jblaze: Shuffle Master Tanks After Hours

[jblaze]

HAHA, bastards!

[MacauP]

A CC won US$1.7 M from CSMs in 9 months this and past year...

[David Spence]

> A CC won US$1.7 M from CSMs in 9 months this and past
> year...

A baccarat player also won US$1.7M in 9 months this and past year. That doesn't mean that playing either game has a positive e.v.

I'm not saying that there's no way to beat a CSM reliably, just that a single or even many instances of someone winning are not proof of anything.

[Bettie]

> HAHA, bastards!

What is your source for this? I ask because today's news reports that their 3rd-quarter earnings are up from a year ago, though not as high as anticipated. They aren't going anywhere, and in fact have just come out with a new device called iDeal (anyone else isick of inames?), and will be focusing future business on leases rather than sales to increase their profits even more. I'd be interested in reading whatever source you have for your post; mine is linked below.

Bettie

Shuffle Master's quarterly profits miss Street forecast

[jblaze]

[Bettie]

No, and if the post I made ever shows up (see Parker's More Forum Weirdness), you'll see that a story in today's news discusses SM's 3rd quarter earnings as up from last year, plus plans for a new product and future business deals. Link below:

Shuffle Master's quarterly profits miss Street forecast

[jblaze]

sacrificing short term gain for long term profit. It seems everyone else in the world has to learn that lesson. On my first trip to Vegas I was thrown out of (basically) everywhere, trying to earn those extra 2 cents an hour by making obvious counter moves. see that long term picture... casinos still don't with their 6-5 blackjack, their horrible pen, their quickness to back off players.

I think it would take hours and hours of observing play to see how deep a player's pockets are. I know you can just watch a few rounds to determine 'skill level', but if I had my own casino I would welcome every single underfunded card counter with open arms (and this would probably include most)! There's no bigger sucker than someone who thinks they have an edge when they don't.

[Sun Runner]

> .. sacrificing short term gain for long term profit .. with their 6-5 blackjack.

While I generally agree more hands per hour equals more money in the bank, how does 6:5 BJ, in and of itself, fit in that mold?

Also, I'm an exception here I know, but to think a casino is just ignorant of the trade off they are making shuffling sooner rather than later is short-sighted in my opinion.

Maybe they'd rather do that than hire the one or two more lackeys it might take to watch the action. Employees, generally, are just a pain in the butt. The fewer the better. Especially from the talent pool they'd be hiring out of. Maybe that's the philosophy?

[Trapper]

> I think it would take hours and hours of observing
> play to see how deep a player's pockets are. I know
> you can just watch a few rounds to determine 'skill
> level', but if I had my own casino I would welcome
> every single underfunded card counter with open arms
> (and this would probably include most)! There's no
> bigger sucker than someone who thinks they have an
> edge when they don't.

As a player, the depth of your pocket is important to you but the casino's only concern is whether you are playing with an edge against them and the stakes you are playing at. That you will go broke sooner or later is irrelevant to the casino's ROR. It would be little consolation to the casino if you cleaned out their chip tray and then lost your bankroll in their competitor's store. If you let loose thousands of underfunded but skilled card counters on Las Vegas with no restraint most would eventually go broke but a small number would eventually own every casino in town. Luckily for casinos, most counters are gamblers at heart or play so poorly and with so much cover that they will have very little effect on the bottom line.

[Trapper]

> While I generally agree more hands per hour equals
> more money in the bank, how does 6:5 BJ, in and of
> itself, fit in that mold?

I think the idea here is that eventually players would get tired of the inevitable losses while playing against such a large house advantage. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. 6:5 BJ keeps on growing. Casino greed and the innumeracy of the betting public appear to have no limits.

[Norm Wattenberger]

> As a player, the depth of your pocket is important to
> you but the casino's only concern is whether you are
> playing with an edge against them and the stakes you
> are playing at.

Generally agree with this and the rest of the post. However it does make a difference to the casino how well you are funded because it can affect your edge; not just your RoR. Most underfunded players will not stick to the game plan when their bankroll dips. They will delay ramping up or reduce spread. If they make a max bet and get a slew of eights and DAS opportunities; they may shy away from making several max bets in one round. Some players will be down to few chips and simply be unable to bet or play correctly.

So if you take 100 underfunded players; overall there edge is likely to be less than 100 adequately funded players.

[Trapper]

[Trapper]

It could also work the other way - a player who finds his bankroll slipping away could drop cover and push out his max bets where he may have been reluctant before. He may also wong more aggressively. That would be the more rational response. In the real world, though, there is probably a correlation between the willingness to play underfunded and a lack of skill and discipline. If we exclude psychology from the equation, I agree that the 100 under-bankrolled players would still give up EV to the well-funded players by wonging themselves out of positive shoes by busting out or being unable to double down or split hands in their last round of play. The penalty would probably depend on how under-bankrolled they were.

If I understood correctly, jblaze's point was that casinos shouldn't sweat a demonstrably skilled player because he may be under-funded and therefore would have no edge. I don't think that is correct although that opinion often comes up on forums. In the same game, a skilled player retains his edge no matter what ROR he is playing with. He may go broke eventually if he is under-bankrolled but he is still playing with an edge until he tosses out his last chip.

> Generally agree with this and the rest of the post.
> However it does make a difference to the casino how
> well you are funded because it can affect your edge;
> not just your RoR. Most underfunded players will not
> stick to the game plan when their bankroll dips. They
> will delay ramping up or reduce spread. If they make a
> max bet and get a slew of eights and DAS
> opportunities; they may shy away from making several
> max bets in one round. Some players will be down to
> few chips and simply be unable to bet or play
> correctly.

> So if you take 100 underfunded players; overall there
> edge is likely to be less than 100 adequately funded
> players.