Do casinos really make mistakes by barring marginal counters?

[Three]

This is the conventional wisdom within the AP community. I see it stated over and over again on forums...if casinos would just stop backing off counters, they would be more profitable. You went so far to say backingoff counters can cause a casino to go bankrupt.

No, I said a shortsighted mindset, which is what backing off anyone they suspect of counting is, is why casinos go bankrupt. You want to let the players that lose play no matter what. If they are a losing counter they will be a bigger cash cow than 10 ploppies. You want to back off proven winning counters and let those that will almost certainly go bust lose their BR to you. Those that back off any counter also BO many ploppies. Why most corporations in general go bankrupt is because they get in trouble and call in bean counters that make changes that save money on paper but don't realize that things don't happen in a vacuum. If you change this it will have an adverse effect on 10 other things. The result is they keep trying to save dollars by losing tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process. You want all the losing players to play and want to back off only those that prove they will win over time or at least show they are highly likely to win over time.

Some counters or gamblers always want to leave at their peak in winnings but can't walk away when at that point because they are on a roll. They can't leave when losing because they aren't at their peak. Getting some money back or breaking even is not an option if they were once ahead. These types lose all the money they are willing to lose almost every time regardless of playing with an advantage. It would be insanely stupid to back one off just because he was counting. He is one of your biggest cash cows. Or a player that losses control and chases his losses or bets over aggressive because he is playing with "house money". You read the posts all the time on forums about counters that you know are destined to fail. Some can not be reasoned with to correct their ruinous ways.

My other pet peeve with APs is when they make stupid ludicrous arguments for why an AP shouldn’t be backedoff...like maybe he’s there with his slot playing wife or he’s there with a bunch of ploppy buddies. Come on now. We all know this isn’t the case. It’s the exception, not the rule. Let’s not say silly things. APs lose credibility when they make stupid arguments like this. They start sounding like ploppies.

Just because high rollers hate being around you doesn't mean they don't like being with people that know how to beat the casino. Most love being with someone like that. I have travelled with some players that lose 6 or 7 figures a year to casinos. Guess what. They don't care what casino they go to as long as they go with me. Now do the math. What percentage of AP's need to be in this situation for the cost of backing off low level APs to be higher than what the low level counter will cost you? Like 0.1%? It isn't a matter of which is more common. It is a cost analysis where 1 mistake costs you way more than the pittance saved. Things don't happen in a vacuum. Unintended costs abound to add to calculated costs versus savings.

One of the high rolling ploppies I travel with played AP BJ when things went bad at his chosen game. He was in all the AP black books and had been for decades. They didn't give him any trouble because his main game was a big cash cow. We went to a huge sweatshop and he was winning $5K quick at BJ every time he was way behind on his game. I told him that he can't do that for long but he didn't listen. I was at his table when the BO came. The didn't say he can't play BJ. They didn't say I can't play BJ. They told him that if he played any more BJ they would nullify his comps, which where over ten thousands of dollars worth of suites and meals. They knew if they backed me off we were gone or at least they were smart enough not to risk it. I didn't get backed off until a decade later, right after he died. It was not a coincidence. The casino was smart enough to see the big picture. Backing me off might save them $10K or more a year but cost them mid 5 figures to 6 figures a visit when I got him to go there. He didn't really like that casino. Some of the other guys I travelled with are much bigger players. Some have gotten a reserved table with a dedicated chef and wait staff to serve whatever comped food or drinks we could think of. He tipped purple and orange chips. He lost 6 figures and sometimes 7 figures a visit. They may be the acceptation rather than the rule but they are the ones that make the casinos month when they show up.

I think I will put you on ignore. You are one of the idiotic posters that make me do long posts. But you are still make idiotic posts no matter how long my posts are. Probably a sock for a banned poster.

[21forme]

This thread should be renamed The Energizer Bunny. it just keeps on going...

[BoSox]

Do you know how EV works?

Sometimes casinos make big mistakes at least in the short term, whereby putting an AP in positive EV from the start, this happens all the time. When that situation does in fact, happen usually someone wants to show everyone how clever they are by pointing this out. Sometimes someone will point the mistake out after the fact, better than the former but still the wrong thing to do. Why should we be educating them, in any capacity, other than to point out their extreme paranoia?

