My final conclusion on iTables

[Most Interesting Man]

My final conclusion on iTables is that if the casinos want to waste money they would be better off writing me a fat check.

I observed quite a bit of iTable "action" and I must say that the stores that use them better be beta testing these things for free. One table was full but out of commission the entire time I was there. Who knows what was wrong with it; nobody could tell. Players were just sitting there doing nothing, the dealer was waiting for the pit, and when the pit arrived they were just as powerless. Rebooting the table--or whatever you do with those things--wasn't helping. They had a rack full of physical chips but wouldn't deal without their machine spoonfeeding them every step.

Meanwhile another table was having intermittent issues that required the pit to swipe their special access card several times to proceed. More delays.

One guy I was watching was playing two hands. Thanks to variance one hand was winning big and the other losing big. These hands don't share the same buy in and you can't transfer credits among your hands. So what happens is that the frequently guy cashes out and re-buys to balance the credits among his hands. More delays.

On some other table was a gentleman playing reasonably big. There are a lot of people who stop to watch someone playing big and sometimes even join in a little later on if that person's winning. Not going to be the case since you'll never know just how big someone's stack of digital chips is without looking very closely at the screens.

I'm starting to think that companies like ShuffleMaster may be a bigger threat to a casino's bottom line than APs. I assume they're charging a fortune to rent out these tables and on top of that there's more -EV for the store in the form of time and motion waste, let alone that people passing by can't tell if there something big going on. Finally, what's the draw of these machines? If a player wanted electronic blackjack, there are machines for those. There are machines that show a lifelike, but creepy, dealer too. Players who like a fully physical game will also dislike these. As for the cost to run the game, theres the addedd cost of the table itself and the casino still needs one dealer per table. iTables are stuck in the middle.

 

[aslan]

I'm sure they could work out the bugs. I played at one all night without a problem. I did not like the fact that they had perfect control of my chip stack, no ratholing possible. I also did not like the idea that the machine could see whether I was betting according to the count. The only instance that it helped was when I asked how much I was bought in for and the pit quickly checked the data feed and gave me the answer. We had a single snafu all night for a brief time, but in general the game moved along rather fast. By the end of the night I was getting used to looking at the digital read out instead of adding my cards to see the value of my hand. In summary, computerized games cannot be a good thing for APs, so let's hope they never get it right. It might bring back that system (what was it called?) that could read the cards and alert the house to card counting behavior. That also would not be good.

 

[tthree]

I believe many jurisdictions have laws against using electronic devices to gain an edge over what the game is designed for. Haven't judges in some of these jurisdictions ruled that law applies to casinos as well? I believe I read that the Itable was illegal in the jurisdictions were judges have ruled this way if they are used to 86 players.

 

[aslan]

I believe many jurisdictions have laws against using electronic devices to gain an edge over what the game is designed for. Haven't judges in some of these jurisdictions ruled that law applies to casinos as well? I believe I read that the Itable was illegal in the jurisdictions were judges have ruled this way if they are used to 86 players.

Yes, it a casino reshuffled the cards to avoid a positive count, it has been found illegal. But if a casino merely used the computer to determine who the card counters are, it is perfectly legal as far as I know.

 

[Most Interesting Man]

I believe many jurisdictions have laws against using electronic devices to gain an edge over what the game is designed for. Haven't judges in some of these jurisdictions ruled that law applies to casinos as well? I believe I read that the Itable was illegal in the jurisdictions were judges have ruled this way if they are used to 86 players.

That would make those ridiculous counting sticks illegal too.

 

[AussiePlayer]

Yes, it a casino reshuffled the cards to avoid a positive count, it has been found illegal. But if a casino merely used the computer to determine who the card counters are, it is perfectly legal as far as I know.

I believe they also are legally supposed to have a six round delay on the count (in Vegas anyway)

 

[Liquid Chips]

I for one am not going to play the I-tables anymore. I've won over $2,500 in two weekends on these tables until recently. I was up over $300 when things turned. The dealer started having a bit of difficulty getting the cards out of the machine. I didn't think anything of it at the time. I started getting stiffs like crazy and the dealer was getting 10s. None of my double downs were winning. Everyone else on the table would get 20s or decent cards while I get the 4, 5, or 6. My profit dwindled to $50 and I decided to hit the free buffet. Coming back at a different spot, the losses continued. Some people were looking at me like what the heck is he losing so often?

Then a suspicious thing happened. The dealer noticed that the cards were bent half way across the top. She never seen this before. I ignored this too. But I started thinking that the table was acting like an online casino. All of the same elements are there: The table knows how much you bet, whether you are winning and by how much, it knows your history and can analyze your pattern of play. It also knows which player will receive which card and I do believe these machines can and do read the cards before the dealer draws. I believe the bent cards were caused by the machine reshuffling the cards in order for certain cards to favor the dealer and counter my play. I ended up losing $600 and I vowed to never play this casino's I-table again. I play well against CSMs but I won't play against CSMs that reads cards and tracks the players, especially the I-tables.

