Let's punish all the casinos we hate for being excessively greedy

[Thunder]

We should all decide on one day or night or whatever to hit a certain casino that we all hate with the goal of making a big dent in their wallets. We then should keep playing there until they're either bankrupt, we've all been 86ed or they agree to change their rules for the better! At the same time, we'll short their stock and make bundles more when they report a massive loss in earnings in their quarterly statmenet :-D It would be like Bringing Down the House X 500 Who's with me?

[bj bob]

Originally Posted by Thunder

We should all decide on one day or night or whatever to hit a certain casino that we all hate with the goal of making a big dent in their wallets. We then should keep playing there until they're either bankrupt, we've all been 86ed or they agree to change their rules for the better! At the same time, we'll short their stock and make bundles more when they report a massive loss in earnings in their quarterly statmenet :-D It would be like Bringing Down the House X 500 Who's with me?

Let's start with the EVIL EMPIRE !

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by Thunder

We then should keep playing there until they're either bankrupt, we've all been 86ed or they agree to change their rules for the better!

I think we all know how this one ends.

It's a tough sell to say to a casino "We're going to beat your games unless you make them more beatable." The guerilla approach is good for profit, but it will only burn out the game even more. The only way a casino will improve its game is if it brings them more profit (or seems to).

-Sonny-

[ChefJJ]

Originally Posted by Sonny

The only way a casino will improve its game is if it brings them more profit (or seems to).

Which is why the whole bad penetration thing doesn't make any sense to me unless the casino uses a ASM.

good luck

[21forme]

Originally Posted by ChefJJ

Which is why the whole bad penetration thing doesn't make any sense to me unless the casino uses a ASM.

good luck

The only explanation that makes any sense on this issue is the casinos are willing to give up profits to say that NOBODY can beat their games. Can management be that stupid? They should visit the supermarket and learn what loss leaders do for business.

[callipygian]

Originally Posted by 21forme

The only explanation that makes any sense on this issue is the casinos are willing to give up profits to say that NOBODY can beat their games. Can management be that stupid?

Yes, but they aren't necessarily so. Depending on how the reward structure is set up, it may be quite rational, just as sacrificing EV to reduce variance might be rational depending on circumstances.

Let's say, for instance, that a manager gets paid the same so long as profits are above a certain figure - no possibility of bonuses or promotion. However, there exists a strong penalty if profits fall below that certain figure. If a manager believes that the profits are sufficiently high above his penalty line, he might rationally accept a 10% drop in profits to ensure that he never has a 20% negative spike.

There's a number of scenarios in which casino management might rationally make a decision that hurts the casino.

[ChefJJ]

Could be the case...

But it seems to me that dealing an extra deck per shoe per table will get a decent amount more hands dealt, and more money in play. Effective card counters would gain a better advantage because of this deeper cut, but are there really enough real APs to counteract the more money put in play with a negative advantage?

Blackjack players who legitimately play with a long-run advantage are few and far between when compared with the masses. In my unscientific opinion, I think the suits and execs anecdotally know that less penetration weakens a card counter's effectiveness. On the other hand, they may not know what this means in dollars and cents when compared to the opportunity cost of less hands to the masses playing a losing game.

Is shallow penetration a losing play for the house?

[InPlay]

Originally Posted by Thunder

We should all decide on one day or night or whatever to hit a certain casino that we all hate with the goal of making a big dent in their wallets. We then should keep playing there until they're either bankrupt, we've all been 86ed or they agree to change their rules for the better! At the same time, we'll short their stock and make bundles more when they report a massive loss in earnings in their quarterly statmenet :-D It would be like Bringing Down the House X 500 Who's with me?

You won't do it that way. Only way is to get other people not to go there and thats next to impossible.

[Automatic Monkey]

What you are suggesting has some value. I've discussed it before as the Cicada Method. The purpose would be for longevity rather than any kind of influence on the casino.

If a casino was dealing a very beatable game, with heat, a large number of counters could go in and play simultaneously. It takes a while to identify and back off a counter, and while that process is going on, everyone else is merrily spreading away. Each counter while being backed off could make as big a fuss as possible to consume the casino's personnel resources for a few minutes.

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by Sonny

I think we all know how this one ends.

It's a tough sell to say to a casino "We're going to beat your games unless you make them more beatable."

Yaa! zg