Soft17: Why do casinos go after counters?

[Frank G.]

What you are saying is the same as saying an internet casino using slow software will make as much money per hour as the fastest software available. Not even close.

Since you are an expert in sims and internet gambling, I find it amazing that you think dealing more cards per hour will not have a result in benefiting casinos. It will indeed be very beneficial for the casino.

A ploppy who has a stop loss limit will simply lose quicker due to more hands played per hour. As a result they go to another table or try slots. Hence, casinos make more money.

There are many successful casinos who deal a good game and make millions of $$$.

A casino manager who has a theory such as yours in hopes of getting a raise (instead of fired)and changes the rules to 50% pen on all table games including 8 deck, will be very surprised when he finds himself out of a job.

Due to the ignorance of management and losses of casino profits, the manager who made the bad games mandatory is the most likely candidate to get fired.

[big nguyen]

With all due respect, I consider Don's statement to be a gross exaggeration and untrue in many cases.

My tactical approach is to treat casino employees with courtesy and respect. It is a business relationship as Andersen so aptly described it, and I respect my adversaries. Personal experience tells me some are very intelligent.

To suggest ALL pit bosses are exceedingly stupid could very well lead newbies to underestimating the adversaries' abilities which in turn, IMO, could lead to unnecessary backoffs.

[big nguyen]

The same processes occur constantly in other industries.

[DoanWorry]

There are many, many businesses out ther that are run far below their potential due to the "We made a profit, I still have my job, let's not fix it" attitude. Unfortunately, the casinos fall into that category. If the bottom line is acceptable to the directors/shareholders, that's all that matters to management because that's their "report card" (spell that-pay increase, incentive bonus, job security, etc.)
I think if one casino were to "break out of the pack" with better games, it would have to show significant improvement of the bottom line quickly, and then justify how they would sustain that over the next several quarters.
With all of the dissemination of game info available to the counting players, these games would be overplayed to the detriment of the bottom line, thus not demonstrating their worth to corporate.
The games they have in place now are well attended despite their lousy pen and rules, so what is their incentive to improve the quality?
A sudden downturn in the bottom line, not attributable to outside influences (bad economy, high unemployment, poor convention attendance figures, etc)would then meke them look at all aspects of the operation to maximize profits. Sadly, it would probably result in a knee jerk reaction from management (due to their inherent lack of understanding) that would cause them to make games even worse in an attempt to squeeze every nickel possible from the gambling public.
It may be that better games in casinos not in LV might be able to steal market share from LV and cause an awakening to their methodology. Trouble is that I doubt that the big boys have any way to correlate better games in say Tunica with poorer games in LV, due to the vastly different demographics that exist.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Isn't it possible that they are simply
> business men who act no different than any
> other business man I know. Aren't they just
> trying to ratchet up their edge to a point
> where their total profit is maximized?

That's the whole point: they're NOT maximizing their profits by dealing 50%. It's elementary.

> But XYZ Casino is worth $100MM; and I'm
> worth $100. Whose smarter?

Never confuse having money with being intelligent. I know some poor geniuses and some rich imbeciles.

Don

[Don Schlesinger]

> With all due respect, I consider Don's
> statement to be a gross exaggeration and
> untrue in many cases.

By phrasing it as "the average," clearly, some are above and some are below. But, being above idiot level doesn't mean a whole lot, now does it?

> My tactical approach is to treat casino
> employees with courtesy and respect. It is a
> business relationship as Andersen so aptly
> described it, and I respect my adversaries.
> Personal experience tells me some are very
> intelligent.

Personal experience tells me most are imbeciles. Maybe we travel in different circles. But, "most are imbeciles" and "some are very intelligent" are not mutually exclusive statements.

> To suggest ALL pit bosses are exceedingly
> stupid could very well lead newbies to
> underestimating the adversaries' abilities
> which in turn, IMO, could lead to
> unnecessary backoffs.

We were not talking about spotting counters. We were talking about how the games are run and how ignorant it is to cut 50% globally.

Don

[big nguyen]

Again, disagree. As far as I am concerned that is exactly the context in which the comment would be perceived. The thread was started by someone asking why do casinos go after counters. And in many casinos the pit boss in an integral part of the process of going after counters.

I won't comment further. I felt many inexperienced counters MIGHT take your comment as gospel to their overall detriment. They can now read the entire thread and draw their own conclusions.

[Pro in-the-know]

The sharp (usually more like semi-sharp) ones are few and far between.
When dealing with PCs and the like, it is safer to assume idiot.

[Parker]

> There is none. The average IQ of a pit boss
> is just below that of an earthworm.

> Don

Careful - there may be earthworms reading this page.

I don't want to offend them.

(Hmm . . . mental picture of an earthworm trying to use a keyboard.)

:-)

[MethodMan]

> pure jealously
> our little tiny edge that last only for split seconds has them all worked up
> when one wins the pit crew may think that it happens all the time
> mny do not play the game themselves just watch and think its so easy
>the smart casinos are instructed by managers to just let it go,knowing they will probably get it back in the near future. Smart ones realize they can make $$ by so called counters

[Norm Wattenberger]

What you are saying is the same as saying an internet casino using slow software will make as much money per hour as the fastest software available. Not even close.

