Since Freighter showed that we never know what triggered a review but listing why we got backed off may be helpful. Here are mine that relate to blackjack.
1) I won too many sessions in a row on a trip to Vegas. The sorry part is I was positive progression betting very early in my career and was counting only to increase winning hand frequency by making better playing decisions. I was using Hiopt1 and a few side counts on a pitch game. After playing constantly for a few days the suit that backed me off said I never lose and nobody is that lucky. He implied I was either cheating.
2) Decades later I was backed off after making too big a stink over the casino attempts to cheat me. They knew I was card counting for about a year but were tolerating me. the cheating attempts were probably a signal to me I had overstayed my welcome. I should have just left. I probably still would be able to play there. Instead I made a big fuss about the dealer attempting to cheat me. When I returned they said my game was too strong for them and I couldn't play BJ anymore but could play other games in the casino. I know it was the incident.
3) A lifetime win back off. It was a small joint and I had a long winning history. My best month was over two years prior were I won over $20K red chipping. I had developed a number of new strategies for cover that cost basically nothing and in some cases where plus EV. I upped my stakes to more than double in the next 2 years or so. The game got worse so I didn't go as often, plus my BR doubling that month and continuing to grow very steadily had me playing for much higher stakes so I didn't need the fact that I could find the lowest minus there to help boost my spread. Finally my comps dried up. Almost a year after that I was backed off. About once a year they paid big bucks to a consultant to help them make more money. That had them socialite from two extremes. Whatever was the current procedure the consultant would make the argument that it was wrong and switch back to the other extreme to justify his massive fee. I saw the cycle repeat many times and figured out what was going on. Right when the cycle was expected to hit I got backed off. The suit was real nice about it and talked to me for a while. He said they had reviewed my play a number of times over the years and knew I wasn't counting cards but I just won too regularly so they didn't care why. They weren't going to let me play BJ or any BJ variants anymore. I was welcome to play anything else. I had won about $60K over 4 or 5 years starting as a low level red chipper and ending betting table max as my top bet. In retrospect that was probably too aggressive for that little joint.
4) The place was a true Zender model casino dealing to dealer dependent 1/4 to a 1/2 deck cut off. If they had cut off more cards I would have steadily won but the extreme pen caused extreme volatility. On trips I would oscillate between up 5 figures to down 5 figure and finish the trip at some random point in-between. Before they went to extreme pen I won steadily and didn't have a problem. The pen was very good but not extreme. I would usually win $6K to $7K on a trip by slowly winning money and rarely lose. The massive swings at extreme pen just made me stick out like a sore thumb. It was clear to me their revue was inconclusive but they acted because the volatility of my results fit what they would expect from a side counter. I had been APing a number of different games in their casino for decades. My host once told me they had 3 ways to track the return on their comp investments in gamblers and I was ahead on every one of them so I should be happy with whatever I got.
Obviously this casino tracked things a lot closer than most casinos. It was a massive casino bigger than three big casinos combined. They said I could still play BJ but I was bet restricted to flat betting whatever the table minimum was. It was pretty funny because the review flagged my card so I hadn't been earning comps for days. They finally pulled me aside but didn't know what to say because the review wasn't conclusive. After some time some suits left and came back and eventually they just said I was flat bet restricted at table minimum. They said they didn't like the way I was betting but they couldn't accuse me of anything specific and didn't have to. The last trip when I was still earning comps I swung from up $6 or $7K to down as much several times a day. When I returned months later they had frozen my ability to earn comps but never froze my comps. After having so many suits leave and come back to find out what to say to me it was obvious that they weren't sure what I was doing but decided they didn't care. Eventually they came back and pretty much said as much. It was obvious, they decided I was a threat and shouldn't be allowed to play without deciding what made me a threat. They decided not to discontinue my play but reduced my threat level equal to whatever the table minimum was. I would have been better off leaving with one deck left on each shoe rather tan playing the extreme pen. One shoe heads up there were 4 cards left at the end of the last round. I would have received a lifetime win backoff instead but I figured I was due that in another $10K to $20K as they had recently tightened that way up. Maybe that was what they ultimately thought as well. But they had months to review my play after my last visit and never came up with a decision. I think the trigger was the massive swings that came with the change from great pen to extreme pen. I was fine when I just made money slow and steady, relatively speaking.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks