"Tales from the Pit"

[Bigdaddy]

This is a new publication (2016 UNLV Gaming Press) edited by David G. Schwartz. It's a collection of interviews of table games managers and casino executives on a variety of gaming and casino-management subjects. There are a lot of good stories and some nice historical perspectives. There's not a whole lot on blackjack advantage play. Certainly nothing this community doesn't know about.

The one interview that we would all give a big "amen" to is an interview with Bill Zender where he talks his days at Bally's. He said that the memo came out that if a player was winning, they were instructed to cut the shoe in half. He let them know it was a bad idea and soon realized that he had to move on because he had a knucklehead for a boss. So some years later at The Aladdin, he decides to cut off only 1/2 deck on the 6-deck shoe and "...we won more money than they ever did there, and we had a better hold percentage."

[DatabaseGuy]

Better conditions will make a gambler drive twice the distance, even if for only .15%

[Jabberwocky]

This is a new publication (2016 UNLV Gaming Press) edited by David G. Schwartz. It's a collection of interviews of table games managers and casino executives on a variety of gaming and casino-management subjects. There are a lot of good stories and some nice historical perspectives. There's not a whole lot on blackjack advantage play. Certainly nothing this community doesn't know about.

The one interview that we would all give a big "amen" to is an interview with Bill Zender where he talks his days at Bally's. He said that the memo came out that if a player was winning, they were instructed to cut the shoe in half. He let them know it was a bad idea and soon realized that he had to move on because he had a knucklehead for a boss. So some years later at The Aladdin, he decides to cut off only 1/2 deck on the 6-deck shoe and "...we won more money than they ever did there, and we had a better hold percentage."

A minor correction. Casinos don't win money, they earn it.

[bigplayer]

It's all about action and turnover. Zender knows what he's talking about. A few extra hands per hour per table add up to a very significant amount of total hands per casino per week and per month and per year that expose players to the house edge. If you aren't tracking the cards deep penetration doesn't change the odds of the game for players and very few players maintain enough awareness of deck composition for it to make any difference, especially on 6 and 8 deck shoes. If it were my casino I'd have all 8 deck shoes on the main floor, h17 ds ls rsa rules (or h17 ds rsa at the least) and deal it deep and use machines to shuffle. In high limit I'd have half six deck s17 ds ls rsa dealt deep and double deck h17 ds rsa with 50% pen and shuffle machines. I wouldn't backoff anyone but if I deemed a player to be a threat I'd just move the cut card to 2.3 decks, turn their theoretical to zero and dare them to beat me. In a virtual coin-flip with no comps the big bankroll will always win.

[Frank Galvin]

Bigplayer,

2.3 decks cut off on 6 deck shoe results in approx. 61% pen. Definitely a grind, but with those rules, playable with a decent spread.

On the 8 deck shoe games, that would yield just over 71% pen. Less favorable rules, but still playable.

Mind you, I, and mostly all others on this board would choose not to play those tables (not speaking for smallcapgrowth however), but I have played with worse pen and conditions on cruise ships and ground out "fair" profits. Conditions onboard made me feel as if I was actually gambling, but tge math still applied, with huge variance for the ride. Realizing that it was more recreational action (I was on cruise ships) than my seeking out blackjack AP action at land-based casinos.

[Three]

2.3 decks cut off on 6 deck shoe results in approx. 61% pen. Definitely a grind, but with those rules, playable with a decent spread.

On the 8 deck shoe games, that would yield just over 71% pen. Less favorable rules, but still playable.

Mind you, I, and mostly all others on this board would choose not to play those tables (not speaking for smallcapgrowth however), but I have played with worse pen and conditions on cruise ships and ground out "fair" profits. Conditions onboard made me feel as if I was actually gambling, but tge math still applied, with huge variance for the ride. Realizing that it was more recreational action (I was on cruise ships) than my seeking out blackjack AP action at land-based casinos.