There is a difference. A difference driven home to many a failed dot-com company. When you play an I?Net casino, you can move to a competitor in an instant. Not the same with bricks and mortar casinos. Even in Vegas, few people gamble far from the hotel in which they stay. That is why the hotel rooms are so attractively priced. Outside of Vegas, it?s nowhere near as easy to switch casinos as it is on the I?Net. Forget packing and traveling; on the I?Net, you can play without putting on your pants.

Since you are an expert in sims and internet gambling, I find it amazing that you think dealing more cards per hour will not have a result in benefiting casinos. It will indeed be very beneficial for the casino.

A ploppy who has a stop loss limit will simply lose quicker due to more hands played per hour. As a result they go to another table or try slots. Hence, casinos make more money.

Thanks for the appellation, deserved or not. I think ploppy behavior is not quite that simple. An MGM PB once told me that the reason that Pai Gow Poker was introduced is because it allowed you to bet larger amounts, but last longer. It is slow. In speaking to a gambling budget, I was not talking about a stop-loss limit. That?s gambler nonsense. I was talking about a total gambling budget. The budget that most, otherwise non-gambling, LV visitors have in their mind. Keep in mind that this is primarily an entertainment industry. People fly to the middle of the desert for entertainment. Many kinds of people go - gambling addicts, advantage players, newlyweds, whales, retirees ? lots of people that just want some spice in their lives on occasion. The great mass of people know full well that they will probably lose. They just want a dream that doesn?t die too quickly, and some entertainment along the way. Tons of people just spend their small gambling budget and then walk up and down the strip for two days. If you take the money too quickly, you lose the balance.

There are many successful casinos who deal a good game and make millions of $$$.

Yep. Enlightened management is not totally extinct.

A casino manager who has a theory such as yours in hopes of getting a raise (instead of fired)and changes the rules to 50% pen on all table games including 8 deck, will be very surprised when he finds himself out of a job.
Due to the ignorance of management and losses of casino profits, the manager who made the bad games mandatory is the most likely candidate to get fired.

I?m afraid that you have put more faith in senior management than I. And you have exaggerated the rule changes a bit to make your point.
There is a very old line in the technology mainframe field ? ?Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.? Basically, this means don?t stick your neck out. It is a very poor management philosophy. But one that still exists in most U.S. corporations. Now the recent purchases of major casinos by major hotel chains is an interesting development. But, these chains have never been known for innovation either. I would guess that there must be great friction at the border between the holding company management and the casino management. I would also guess that casino management will probably win, or at the least drag on, political battles as long as they make profits ? particularly in a down economy.
All this aside ? what should a casino do? I don?t think the formula is as simple as some have stated. If you increase the hands/hour dealt by 10% ? clearly your income is not going to go up 10%. The money must come from somewhere and there is a limited amount. If your widget factory is sped up by 10%, that doesn?t mean you can sell more widgets. Simulation from the casino side is far more difficult that from the player side. As inputs, you would need to know the types of players, proportions thereof; and for each sub-grouping, willingness to lose, patience levels, trust levels, motility, understanding of the games, information levels of competing games, the competing games themselves ? not to mention current environmental factors such as crowd conditions, taxi line lengths, weather, economic factors, etc.

OK perhaps I?m getting carried away with exactitude. What I?m saying is that simulation is not as easy as people think. In simulating play against a casino; I have long been a believer in the inclusion of errors, cover and other factors that differentiate real casino play from playing BJ in a Petri dish. All I am saying is that changing the penetration has consequences that are not so simply stated as one might believe.
The true problem is in management style. U.S. corporations in general have a low reward for risk. The meltdown of the dot-coms hasn?t helped this situation. There are many exceptions. Citibank is has been long known for rewarding management risk. There are a few books on Citibank management theory. Management at most levels is encouraged to take risks and risk-averse managers quickly hit a ceiling. Almost written-off by some 15 years ago, Citigroup was last year the most profitable U.S. corporation. Alas, banks are not allowed to own hotels

Having said all that, what should a casino do? Well, to start they should dump the 6:5 BJ as fast as they possibly can, claim it was a mistake by an Anderson consultant and hope no one remembers it ever happened. Distrust of large corporations is at fairly high levels given Enron, Tyco, et. al. I am constantly amazed at the stupidity of the public ? but such greed must eventually become obvious. Next, yes large casinos should liberalize the rules and increase penetration in general. They now have the technology to spot the advantage players that can cause real damage. Screw that, how much technology does it take to spot a team? There are many classes of players. The ?silent majority? will lose what they budget. Liberalizing the rules won?t make any difference because they don?t surrender, don?t count and will lose what they have budgeted anyhow. If they do happen to win ? great ? they?ll come back next year and lose more. The whales are watched by circling vultures. The general casino rules are not relevant. The average person claiming to be a card-counter read Thorpe on the plane to Vegas and losses count before the cut-card anyway.

So, in the long-haul ? I agree with the overall conclusion that casinos would be better off to liberalize rules. I think that a sim of BJ from the casino side would be fascinating. But, I ain?t gonna do it

BJStats

[Norm Wattenberger]

[Nash Rambler]

Clearly the public is accepting and playing it. It is still a much bett game for the public than roulette, Caribbean Stud, Let it Ride, or 3 card poker. Why should they abandon it?