Ok, so along the lines of why do casinos impose all the countermeasures to AP players. I found this calculator (or a rendition of it) developed by a casino consultant to help casino management understand the cost of deck penetration in Blackjack.
Thought I might get some giggles taking it a little further.
My comments are in reference to the attached jpg.
So, the area in the squiggly red line projects the cost of cutting a 6 deck game in 13 card increments using the assumptions in the top left. The "Cost per Year to reduce penetration " row shows the incremental revenue loss to the casino as they cut deeper. And that is for one table.
With that in mind, I did some research and arrived at the data inside the squiggly blue line. Made a couple of assumptions shown at the top of the area. Wanted to take the "one table data" we just looked at and project it over the industry to see what effect deck penetration has on revenue. Now, I realize all the tables are not 6 deck and made an adjustment that the tables were actually busy only 65% of the time.
If I could bring your attention to the answer line you will see that, with these assumptions, the industry is leaving $341+MM (4+% of potential revenue on a game with a 1.5% advantage) on the table (so to speak) by cutting to 75% penetration instead of dealing to 13 remaining cards.
In fact, the Las Vegas casino line outlined in a red line takes one of our local stores and illustrates (with the same assumptions) that they are leaving $1.67MM on their tables.
I accept the potential inaccuracies of some of the assumptions, and know that this community is highly math conscious and may find issues with many of the assumptions, but the picture is compelling.
Either casino management is lost in the fear of AP or I am not getting my fair share of the gold.
Am I missing something?
Thanks for listening.
Bookmarks