We have different ideas of what is playable. Having an advantage is a long way from having any certainty that you will win. People say you don't raise your bet at this TC because your advantage is too small. They aren't saying it is bad to bet with a low advantage. What they mean is the certainty that you will win is not there yet. What they are talking about is n0. That TC has it's own n0. N0' are proportional to variance and inversely proportional to EV^2. The variance doesn't change much but the EV is tiny. The square of EV will be even smaller compared to larger EV TC's. You divide by a much smaller number and the result is much larger n0. Basically a humongous n0 that tells you this betting bin is just gambling. You will never play enough in your lifetime to reach n0 even with the higher frequency of the situation making you bet it more than larger advantage situations. The same thing is going on with poor pen. You are betting much higher (using a huge spread) at situations with much higher n0 (less EV but about the same variance). You rarely get the really small n0 large advantage situations so even they become gambling because the frequency of making those bets have you take forever to reach the low n0.

[Frank Galvin]

We have different ideas of what is playable. Having an advantage is a long way from having any certainty that you will win. People say you don't raise your bet at this TC because your advantage is too small. They aren't saying it is bad to bet with a low advantage. What they mean is the certainty that you will win is not there yet. What they are talking about is n0. That TC has it's own n0. N0' are proportional to variance and inversely proportional to EV^2. The variance doesn't change much but the EV is tiny. The square of EV will be even smaller compared to larger EV TC's. You divide by a much smaller number and the result is much larger n0. Basically a humongous n0 that tells you this betting bin is just gambling. You will never play enough in your lifetime to reach n0 even with the higher frequency of the situation making you bet it more than larger advantage situations. The same thing is going on with poor pen. You are betting much higher (using a huge spread) at situations with much higher n0 (less EV but about the same variance). You rarely get the really small n0 large advantage situations so even they become gambling because the frequency of making those bets have you take forever to reach the low n0.

Tthree, with all due respect, can you translate that into English?

[NotEnoughHeat]

Tthree, with all due respect, can you translate that into English?

The gist of it is that EV isn't all you should look at it. Looking at EV and variance together tells you how good or playable a bet it.

Although we generally looking at N0 for our whole game, technically there's a bunch of N0's going on that you can break up in different ways, including by each TC.
N0 goes up when variance goes up and goes down proportional to EV^2. One of the formulas for N0 that I personally, NEH, use is N0 = (SD/EV)^2. The SD squared is variance so this could be rewritten as N0 = V/EV^2.

Last three sentences: high N0 is bad thing. If you play with a really high N0, you're gambling despite whatever advantage you have.

[Three]

Nice synopsis NEH. See someone got it.

[pilotzone]

Ok

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"Tales from the Pit"
This is a new publication (2016 UNLV Gaming Press) edited by David G. Schwartz. It's a collection of interviews of table games managers and casino executives on a variety of gaming and casino-management subjects. There are a lot of good stories and some nice historical perspectives. There's not a whole lot on blackjack advantage play. Certainly nothing this community doesn't know about.

The one interview that we would all give a big "amen" to is an interview with Bill Zender where he talks his days at Bally's. He said that the memo came out that if a player was winning, they were instructed to cut the shoe in half. He let them know it was a bad idea and soon realized that he had to move on because he had a knucklehead for a boss. So some years later at The Aladdin, he decides to cut off only 1/2 deck on the 6-deck shoe and "...we won more money than they ever did there, and we had a better hold percentage."

Do not be fooled by "Tales from the PitS (plural)

Dealing in a casino presents challenges and rewards not seen in many workplaces. With hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake every minute, table games pits are high-stress workplaces. Managing a workforce of dealers and attending to the needs of players brings stresses of its own. In 2015, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas’s Center for Gaming Research received a grant from the UNLV University Libraries Advisory Board that enabled it to undertake an oral history project intended to capture the stories of table games managers, including both those currently working in the field and those who have retired. Drawn from these interviews, Tales from the Pit provides an overview of how the interviewees felt about a variety of topics, ranging from their experiences breaking in as new dealers to their transitions to management and the changes the industry has seen over their careers. The current and former managers speak candidly about the owners, bosses, dealers, and players who made each day challenging. This book illuminates the past several decades of casino history through the words of those who lived and made it.