> supposedly the new Wynn Las Vegas will be using RFID chips.
Feb 9 www.news.com Extra (Cnet)
Wilby
> http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...d=aEUMV0Y7jARU
From the article:
Future MP21 [Mindplay] installations are planned at Mohegan Sun in Uncasville, Conn., Barona Valley Ranch Resort & Casino in Lakeside, Calif., and Potawatomi Casino in Wabeno, Wis.
Barona???
Say it ain't so, Max!
Read through the article I linked to on the Las Vegas Everything page (about RFID and Wynn LV).
Bettie
Although I don't like the idea, on several levels, of a casino being able to track my winnings, I am not so sure that this new technology, either the RFID or Mindplay is going to cause more barrings of advantage players in real life play. To determine if a player is counting, the software would have to compare his betting variation with known counting systems; if the count was 'high', and the player was jumping bets, this would obviously raise a red flag. But I've been in situations where someone at a table will announce that because they've just seen a whole bunch of small cards come out, they're going to raise their bet. These people aren't counting, per se, but are they going to get red flagged if they do that several times in an hour? Is the casino going to take a chance of barring a high roller that's really just playing hunches? And what about people that are betting big by following what someone else does when they are winning? That 'someone else' may be an advantage player, but the 'copycat' may suffer, too, if the software red flags him or her. And what about the advantage player that's counting, but just happens to be losing for that particular session? I've had pit people watching me because I'd been jumping bets, and I'd like to have said to them: 'Look, stupid, I'm down $300.!" Because the software also tracks win/loss for that session, am I still going to be flagged for counting, even though I'm losing?
I think that these electronic tracking schemes are more for rewarding comps and rooting out cheaters.
After all, the investment the casinos are making, to my way of thinking, is many more times what they could possibly retain by 'catching' counters. And all they have to do is alienate a couple dozen black chip players, and they won't make it up by barring 100 guys like me.
> Although I don't like the idea, on several
> levels, of a casino being able to track my
> winnings, I am not so sure that this new
> technology, either the RFID or Mindplay is
> going to cause more barrings of advantage
> players in real life play. To determine if a
> player is counting, the software would have
> to compare his betting variation with known
> counting systems;
Not a problem, it's all in the program. Unlike the counter, who must rely on his brain alone (or risk a prison sentence), the software can easily track a dozen counting systems at once.
> if the count was 'high',
> and the player was jumping bets, this would
> obviously raise a red flag. But I've been in
> situations where someone at a table will
> announce that because they've just seen a
> whole bunch of small cards come out, they're
> going to raise their bet. These people
> aren't counting, per se, but are they going
> to get red flagged if they do that several
> times in an hour?
The computer, being a computer, tracks the TC (in multiple systems, if need be) as well as the running count. It would be fairly obvious if someone were just following the running count (betting big after a bunch of small cards come out) rather than actually counting.
> Is the casino going to
> take a chance of barring a high roller
> that's really just playing hunches?
Wouldn't be the first time that that has happened.
> And what
> about people that are betting big by
> following what someone else does when they
> are winning? That 'someone else' may be an
> advantage player, but the 'copycat' may
> suffer, too, if the software red flags him
> or her. And what about the advantage player
> that's counting, but just happens to be
> losing for that particular session? I've had
> pit people watching me because I'd been
> jumping bets, and I'd like to have said to
> them: 'Look, stupid, I'm down $300.!"
> Because the software also tracks win/loss
> for that session, am I still going to be
> flagged for counting, even though I'm
> losing?
You bet you are. The casinos aren't stupid -- they understand variance just like we do. When you're down big, they know that you will eventually win it all back and then some -- if they let you. Losing may buy you a little time, but it certainly isn't a license to blast away. The majority of my own back-offs have come during/after a losing session.
> I think that these electronic tracking
> schemes are more for rewarding comps and
> rooting out cheaters.
Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that, with the technology sitting right there at their disposal, the casinos will decide, "No, we don't want to take advantage of this feature, despite the fact that we paid big bucks for it."