RS is spot on. I wish Tapatalk had the up voting feature.

The math doesn't lie. If you have to keep changing the goalposts and definitions for your argument to hold, it loses its credibility.

You Benedict Arnold.

[RS]

People that bust out are no longer generating EV. Given that they will bust out, the EV for all their play combined is 0. Apparently you don't understand RoR, CE or n0. I gave the stats for the sim with 95% RoR player. It is a losing game. CE was -$763.73 to get an EV $40.47. That means you are better off just handing the casino $760 of your $880 BR than playing. n0 of 85,416 rounds? It will take over a year of play, maybe two or more years of play, to even have a high degree of certain you will not be a net loser. I don't think these are stats that a casino would worry about. If they were known for certain and a Floor backed you off he might be fired for being too dumb to be a Floor. Now that is pretty dumb. I would hope nobody on this forum is that weak in BR management. After all each player is playing with just less than 3 max bets. You are confusing team play with individual play. A team would have all the players continuing to play unless they busted out collectively. Long term EV is meaningless if it is a given that you will lose all your money. That case would have a certain expectation of total loss. You are confusing EV with BR growth. The sim basically says you have an EV of $40/hr until you bust out. That doesn't mean the guy that didn't busted out has an EV of 20*40/hr or $800/hr as you are suggesting!!! That would be the EV for team play. These players are not a team. 19 will bust out and 1 will play with an EV of $40/hr and after a couple years of play (85,416 rounds) he would have a 84% chance of being at least even and a 16% chance of being behind. I don't think that should merit a casinos concern. He would need to be computer perfect at every aspect of his game to expect to do that well. That isn't going to happen.

So to sum up, from a casino point of view 19 players are handing the casino $880 each over time. And one player may get lucky and survive but it will take at least a year before he is certain he will be ahead at all and over two years to reach a high degree of certainty. It is very likely he won't ever make much but still not bust out given that he will not make perfect deck estimates every time, do perfect math when doing TC conversion, make counting mistakes, have the discipline to follow the game plan all the time, and remember every index correctly every time, etc like the simulator does.

Either they’re all making $40/hr in EV (while still “in the game”)....or a majority are busting out and one is having huge gains. You can’t say a, “majority’s actual results will be to lose and one’s EV will be $40/hr”. I mean, I guess you could say that, but it doesn’t make it correct. I tried using the coin flipping game as an easy example to show many will bust out and a few will make huge gains.

Don’t you support the idea of having a replenishable bankroll or the Hail Mary approach?

[Three]

Either they’re all making $40/hr in EV (while still “in the game”)....or a majority are busting out and one is having huge gains. You can’t say a, “majority’s actual results will be to lose and one’s EV will be $40/hr”. I mean, I guess you could say that, but it doesn’t make it correct. I tried using the coin flipping game as an easy example to show many will bust out and a few will make huge gains.

Don’t you support the idea of having a replenishable bankroll or the Hail Mary approach?

What you have to realize is the things you know are true from the stats are true simultaneously.

The first fact is everyone will have their own theoretical EV. If they can play computer perfect their EV is the same as the sim. We all know that isn't going to happen.

The second fact from the stats is from RoR. We know at least 95% of the people will bust out eventually (remember nobody will perform computer perfect). So, of the 20 people, 19 will have an EV of $40/hr, assuming computer perfect play, and will also lose all their BR. Given that fact they will not earn any money in the long run and will in fact lose everything, the 19 players are known to have a negative expectation of some unknown hourly amount that depends on how many hours it takes them to bust out. So while it is correct to say those 19 players each have a 40/hr EV, it is also correct to say they will each lose their entire BR in the long run and therefore have a negative expectation.

The third fact is one guy is expected to survive busting out, assuming computer perfect play and 100% reinvestment of profits and no expenses, his EV will also be $40/hr. But when you start looking at the assumptions you start to understand the true odds that this person will not bust out depends on 3 assumptions that are almost certainly wrong. We know the player will not be computer perfect. There is a good chance the player will not reinvest 100% of his profits. And we know the player will have expenses. But going with all assumptions as true this one player will have an EV of $40/hr and will not bust out.

