Do casinos really make mistakes by barring marginal counters?

[Three]

Damn you're stupid.

I was thinking the same thing about every one of your posts and the idea that you would support players being backed off. I was just too polite to say it. There are a bunch of other pros here telling you the same thing. Yet you single me out to call stupid. I guess I have an enemy.

I'm talking about people who are SKILLED yet are also under-funded,

Well the five players that fit that disruption aren't mush of a threat. If they were skilled why wouldn't they have a BR? Skilled means understanding BR management. If they are playing underfunded they don't understand BR management and can't be skilled, by the definition of a skilled player. Think about it.

[Three]

Of course there are reasons the casino may allow someone to play, while the size of that person's bankroll shouldn't matter.

If you have played in the casinos for any length of time you have learned most casinos let red chippers play but back the same players off as soon as they start playing for higher stakes. Why? The answer is obvious to everyone else. The only way to infer a players BR is his bet size and spread. If he is red chipping you can infer he is underfunded. Green chip and up you must assume they have a sufficient or large BR. They may not but you just have no way of knowing. So the casinos obviously understand the concept that everyone else here gets but still alludes you. They have rated a red chipper as a skilled player but let him play because of the inferred small BR. Once he starts green chipping the BO comes because they already know he is a counter but now assumes he is better BRed.

[BoSox]

I would need to say RS is right. the law of large number will make the casino lose in this situation. Regardless of how many underfunded players there are . there is gonna be one or two that is gonna keep winning cause they have an advantage while being lucky at the beginning . That player build a bank through luck now with a small ROR and can keep on going .

Sometimes writing about the right answers Is doing the wrong thing. Are we supposed to point out casinos ineptness?

[Three]

The casino should absolutely allow someone who's playing a losing game to play. Wait...did you really think I was suggesting the casino should back off losing players? LOLOLOL

Actually, that is usually when the BO comes. They wait until you are losing to back you off. I would think you would know that. Of course they don't wait forever.

[Three]

Sometimes writing about the right answers Is doing the wrong thing. Are we supposed to point out casinos ineptness?

These people are clueless about not destroying opportunities. To all those red chippers that get backed off in the future, thank RS now for it happening. Because right now most casinos don't care about the players whose bets infer they are underfunded.

[stopgambling]

So true , Bosox and Three. That is why i don't like discussing except 3d count . ; )

[stopgambling]

These people are clueless about not destroying opportunities

it is being destroy everywhere in a much less subtle way...................my little comment is nowhere close to the harm being done.

[scroogemcduck]

The only thing that determines whether a player is positive or negative EV to a casino is whether the average EV of his individual bets is positive or negative. If he's a skilled counter, he will be betting more on the positive counts, and the average EV of his bets will be positive for the player and negative for the casino. The chance of doubling your bankroll is always higher than your ROR when you are playing +EV. The only benefit that his ROR provides to the casino is that he might have to leave before he gets backed off. Even if he lost his entire bankroll, the total EV of all his individual bets was positive so the casino lost EV.

[Freightman]

Actually, that is usually when the BO comes. They wait until you are losing to back you off. I would think you would know that. Of course they don't wait forever.

As strange as it may seem, don't believe I've been backed off while losing. I've been asked to sign up for loyalty cards immediately prior to backoff, at least twice. Guess they mostly got tired of waiting.

[BigJer]

As strange as it may seem, don't believe I've been backed off while losing. I've been asked to sign up for loyalty cards immediately prior to backoff, at least twice. Guess they mostly got tired of waiting.

I was playing at a place in Reno and the topic of counting came up at the table: no I didn't raise it. The dealer mentioned that there is a card counter at another table and they were waiting for his luck to change then they were going to ban him.

[Dbs6582]

For what it’s worth, I’ve decided to give my two cents on this debate. RC is correct, logical, and supported his case with math, while Three, Bosox and Freightman were all over the map, changing the goal posts with every post. In the end, I’m not sure I even know what they believe on this.

This disagreement somewhat reminded me of our debate with Freightman and Bosox over the Australian bj player who fanned to 7 spots. Freightman and Bosox had a hard time understanding how a person with an advantage on one spot, would still have an advantage on all 7 spots.

I’ve started to spot a consistent pattern with Freightman. When he loses an augument, he does one of two things: He either says he doesn’t give a shit, or he starts calling someone names. So if you see Freightman saying he doesn’t give a shit or calling you names, you’ll know you’ve won. lol. With this said, I have seen some good posts from Freightman so he does have his moments.

[Freightman]

For what it’s worth, I’ve decided to give my two cents on this debate. RC is correct, logical, and supported his case with math, while Three, Bosox and Freightman were all over the map, changing the goal posts with every post. In the end, I’m not sure I even know what they believe on this.

This disagreement somewhat reminded me of our debate with Freightman and Bosox over the Australian bj player who fanned to 7 spots. Freightman and Bosox had a hard time understanding how a person with an advantage on one spot, would still have an advantage on all 7 spots.

I’ve started to spot a consistent pattern with Freightman. When he loses an augument, he does one of two things: He either says he doesn’t give a shit, or he starts calling someone names. So if you see Freightman saying he doesn’t give a shit or calling you names, you’ll know you’ve won. lol. With this said, I have seen some good posts from Freightman so he does have his moments.

Since you are so tuned to my comments, might I suggest that you interpret the following:
Go fuck yourself.

Please advise your thoughts as to what this means.

[BoSox]

while Three, Bosox and Freightman were all over the map, changing the goal posts with every post. In the end, I’m not sure I even know what they believe on this.

That was an intentional act moron.