How giving crappy pen saves the casinos money by eliminating counters... Or not

[callipygian]

Originally Posted by FLASH1296

As there are ubiquitous multitudes of ploppy players, the % of players who are capable of taking any minimally significant amounts from the casinos, approximates zero.

But almost zero doesn't equal zero, and that's important because card counters can take a lot more than the average ploppy gives.

Remember that any ploppy that doesn't give their full 2% to the blackjack table hold is already an irritant to the casino; if 1% of their patrons played with 1% disadvantage, that's a 0.5% drop in revenue, and roughly a 3% drop in net income (based on MGM's 2007 gross revenues and net income reported). Assuming constant P/E, that's a 3% drop in stock price, which for Tracinda Corporation (149 million shares, 53% of MGM-Mirage) means a loss of $5.5 million.

I don't think you can blame the management types for being a little paranoid about those 200-300 counters in the world who can really hit them. Sure, it might be a drop in the bucket when you consider revenue, but it ends up being significant when you consider income.

[shadroch]

Originally Posted by 1357111317

That is true if you are talking about a single table where you know there is a counter. But even if a casino was offering a game cutting of .5 decks on a 6D, what precentage of players would be counters? I guessed a number around .1% or 1 out of 1000. Does that seem right to you guys or should it be more like 1 out of 100?

The better the penetration, the more counters there will be. Thats my opinion. Many would be counters get discouraged because getting 75% penetration in a shoe is not all that helpful. Dealing out 5 1/2 decks instead of 4 would present many more chances and I believe create many more counters.

[moo321]

If you KNOW there is a counter at the table, assuming he's spreading table min to 16 units, youre STILL better off cutting 1 deck off at a full table, because you make so much more off of the ploppies.

If I ran a casino, I'd cut 1 deck off the shoes, and back off any well bankrolled, skilled counters that come in. Ignore the red-chippers, because even if you back off a counter every day, it's not worth paying someone minimum wage to watch the tables for counters.

[UK-21]

Originally Posted by FLASH1296

. . . As far as how many half-baked amateur Card Counters there are, who are at least playing skillfully
and with a sufficient bankroll, who play more than a few hours a week, is probably between 2,000 and 4,000.

Not meaning to be confrontational, but what do you mean by a "half-baked" amateur? Someone who does it well enough to walk away with more than they started with (on average) but for a hobby? Seems a somewhat derisory remark considering most of the contributors to this forum don't AP as their main source of income?

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by FLASH1296

The casinos shoot themselves in the foot by giving bad penetration.

I refer you to "Casinology" by Bill Zender

Zender uses "time and space studies" to prove that giving bad penetration
is counter-productive to a casino's profit margin.

Time - MOTION

Time SPACE studies is what I use LSD for. zg

[FLASH1296]

newb99,

I meant no insult.
There are tens of thousands of people
who have read a little about Card Counting,
but do not apply the principles correctly.
The most egregious ( chronic) errors generally
have to do with radically over-betting their True Counts
and being inadequately
bankrolled to handle the flux of our game.
This is a prescription for disaster.

[johndoe]

Flash: That's true, but your definition of "half-baked" above includes those "who are at least playing skillfully and with a sufficient bankroll". What's wrong with that?

I can see non-pro, but skilled and correctly playing "hobby" players (like myself) taking offense at being called "half-baked". For some of us, we make lots more money working good jobs, so the EV of blackjack is decidedly lower than just working. That's hardly "half-baked".

I know the remark wasn't intended as an insult, but it's easy to construe it this way.

[FLASH1296]

Re-read my post.

I said " ... inadequately bankrolled ... "

Being inadequately bankrolled negates your comment re:

"correctly playing "hobby" players"

In my experience persons identifying themselves as skillful have varying levels of skill;
but very often self-identified hobbyists think that they can spread $10 to $120
at a shoe game with $1,000 in their pocket.

[johndoe]

Re-read your own post. I was referring to your original "half-baked" post, where you said:

"As far as how many half-baked amateur Card Counters there are, who are at least playing skillfully and with a sufficient bankroll..."

You clearly stated that someone who was an "amateur", while "playing skillfully" and with a "sufficient" bankroll was "half-baked".

Thus the offense.

If you didn't mean that, or mistyped, then that's fine, but don't deny that's what you said, and at least own up to it.

(Obviously someone inadequately bankrolled is being foolish.)

[1357111317]

But how many counters out there actually play a game with an EV higher than 50$ an hour? I would guess that less than 5% of counters have an EV that high. And just a pure guess here but I am guessing that less than .5% of the plalyers in Vegas use some kind of counting to aid their play. With precentages as small as that Vegas and all other casinos would be better off if they shuffled less.