We also know it will take the survivor years to reach his n0, or 855 hours of play. At this point the player can be fairly certain to show a profit.

It may just be me, but don't you think the casinos or the game protection experts that the casinos rely on are well aware of these things and consider it a no brainer to let them play because they are as a group a big cash cow and you just have to ferret out the lucky player, actually players as the 20 becomes multiplied to become a larger group of the 5% of the total counters that get lucky enough to survive, before they can grow their BR by a factor of 20 in order for the group to be plus EV. And if you made the run from BR challenged to having a sufficient BR you know that it was almost all luck that you weren't in the group that busted out.

[RS]

What you have to realize is the things you know are true from the stats are true simultaneously.

The first fact is everyone will have their own theoretical EV. If they can play computer perfect their EV is the same as the sim. We all know that isn't going to happen.

The second fact from the stats is from RoR. We know at least 95% of the people will bust out eventually (remember nobody will perform computer perfect). So, of the 20 people, 19 will have an EV of $40/hr, assuming computer perfect play, and will also lose all their BR. Given that fact they will not earn any money in the long run and will in fact lose everything, the 19 players are known to have a negative expectation of some unknown hourly amount that depends on how many hours it takes them to bust out. So while it is correct to say those 19 players each have a 40/hr EV, it is also correct to say they will each lose their entire BR in the long run and therefore have a negative expectation.

The third fact is one guy is expected to survive busting out, assuming computer perfect play and 100% reinvestment of profits and no expenses, his EV will also be $40/hr. But when you start looking at the assumptions you start to understand the true odds that this person will not bust out depends on 3 assumptions that are almost certainly wrong. We know the player will not be computer perfect. There is a good chance the player will not reinvest 100% of his profits. And we know the player will have expenses. But going with all assumptions as true this one player will have an EV of $40/hr and will not bust out.

Yes, all of their EVs will be $40/hour, but in reality 19 will go to -$880 (or lose all their bankroll) and that 1 player will hit a really good run and be up many many thousands. There is a correlation between not busting out and having a huge positive run, at least for those with a ridiculously high ROR. Is that not the same idea behind a Hail Mary approach/bankroll? -- Many times you'll bust out, but when you don't, you'll have huge profits and enough for an "actual" bankroll to work with.

Everyone has expenses.
No one plays computer perfect.
No one reinvests 100% of profits back into their bankroll (E.G: expenses).

Yet many of us have made a profession out of this. Some with a large starting bankroll, others with a Hail Mary approach, but most (I'd imagine) from a smaller replenishable bankroll. Should a casino back off an AP with a small yet replenishable bankroll? That's a rhetorical question, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

We also know it will take the survivor years to reach his n0, or 855 hours of play. At this point the player can be fairly certain to show a profit.

Statistics of all players can't be applied to a subset of players who(m?) have been cherry picked. That's like statistics 101.

If I take a million players into a casino and they each play 3 hands of blackjack, 0.5% HE, and each bet $100/round, with proper basic strategy, what would you say they lost on average? Surely, they lost an average of $1.50 each, right? Right. $100 * 0.005 * 3 = $1.50. Now let's look at the subset of players who got at least 1 blackjack -- can you still say that group lost an average of $1.50 each per player? What about the guys who got 2 blackjacks? Or 3 blackjacks? Surely this subset of players didn't lose an average of $1.50 each. It's that ALL players, on average, lost $1.50 each. Just like the guys who got dealt 16vT three times didn't lose an average of $1.50/each, or the guys who got unlucky and the dealer pulled 3 blackjacks in a row, they didn't lose $1.50/each on average either.