Of course, the casinos would like you to believe just that, right along with "Gambling is entertainment, and losses are merely the price of that entertainment."
> After all, the investment the casinos are
> making, to my way of thinking, is many more
> times what they could possibly retain by
> 'catching' counters. And all they have to do
> is alienate a couple dozen black chip
> players, and they won't make it up by
> barring 100 guys like me.
Doesn't matter. The casinos have no way of tracking how many legitimate players (read: losers) they scare off. However, they can easily track how many of the evil counters they give the boot.
Here's what we're up against: In Card Counting Course for the Casino Pit Boss and Floor Supervisor author Mike Joseph flatly states that every card counter tossed saves the casino $10,000.
You and I know that that figure is absurd. Unfortunately, we don't write the training courses.
I apologize if I seem to be coming down hard on you, but you appear to be in need of a reality check.
> You bet you are. The casinos aren't stupid
> -- they understand variance just like we do.
> When you're down big, they know that you
> will eventually win it all back and then
> some -- if they let you. Losing may buy you
> a little time, but it certainly isn't a
> license to blast away. The majority of my
> own back-offs have come during/after a
> losing session.
They may even wait for you to be down before the barring occurs. Granted this may seem far fetched but some people would gain a sick high from waiting for an AP to be down before barring.
> Do you really believe that? Do you really
> believe that, with the technology sitting
> right there at their disposal, the casinos
> will decide, "No, we don't want to take
> advantage of this feature, despite the fact
> that we paid big bucks for it."
They will use the system to gain whatever advantage it is capable of giving and some that it is not !! LOL And there is nothing that can be doen to stop them abusing the system what with the complacency of the NV gaming board.
> Of course, the casinos would like you to
> believe just that, right along with
> "Gambling is entertainment, and losses
> are merely the price of that
> entertainment."
> Doesn't matter. The casinos have no way of
> tracking how many legitimate players (read:
> losers) they scare off. However, they can
> easily track how many of the evil counters
> they give the boot.
> Here's what we're up against: In Card
> Counting Course for the Casino Pit Boss and
> Floor Supervisor author Mike Joseph flatly
> states that every card counter tossed saves
> the casino $10,000.
> You and I know that that figure is absurd.
> Unfortunately, we don't write the training
> courses.
> I apologize if I seem to be coming down hard
> on you, but you appear to be in need of a
> reality check.
I can't wait to start reading the stories where a non-AP gets tossed because of these machines, the stories of Pit Bosses being let go, the machine f**ks up and things go haywire.
All of us who use a computer know how prone to break down/crash they can be, and when this happens it's going to be fun watching suits sweating and running around
>> I think that these electronic tracking
>> schemes are more for rewarding comps and
>> rooting out cheaters.
>Do you really believe that?
> Do you really believe that, with the technology
> sitting right there at their disposal, the
>casinos will decide, "No, we don't want to take
> advantage of this feature, despite the fact that
> we paid big bucks for it."
>Of course, the casinos would like you to believe
>just that, right along with "Gambling
>is entertainment, and losses are merely
> the price of that entertainment."
Although I'm not in the casino business, I am in business, and I realize that I'm going to lose a certain amount of money every month, from waste, theft, etc., but there's a break even point where it actually ends up costing me more money to stop the shortages than I would recover, and I think the same would apply to the casinos. Their impetus seems to be to get as many people in the casino as possible, and to keep them there as long as possible. Especially in this age of casino beancounters, where they can likely figure out what the actual potential gain to them would be to toss a counter versus the risk of losing a loyal 'gambler'.
>> After all, the investment the casinos are
>> making, to my way of thinking, is many more
>> times what they could possibly retain by
>> 'catching' counters. And all they have to do
>> is alienate a couple dozen black chip
>> players, and they won't make it up by
>> barring 100 guys like me.
>Doesn't matter. The casinos have no way of
>tracking how many legitimate players (read:
>losers) they scare off. However, they can easily
>track how many of the evil counters they give the
>boot.
