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

[UK-21]

I'd certainly agree that card counters are a tiny minority, especially in the UK. If they weren't I think the casinos here would take more of an interest in the risk to their holds. Never thought I'd see another at work, but just a few weeks ago I sat next to a guy doing exactly the same as I was - but then I always look for the signs when I'm sitting there (another interesting dimension to the game).

On the bankroll matter, I don't play with any consideration to having a sufficient bankroll. Reason? - I have a real job and so my bankroll is constantly renewable. I adopt the alternative strategy of having a sufficient session "fund" that results in an acceptable risk of losing it all at that session. On entering the HoC I al ways have 40 or 50 units of the table min I'll be playing, and the knowledge that there's a chance (I calculated it at, very roughly, around 20%) that I can lose the lot if I hit an early high count but lose hands. It hasn't happened yet, but I know it will at some stage - I'm going to avoid raising anyone's heckles by saying it's due ! ! !

I suspect the vast majority of amateur players (counters included) don't have a separate definitive bankroll, but play on a session-by-session basis. I hope that doesn't make me "half-baked" in the eyes of the fixed bankroll and Kelly betting fraternity?

:-)

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by newb99

I'd certainly agree that card counters are a tiny minority, especially in the UK. If they weren't I think the casinos here would take more of an interest in the risk to their holds. Never thought I'd see another at work, but just a few weeks ago I sat next to a guy doing exactly the same as I was - but then I always look for the signs when I'm sitting there (another interesting dimension to the game).

On the bankroll matter, I don't play with any consideration to having a sufficient bankroll. Reason? - I have a real job and so my bankroll is constantly renewable. I adopt the alternative strategy of having a sufficient session "fund" that results in an acceptable risk of losing it all at that session. On entering the HoC I al ways have 40 or 50 units of the table min I'll be playing, and the knowledge that there's a chance (I calculated it at, very roughly, around 20%) that I can lose the lot if I hit an early high count but lose hands. It hasn't happened yet, but I know it will at some stage - I'm going to avoid raising anyone's heckles by saying it's due ! ! !

I suspect the vast majority of amateur players (counters included) don't have a separate definitive bankroll, but play on a session-by-session basis. I hope that doesn't make me "half-baked" in the eyes of the fixed bankroll and Kelly betting fraternity?

:-)

hey newb one you want a laugh? read these posts:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=11134

[blackjack avenger]

Casinos make money dealing cards. Anytime spent not dealing cards the casino is losing money.

If a casino deals no cards they would be safe from any counter on the planet, though they would make no money.

[shadroch]

What nobody is factoring in is that most players don't sit down and say they are going to play for two hours. Instead they say they will play until they lose X amount. The casinos are there 24-7. It doesn't matter if it takes three hours or four hours. Either way, they will get the players money.A player should be concerned about his hourly EV. A casino doesn't need to be.
Doesn't matter if it is150 hands in six shoes, or 160 hands in four shoes. Either way, the casino takes the ploppies money. If it takes a little longer, the ploppies end up feeling better.

[1357111317]

But only dealing 4 more hands per hour only costs a civilian that is betting 10 a hand 4 bucks. That is only half a bet. No civilian would notice that. And even if they did, does the casino really care? All they care about is the bottom line.