When a player has a massive spike in actual results (compared to EV and variance) his effective N0 isn't going to be the same as it was before that massive spike. Just like if I started playing with a 10% ROR, then I doubled my BR, I wouldn't still be playing at a 10% ROR. Over the next n0 amount of hands, he's not going to have the same probability of being ahead/behind as someone starting out at a profit of $0, because that guy is already way ahead. He may have to lose (compared to EV) at a rate of -2 or -3 SDs to approach being behind after the 855 hours of play. That doesn't even make sense either, since by definition of ROR and since he didn't bust out, his bankroll is going to the moon and beyond.

It may just be me, but don't you think the casinos or the game protection experts that the casinos rely on are well aware of these things and consider it a no brainer to let them play because they are as a group a big cash cow and you just have to ferret out the lucky player, actually players as the 20 becomes multiplied to become a larger group of the 5% of the total counters that get lucky enough to survive, before they can grow their BR by a factor of 20 in order for the group to be plus EV. And if you made the run from BR challenged to having a sufficient BR you know that it was almost all luck that you weren't in the group that busted out.

Yeah, and they're kicking out those players.


Why is your opinion that the casino should win (EV-wise) to an AP if that AP is just under-funded? The size of the AP's bankroll doesn't matter to the casino. If you want to argue that they shouldn't back off players due to poor skill or some other reason, making it +EV for the casino, go ahead. But the notion that an underfunded AP is a "big cash cow" to the casino is simply and categorically false. I don't know how to contact Bill Zender, but if you do, you should invite him to this thread or at least ask him his opinion of a casino allowing an AP to play simply because he is underfunded. I may be able to contact Eliot Jacobson, but since he retired a while ago, that may be a bit more difficult to do. Forget the whole "unskilled, bad player, wife plays slots, has big player ploppy friends, etc." shit because we all know that guy is going to be +EV for the casino or the "it's not worth the hassle to evaluate / kick out a low level player because he's only making peanuts per hour" stuff.

[Dbs6582]

The second fact from the stats is from RoR. We know at least 95% of the people will bust out eventually (remember nobody will perform computer perfect). So, of the 20 people, 19 will have an EV of $40/hr, assuming computer perfect play, and will also lose all their BR. Given that fact they will not earn any money in the long run and will in fact lose everything, the 19 players are known to have a negative expectation of some unknown hourly amount that depends on how many hours it takes them to bust out. So while it is correct to say those 19 players each have a 40/hr EV, it is also correct to say they will each lose their entire BR in the long run and therefore have a negative expectation.

Three, here’s something you’re missing. Most marginal counters don’t think in terms of bankroll or ROR. They are not going to bust out since they more or less have an unlimited bankroll. What I’m saying is they have a job and only do this on weekends. They might have losing sessions but they don’t bust out per say.

I have played 20 years and never thought in terms of bankroll or ROR. I know my ROR is meaningless since my bankroll is unlimited. I might bust out for a weekend or session but I’ll never bust out my bankroll...that will never happen since that would mean I’m bankrupt. I still keep records so I know I have a winning game. I track my winnings year over year. One reason I quite playing while I was on the east coast is because I saw I was losing, and it took forever to get a positive count in those 8 deck shoes. I give anybody that can make money at Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun a lot of credit.

What I’m doing is normal for marginal counters. With good rules and pen, I do pretty well playing this way. Other marginal counters do as well. I play with some local professors in my area who play the same way. We do it for entertainment but we’re also playing a winning game.

Even though these marginal counters have a winning game, I have never seen them kicked out of a casino. I still wonder where all the casinos are that are backing off these marginal counters.

[Stealth]

I think casinos are making mistakes by not backing off APs sooner to protect their business and shareholders.

Do you have any empirical evidence to support this concept?

I can defend the fact that the idiots are losing millions of dollars with nothing more complicated than penetration on blackjack. Any good industrial manager capable of doing a time and motion study would know this.

You make statements that you can identify a card counter by his bet ramp and I contend you can't identify anything other than he changed his bet. Any other conclusion is unsubstantiated on circumstantial evidence. You could, and in many cases are, blaming a gambler who has no idea what he is doing or is using some voodoo structure he thinks will win. Would be very interested in you explaining how you can identify an AP at the cage or anywhere else for that matter.