Actually, they do have a way of tracking that, and it's called the bottom line every month. The take from the blackjack tables. Again, I'm not associated with the casino industry, but I doubt if any pit boss was ever promoted for tossing x number of 'counters', but I can say with certainty that a lot of them get promoted if the gross take increases from their area. Yes, if you've got advantage players coming in on a regular basis and walking out with casino money, that's going to affect the bottom line, but not in the way it would if you get a couple of rich drunken bigshots in there standing on hard 15's against a dealer 10.
But on the other hand, as I always say: then again, I might be right.
>
> http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...d=aEUMV0Y7jARU
As I posted a few weeks ago.
I just completed a trip to Aruba and MINDPLAY is already active at the $100.00 tables at the Mariott.
I was asking questions like a tourist and the pit boss told me it was a machine used to catch criminals.
The scary part was that he meant it.
Hollywood
One of the selling points of MindPlay is that it makes it easier to accomplish exactly what you are describing, i.e., to differentiate between the moderate stakes bettor on a hot streak and a card counter.
Add to that a climate of fear and disinformation in the casino industry. Everyone distrusts surveillance; after all it is their job to monitor the employees as well as the customers. It is in surviellance's best interest to maximize the importance of the threat from counters.
Adding fuel to the fire are agencies such as Griffin, who lump card counters together with cheats and other criminals. There aren't many cheats these days, so they must exaggerate the counter threat in order to convince casinos of their value.
> One of the selling points of MindPlay is
> that it makes it easier to accomplish
> exactly what you are describing, i.e., to
> differentiate between the moderate stakes
> bettor on a hot streak and a card counter.
I believe it.
> Add to that a climate of fear and
> disinformation in the casino industry.
> Everyone distrusts surveillance; after all
> it is their job to monitor the employees as
> well as the customers. It is in
> surviellance's best interest to maximize the
> importance of the threat from counters.
> Adding fuel to the fire are agencies such as
> Griffin, who lump card counters together
> with cheats and other criminals. There
> aren't many cheats these days, so they must
> exaggerate the counter threat in order to
> convince casinos of their value.
Once again, I agree. Many people that have tenuous jobs will spend more of their time justifying their existence than actually doing real work (i.e., politicians, bureaucrats).
But I think that the big boys (and girls) in the corner offices on the top floor couldn't care less about red and green chip counters if they can show the stockholders increased revenue every quarter. After all, they have to justify their existence, too.
I am not defending these schemes. As I said earlier in this thread, I'm extremely uncomfortable with any income tracking methods that casinos employ, and I realize that sometimes we who are on the front lines see it as a 'hardworking advantage player vs. evil casino' fight, where they have all the advantages of high tech software and equipment, and we have only our wits (or half wits in my case).
Because of the high cost of these systems, I just don't think that in the long run it's going to pay off for the casinos (in the card counter aspect- it will in the comps aspect); one day an accountant will wake up and look at what they're paying for the system, and compare it to the savings to the casino (if any) from catching card counters, and smell the coffee, as they say.
In any case, it'll be interesting to see what shakes out.
Does this program have an annual cost, a continual payment for use? Or is it a one-time installment fee? If it's the latter... then, well... geez, then there's no good reason for any casino not to use it. And this even if after some time it proves only marginally lucrative to use it against counters.
There's something I really don't understand. How is it that MindPlay is okay but CSMs are not? I mean, if they wanted to eliminate counting completely, all they had to do was install CSMs on every blackjack table everywhere.
My understanding was that they can't do this because a lot of non-APers have a vague idea that these machines are "bad" and hence installing them everywhere would be bad for business.
How is this same logic not going to be applicable to the MindPlay devices? How is it that the Flamingo feels comfortable having all MindPlay tables but not all CSM tables? It's not as if they can bill the MindPlay device as a comp machine, because that would require non-APers to actually try and find out what the machines are about. If non-APers don't understand CSMs but know that they're "bad", why would they just not understand MindPlay devices but still know that they are "bad"?
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks