at the tables with a CSM. What is the calculation
behind these limits?In general the spread between
table min. and max. is 50 times the min.Why are there no tables with ?5 min. and $1000 max.?
Are the casinos afraid of progressionists?
Thanks for answering
1. More experienced dealers are put on higher limit tables
2. The pit pays more attention to the higher limit tables
3. Many high limit players would rather not play with red chip players
4. Segregation of the tables allows them to have more open seats at high limit tables
5. It is more difficult for dealers to make payoffs when people are playing at many different levels
6. The chip trays are populated differently for high and low limit tables
There are off the top of may head. I?m sure there are other reasons.
> Are the casinos afraid of progressionists?
Norm's answers are all correct for why there are tables with different min/max combinations.
I'll just address the min/max "spread" at a given table.
In my opinion, in the short term, the answer is "yes", although I don't think "afraid" is the right term. In the long term, of course, the answer is "never".
But I think that one of the reasons for the table min/max range is to limit the number of times a gambler can countinue to double their bet, needing only one win to recover the initial
bet.
In the short term, someone could do some damage to the house take if they could double their last bet as many times as they liked (though they would have to have a lot of cash on hand for those serious multiple losses in a row that WILL come, later if not sooner).
The real danger from a double or nothing string is when you don't have to put up the cash each time. Like if you are playing, say, 5-card draw with a friend, and you only settle up at the end.
If you fell way behind, and he/she let you continue to play double or nothing until you finally won a hand, they would be pretty stupid, no?
I think I remember Norm posting, one time, how frequently strings of losses of various lengths will occur. It was pretty interesting.
And I think I remember Wong writing once that if you are prepared to bet double your loss only twice, you have >75% chance of getting it back. It's sometimes a valid last resort tactic in tourney play.
John
You asked why there are no 5-1000 tables. Most players who will bet $1000 don't want $5 players jumping in and out of their game. They are a real nuisance.
Here is something to think about. If your running a casino, which is better: a table with 5 red players, or one with 1 green player. If the green player is using a similar betting pattern then the average bet per round will be the same at the two tables. But the casino will still prefer the 1-player Green table. Do you see why?
The answer is: rounds per hour. The rounds per hour at the Green table is much greater.
Similarly, a table with 1 black player is better than one with 4 green players.
Now most black-chip players don't want to share a table with a bunch of red-chip players, who slow down the game. The casino does not want them at such a table either. So having a high minimum accommodates both of them.
> at the tables with a CSM. What is the
> calculation
> behind these limits?In general the spread
> between
> table min. and max. is 50 times the min.Why
> are there no tables with ?5 min. and $1000
> max.?
> Are the casinos afraid of progressionists?
> Thanks for answering
> at the tables with a CSM. What is the
> calculation
> behind these limits?In general the spread
> between
> table min. and max. is 50 times the min.Why
> are there no tables with ?5 min. and $1000
> max.?
> Are the casinos afraid of progressionists?
> Thanks for answering
If I remember this corerectly, Messr. Jacques Blanc established a table max (first ever done)
at the Monte Carlo Casino. The King of France
(or someone royal) broke the casino three times by doubling up as many times as necessary to get
a win. Most of us have a bankroll that is smaller than the resources of a country.
I doubt, greatly, that the casino cares anything about the players likes or dislikes as to people jumping in and out or a green or black chip player not wanting to play with a red chipper.
The limits as stated are to stop martigale players and huge spreading as well as progressionists.
The casino with no mid shoe may say that is in effect to please the players who dislike people jumping in the game but we know the true reason and it has nothing to do with the players comfort.
When will the book be out and will it be mandatory reading for all the students in the classes you teach? 8-)
There is no reason to stop a Martingale player. And it wouldn't anyway since he could just switch tables.
> I doubt, greatly, that the casino cares
> anything about the players likes or dislikes
> as to people jumping in and out or a green
> or black chip player not wanting to play
> with a red chipper.
> The limits as stated are to stop martigale
> players and huge spreading as well as
> progressionists.
The casinos could give a s__t about red chippers, but they very definitely want to keep their high rollers happy, loose and stationary. Any max limit below $5k is hardly to protect the casino from variance. Progressions are no part of the picture.
> The casino with no mid shoe may say that is
> in effect to please the players who dislike
> people jumping in the game but we know the
> true reason and it has nothing to do with
> the players comfort.
No midshoe may be largely to thwart Wongers, but the comfort of high rollers is also a factor.
ETF
> There is no reason to stop a Martingale
> player. And it wouldn't anyway since he
> could just switch tables.
There is a reason to stop a martingale player. Do you not beleive that if I had a large enough bankroll (say in the millions) I could play blackjack for ever and not loose, as long as the casino did not limit my maximum bet? I could ALWAYS get back to the bankroll I started with, plus one unit. If a player switches tables, that table has a new limit also. Limits are to stop this.
Norm,
You lost me on the switching tables.
What good would that do if you were already on a hi-limit table and doing a Martingale?
> There is a reason to stop a martingale
> player. Do you not beleive that if I had a
> large enough bankroll (say in the millions)
> I could play blackjack for ever and not
> loose, as long as the casino did not limit
> my maximum bet? I could ALWAYS get back to
> the bankroll I started with, plus one unit.
> If a player switches tables, that table has
> a new limit also. Limits are to stop this.
The reasons that a $5 min table has a lower max than a $25 or $100 min table are as discussed above. One of the reasons that tables have limits at all is indeed to foil progressionists.
Many years ago, Benny Binion had a policy at the Horseshoe that they would "take any action." No limit. The only stipulation was that your first bet extablished your maximum bet. This was indeed to foil progressionists, both positive and negative.
Anyway, such discussions are pointless. Tables have limits, no one has an infinite bankroll, and if they did, what reason would they have to gamble?
And this is as close to a discussion of progressions as you will see on this website.
> There is a reason to stop a martingale
> player. Do you not beleive that if I had a
> large enough bankroll (say in the millions)
> I could play blackjack for ever and not
> loose, as long as the casino did not limit
> my maximum bet? I could ALWAYS get back to
> the bankroll I started with, plus one unit.
> If a player switches tables, that table has
> a new limit also. Limits are to stop this.
If you had an infinite bankroll and the casino had an infinite bankroll and the table limits were infinite, a martingale would still lose. In fact it would lose an infinite amount of money. But it's all silliness. If you had an infinite bankroll and put it in the bank - you would get an infinite amount of money in interest.
If you had an infinite bankroll and carried it around with you for gambling purposes instead of putting it in the bank, you would lose an infinite amount of money every day due to inflation.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks