe before dealing.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Don, I've seen a lot of arguments on that
> point. I really don't know what to believe!

You might start with what I wrote! :-)

> One one hand, the casinos that deal deep
> penetration will be a draw for counters
> everywhere. This doesn't seem like something
> they would want.

They want revenue. Dealing more deeply, and then monitoring the games, as Billy Zender did at the Aladdin, seems to be the intelligent way to go. But, "intelligent" and "casino mangaer" simply don't go together.

> On the other hand, they might draw a lot of
> "would be" counters (like myself,
> probably) that probably don't yet have the
> skills and bankroll to beat the game.

And the 99 out of 100 other players who don't ever count.

> BS players might play more hands per hour,
> but would it REALLY make up for the loss of
> the "counter drawing" deep
> penetration?

Yes. Unquestionably. Especially if the counters were monitored closely.

> Beter question... if YOU inherited a
> casino, and you were out to make it
> profitable for yourself, how would you
> handle that? Try to strike a happy medium?

Yes.

> What would that be?

I've answered this before, but it's somewhat complicated. I'd deal a good game, monitor it closely, and set some limits for counters.

Don

[Don Schlesinger]

> As a new counter with KO, I have been to
> the casinos about 10-12 times. Winning or
> losing $200-300 each time. I'm probably down
> a couple of hundred, but am not unhappy at
> this point. But after reading all I can get
> my hands on, (haven't got YOUR book... YET!)

What, you can't get your hands on it? :-)
No problem; start slowly and build to BJA.

> It seems to be a very long grind to a
> winning game. So be it! I'm mostly in it for
> the fun... like it to be a profitable hobby,
> but...

Good attitude to have.

> I'm curious... What would have been the
> advantage in the pre-Thorp days. For
> instance... if someone were to be counting
> cards with one of the best systems out there
> today... playing in the 60's at single deck
> dealt to the end of the pack, how profitable
> would that be? I know that a lot would
> depend on the rules, but I'm assuming that
> most rule sets in use at that time were
> pretty standard.

> So what would it be like with 100%
> penetration?

When Joe DiMaggio was asked what kind of salary he'd be entitled to today, when ordinary ballplayers are getting millions a year, he replied, "I'd go to the owner's office, knock on the door, and say 'Hello, partner!'"

The answer to your question, above, is the counter would be virtually a partner in the casino!

Don

[Spokanimal]

> I wonder why some casinos deal 67% of a
> shoe, some 75% and others 85%. A deep
> penetration provides more hands/hour. This
> means more potential profit for the casinos.

A growing percentage of venues utilize 2 packs and an auto-shuffler in order to deal shallow and have the second deck waiting when the stop-card is hit. Some places even phase-in a deck change-over (eg: deal an old deck as the new, washed cards are in the shuffler then deal the new, shuffled deck as the second new deck shuffles... this requires a pit-boss who is willing to fan the new decks on 2 separate visits to the table but minimizes down-time during the change-over).

Re: so-so counters, most of the counters I've identified at tables I've played over the years are counters who play less than optimally. I've frequently played at $25 min DD tables where 6x1 or 8x1 spreads are widely known to be tolerated but where successive, bankroll-paranoid counters would top out with $100 max bets. By my observations, I'd say only some 20-25% of counters really play an optimal, powerful game.

Yes, Don's right, Casinos for the most part are overly paranoid of counters and, in many cases, adopt rules and pen levels that hurt them in the aggregate.

Spok

[coldsteel]

You could stop the counters the other ways you outlined without cheating the non-counting players at the table by altering the odds of the game by breaking the shoe at a high count.

Actually you shouldn't cheat the counters either, instead just give them their few bets at the end of the shoe, then give them the boot between shoes. Oh, and no transmitting of pictures for blacklisting at other casinos either, that's breaking the law too. Remember, just because the gambling industry has bribed the judges and politicians with your money doesn't mean they should be allowed to do whatever they want to anyone who plays their games.

cold

> I would deal to less than one deck on a 6D
> game until I was threatened. Once someone
> jumped bets at end I would take measures on
> future shoes. I would also have my pit staff
> be on the look out for backcounters. In fact
> if a few jumped in with very large bets at
> end of the shoe I would break the shoe
> before dealing.

[Don Schlesinger]

> You could stop the counters the other ways
> you outlined without cheating the
> non-counting players at the table by
> altering the odds of the game by breaking
> the shoe at a high count.

I've written, in my book, that preferential shuffling is blatant cheating. But, that's a personal opinion, not a legal determination.

Are you aware of any court rulings that state, specifically, that breaking a shoe, or shuffling on positive counts, is actually illegal, as determined by a court of law?

Don

[Spokanimal]

> I've written, in my book, that preferential
> shuffling is blatant cheating. But, that's a
> personal opinion, not a legal determination.

> Are you aware of any court rulings that
> state, specifically, that breaking a shoe,
> or shuffling on positive counts, is actually
> illegal, as determined by a court of law?

> Don

When I read of your wrath for the pref. shuffle in your book, my reaction was split. Clearly, shuffling on positive counts should be illegal since it's comparable to a shuffling machine that would stack small cards at what would become the likely head of the deck.

For a dealer to shuffle because a player is counting, however, is no different than the counter who heads for the john on a big, negative count or backcounts the game. It makes no sense that a casino should be held to a higher standard than the counter they are in competition with.

The problem is discerning the difference in motives behind a P.S. in a provable way.

Spok

[Don Schlesinger]

> When I read of your wrath for the pref.
> shuffle in your book, my reaction was split.
> Clearly, shuffling on positive counts should
> be illegal since it's comparable to a
> shuffling machine that would stack small
> cards at what would become the likely head
> of the deck.

But that's the definition of preferential shuffling!

> For a dealer to shuffle because a player is
> counting, however, is no different than the
> counter who heads for the john on a big,
> negative count or backcounts the game. It
> makes no sense that a casino should be held
> to a higher standard than the counter they
> are in competition with.

Shuffling at any time, indiscriminately, is not preferential shuffling.

> The problem is discerning the difference in
> motives behind a P.S. in a provable way.

I think there's a contradiction in terms. If the casino consistently and deliberately, in a discernible pattern, shuffles away all positive counts and continues to deal more deeply in the negativ ones, that's the very essence of preferential shuffling.

So, once again, I'm asking if you know of any court rulings forbidding such a practice, or if you simply agree with me that it SHOULD be illegal.

Don

[Spokanimal]

> Shuffling at any time, indiscriminately, is
> not preferential shuffling.

This is true, but if a dealer begins shuffling earlier than he normally does in order to cut into a counter's advantage (regardless of the count at the point of shuffle), I would still characterize this as preferential because is IS
"discriminate".

I just don't view such a tactic as unfair or illegal as I do when the shuffle-point is determined by a count the dealer is conducting, which hurts all players.

No, I know of no court rulings.. I just agree with you that it s/b illegal. I'd like to khow the answer to this question as well.

Spok