I know gamblers who have won over $700,000 playing blackjack in Vegas only to lose it back within a month. If you watch him/her play using your criteria you would ban them as an AP and you would be wrong. How many gamblers have the casino banned that would have lost millions more if left alone? How do these numbers get reported to your management and stockholders. Do not offer me the bullshit about protecting your company, it's just not true.

The population of AP's, especially those equipped with the financial backing, capable of winning are an extreme minority of the casino patrons. Total Rewards system has over 40,000,000 participants. A popular data base of advantage players, cheats and charlatans has about 1200 people in it after about 10 years. How many do you think are legitimate AP's. I know about 150 and I am reasonably well informed. In the statistical sense, their ability to win substantial amounts is noise. The variance of the games provides for winners and losers and casino management works to hold down the winners, even in the most natural of mathematical occurrences.

[Three]

Yeah, and they're kicking out those players.

Exactly. Let the group play and the rare individuals that become a threat due to success you backoff before they grow their BR by 20 times and the casino is still ahead.

I don't know how to contact Bill Zender, but if you do, you should invite him to this thread or at least ask him his opinion of a casino allowing an AP to play simply because he is underfunded.

Zender's opinion is that AP's are cash cows for the house because there are so many that want to be successful counters and so few that can actually do it. 99% of the counters will be losers. He doesn't specify BR or bet size. He says let the counters play and bar true threats only not just any counter. The one thing everyone agrees on is low level counters are not true threats even if they are good. The 1% just can't win enough to offset the 99% loses if you backoff the true threats. As long as they can play at other casinos they won't be trying to sneak into yours. That means don't share info on the player unless he tries to comeback. As long as he can play elsewhere he has no reason to try to come back. If you database them it is like a backoff at most casinos so coming back is the same as going somewhere else. That is the casino and game protectors wisdom. You can try to convince them otherwise if you like but they didn't come to this decision without a lot of research.

How many played rated as a low level player and went unmolested despite the casino knowing they were counting and were successful only to be backed off as soon as they upped their stakes due to having a larger BR? Why? Because they can't win enough at lower stakes despite their skill to be a true threat. They are playing games whose rules and conditions provide sufficient game protection to keep him from being a true threat. At higher stakes the same player both finds better rules and conditions and can make enough to be viewed as a true threat. When they reach higher stakes and show they are in fact a true threat that is when they get backed off. We have all seen it and many have experienced it. It is a fact. We have also seen relatively rare casinos that back off for even changing your bet counter or not. There are revenue records for every casino that prove which approach is the most profitable for BJ tables. It has a long history for thousands of casinos. It says Zender's recommendations are the way to maximize casino profits. You may have all these theories about what the casino should do but the actual records show the casinos that cut deep to maximize rounds per hour and let counters play, while protecting from the true threats only, by far outperform the revenues of the sweaty casinos that cut into their profits by dealing fewer rounds per hour and backing off every counter. I could put up the stats for casino BJ revenue to prove it but it is not in my best interest to educate everyone on where the se places are. Typically these places will let counters know in not so subtle ways that they have played enough for the day. If the counter takes the hint and is trained by the casino as to what is in their comfort zone they don't get backed off. If they continue playing after the not so subtle hints or prove they can't be trained on what the casino is comfortable with and show they are a true threat they are backed off. If they can be trained then they won't ever be a true threat. It is when the counter gets greedy and gets out of the casinos comfort zone that they get backed off.

So you can be a greedy counter that has to play poor conditions while using a huge BR to get plus EV with extreme volatility at places where the shitty games are considered the game protection. Or you can be a reasonable counter and play within casino tolerances and allow the casino to train you with what they are comfortable with and play for reasonable stakes while limiting the time you spend in the casino and how much you win. If you manage to do that you are recognized as a counter that can make money but is not a true threat and be allowed to play until your total win becomes too large.

[Three]

Even though these marginal counters have a winning game, I have never seen them kicked out of a casino. I still wonder where all the casinos are that are backing off these marginal counters.