 

[aslan]

I believe they also are legally supposed to have a six round delay on the count (in Vegas anyway)

That is interesting. That would prevent them from reshuffling based on the count for the most part. And it would still allow them to use the information gathered to profile card counters. I can fool a pit guy or an eye in the sky sometimes, but I cannot fool a computer. I may camo some inconsistencies into my game but the computer is only interested in whether I acted generally consistent with the count, or at least enough so as to garner an advantage. How do you beat that?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

They're a real waste. Most technology in BJ is. It's been making money for casinos for 100 years with just a dealer and a deck of cards, what kind of magical thing do they think is going to happen when they use these devices?

 

[Friendo]

They're a real waste. Most technology in BJ is. It's been making money for casinos for 100 years with just a dealer and a deck of cards, what kind of magical thing do they think is going to happen when they use these devices?

In the world of management, few have the character to assume an executive position, examine the spreadsheets and organization laid out by their predecessor, and conclude that it is clearly optimal, even in cases when it obviously is.

Management résumés are built by jumping up and down and screaming "look at me, look at me: I'm ever so innovative!"

First, you look for something which is a fad: if it has not been around long enough to have failed elsewhere, then do it. If it has clearly failed elsewhere but not yet been tried at your firm, then do it anyway. If you can't find anything which has already failed elsewhere but, even if it will probably fail under your management, can still be characterized as "innovative", then do that.

You don't move forward in corporate management by keeping the place clean and running smoothly. You do it by FAST-TRACKING leveraged global CHANGE through streamlining CUSTOMER-FOCUSED decision strategies which LEVERAGE MARKET GRANULARITY on a GOING-FORWARD BASIS.

Then, just before the place catches fire, you move to a higher-level position, preferably at much higher pay, with another firm. Any blowback from your previous fiascos can be blamed on poor stewardship on the part of your successor.

American corporate management is focused mainly on playing grab-ass, sharing stories with your fellow former C students about fraternity days, and making changes without regard to their long-term consequences to corporate profitability.

Given this vile, stinking pyramid of stupidity, why would any casino be smart enough to leave well enough alone?

 

[aslan]

In the world of management, few have the character to assume an executive position, examine the spreadsheets and organization laid out by their predecessor, and conclude that it is clearly optimal, even in cases when it obviously is.

Management résumés are built by jumping up and down and screaming "look at me, look at me: I'm ever so innovative!"

First, you look for something which is a fad: if it has not been around long enough to have failed elsewhere, then do it. If it has clearly failed elsewhere but not yet been tried at your firm, then do it anyway. If you can't find anything which has already failed elsewhere but, even if it will probably fail under your management, can still be characterized as "innovative", then do that.

You don't move forward in corporate management by keeping the place clean and running smoothly. You do it by FAST-TRACKING leveraged global CHANGE through streamlining CUSTOMER-FOCUSED decision strategies which LEVERAGE MARKET GRANULARITY on a GOING-FORWARD BASIS.

Then, just before the place catches fire, you move to a higher-level position, preferably at much higher pay, with another firm. Any blowback from your previous fiascos can be blamed on poor stewardship on the part of your successor.

American corporate management is focused mainly on playing grab-ass, sharing stories with your fellow former C students about fraternity days, and making changes without regard to their long-term consequences to corporate profitability.

Given this vile, stinking pyramid of stupidity, why would any casino be smart enough to leave well enough alone?

You have a way with words.

 

[UK-21]

Yes, I like this too.

Heard a great story from someone I know who once worked with someone who had made a lifetime career in public service - he admitted that the key to his success was never stayng anywhere long enough to be held accountable for the decisions he took. I think the longest time in post in a 40 odd year career was 3 years. The advice given by him was "never stay still anywhere long enough to become a target".

The sting in the tail for the UK taxpayer now, is that these career public servants now seem to receive severance/compensation payments (running to £10,000s) when they move on, only to see them pop up 8-12 weeks later with an appointment with another publicly funded organisation.

I now work in public service, and have never seen such a high turnover of senior management faces in the time I've been with my current employer - previously I worked in the private sector. And as a tax payer, I'm as outraged as the next man at some of the "settlements" I've seen paid to indivuduals who have elected to move on.

I'm sure the casino industry is no different, although in the UK management opportunities in casino groups are, I suspect, few and far between.

 

[Most Interesting Man]

Management résumés are built by jumping up and down and screaming "look at me, look at me: I'm ever so innovative!"

...

You don't move forward in corporate management by keeping the place clean and running smoothly. You do it by FAST-TRACKING leveraged global CHANGE through streamlining CUSTOMER-FOCUSED decision strategies which LEVERAGE MARKET GRANULARITY on a GOING-FORWARD BASIS.

I think I now you who you really are. You must be Scott Adams creator of Dilbert.

 

[aslan]

I think I now you who you really are. You must be Scott Adams creator of Dilbert.

:laugh: