Bottom Line Casino Profits?

S

Slick Vic

Active Member
#1
#1
Alright, so we're all aware of how much casinos hate anyone who knows how to think. Casinos would spend $100 if it meant preventing a counter form winning $10. Casinos hate to lose.

But, really, just how much of a threat are APs to casino profits in the long run? Is the one AP out of every what, 100 or so people so threatening? Sure, I can understand wanting to keep an eye out for someone who knows how to win, but do casinos really feel justified going to such extreme measures like this?

Are APs really so dangerous? Me personally, I think APs are simply a small hole, leaking a few drops out of a massive bucket. Is this not the case, or are casinos just being paranoid?
 
S

standard toaster

Well-Known Member
#4
#4
Slick Vic said:
Alright, so we're all aware of how much casinos hate anyone who knows how to think. Casinos would spend $100 if it meant preventing a counter form winning $10. Casinos hate to lose.

But, really, just how much of a threat are APs to casino profits in the long run? Is the one AP out of every what, 100 or so people so threatening? Sure, I can understand wanting to keep an eye out for someone who knows how to win, but do casinos really feel justified going to such extreme measures like this?

Are APs really so dangerous? Me personally, I think APs are simply a small hole, leaking a few drops out of a massive bucket. Is this not the case, or are casinos just being paranoid?
Click to expand...
Wow that was a good readI would recomend it to anybody.. although it is a bit long
 
1

1357111317

Well-Known Member
#5
#5
He says that counters make up .00024% of the casino-faring population. That is just the number of counters that get caught though. What do you guys think the actual precentage of counters in Vegas is?
 
EasyRhino

EasyRhino

Well-Known Member
#6
#6
My spitballing would put 1% or less as an approximation of the number of players who can actually handle basic strategy.

Of that, a disturbingly high percentage are probably doing some sort of counting. 25%? But, the amount probably playing with a consistent advantage is smaller. Maybe 1% again. That would put it at 0.1%. Most of these will be playing at stakes too small to hurt casinos.

The super small number of .00024% is interesting.
 
C

callipygian

Well-Known Member
#7
#7
I think you guys are missing an important distinction: whether it's worth it for a casino to go after counters vs. whether it's worth it for a pit boss to go after counters. The two may not be the same.

For instance, a casino benefits from non-counters playing at the table; a pit boss doesn't. So long as a pit boss doesn't have a team hit his pit on his shift, he doesn't see an extra dime from having tables filled with chumps. On the other hand, a pit boss faces extreme punishment - censure, or perhaps even firing - if a counter successfully attacks the pit and is discovered the next day.

Faced with this choice, it's unsurprising that pit bosses will then take excessive measures to prevent even a small chance of getting hit - he has nothing to lose by being aggressive, and nothing to gain by waiting to see. The overreacting pit bosses are being entirely rational in their decision-making.

The obvious solution (from the casino's perspective) is to restructure the reward system such that pit bosses now have incentive to let bad players play in addition to banning good players, such as demerits for false accusations but credits for successfully catching a counter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top