They don't get backed off because they are not true threats. They add a lot to drop which is an important stat for casinos. Most casinos will take a larger drop over a larger hold despite a larger hold means more profits. Some casinos will spend hundreds of thousands a month in lost revenue for reduced pen, shuffle machines, consultants and counter catcher efforts to save thousands a month. Others will save hundreds of thousands a month by following Zender's model and only acting against true threats. A counter is easy to spot and the rare true threats will show over time. The millions and millions a casino saves each year using the Zender model for managing BJ is easily protected from becoming a loss with minimal effort at little cost. Smart casinos know this and only protect against true threats.

[BigJer]

If you watch him/her play using your criteria you would ban them as an AP and you would be wrong. How many gamblers have the casino banned that would have lost millions more if left alone? How do these numbers get reported to your management and stockholders. Do not offer me the bullshit about protecting your company, it's just not true.

Thank you Stealth! Didn't think about that.

[Dbs6582]

Do you have any empirical evidence to support this concept?

You make statements that you can identify a card counter by his bet ramp and I contend you can't identify anything other than he changed his bet. Any other conclusion is unsubstantiated on circumstantial evidence.

Stealth, I’m surprised you would make a statement like this. Of course I have more information than just seeing someone changing his bet. Since I’m playing at the table, I also know the count. If the person is changing his bet with the count, then I suspect he might be a counter. The first time it might have been a random event but by the third time, I know he’s a counter.

There are also other things that mark them as a counter, like the way they scan the table, ask to see people’s cards when the dealer shows an ace, always start a shoe with min bet, almost never tip, show little emotion, take insurance when the count is +3 or higher and not take insurance when it’s lower than +3, etc. Trust me, the people I’ve identified as counters are counters. They also usually check off all the boxes on what a counter looks like. Most people should know what this means.

Since you’re also a counter, I’m surprised you find it hard to spot a fellow counter. To be honest with you, I’ve got to where I can spot a counter almost before they place their first bet. After 15 mins, my suspicions are confirmed.

This isn’t a big deal, I’m just surprised you think it’s difficult to spot counters. As I’m sure you know, all counting systems lead to someone betting more when the deck is positive and less when it’s zero or negative, so it doesn’t matter what counting system a person uses.

This has nothing to do with what the casino should do when a counter has been identified. Even though I’ve identified many counters over the past 20 years, I have not seen one backed off. That’s why I’m wondering why so many people think casinos are doing this.

[Dbs6582]

Stealth, I’m surprised you would make a statement like this. Of course I have more information than just seeing someone changing his bet. Since I’m playing at the table, I also know the count. If the person is changing his bet with the count, then I suspect he might be a counter. The first time it might have been a random event but by the third time, I know he’s a counter.

There are also other things that mark them as a counter, like the way they scan the table, ask to see people’s cards when the dealer shows an ace, always start a shoe with min bet, almost never tip, show little emotion, take insurance when the count is +3 or higher and not take insurance when it’s lower than +3, etc. Trust me, the people I’ve identified as counters are counters. They also usually check off all the boxes on what a counter looks like. Most people should know what this means.

Since you’re also a counter, I’m surprised you find it hard to spot a fellow counter. To be honest with you, I’ve got to where I can spot a counter almost before they place their first bet. After 15 mins, my suspicions are confirmed.

This isn’t a big deal, I’m just surprised you think it’s difficult to spot counters. As I’m sure you know, all counting systems lead to someone betting more when the deck is positive and less when it’s zero or negative, so it doesn’t matter what counting system a person uses.

This has nothing to do with what the casino should do when a counter has been identified. Even though I’ve identified many counters over the past 20 years, I have not seen one backed off. That’s why I’m wondering why so many people think casinos are doing this.

One more comment: Everyone of these people play unrated, which is probably the biggest tell they’re counters. At my local casinos, almost everybody plays rated. So when one of these young traveling counters come along and plays unrated, it’s pretty easy to know they’re counters before they place their first bet.

Some even wear a hat or visor which is like wearing a big billboard announcing they’re counters. Like I said, most of them are so obvious in their appreance and how they approach the table, you’d have to be blind, deaf and dumb to not know they’re counters. The fascinating thing to me is most pit critters don't know they’re APs so they allow them to play.