What can really hurt casinos?

[tribute]

What is the biggest real threat to casinos' bottom line? Is it 1) Advantage players? 2) Theft? 3) Cheating employees or players? 4) Teams?

Of these, what really can affect them the most? Or have I left out anything?

 

[Pro21]

without question - theft.

I saw a forum for surveillance people once that I can't seem to find now. They polled their members about what cost the casinos the most money. They realized how little APs hurt them and put it down at about 3%. They also were smart enough to realize that slow game speed was one of their major losses of revenue, probably costing them more than theft.

 

[shadroch]

It appears that allowing whales to play on credit can be killer. Harrahs Corp. is currently suing several gamblers who have reneged on notes to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

 

[KenSmith]

I saw a forum for surveillance people once that I can't seem to find now.

This one maybe? http://www.gamingfloor.biz/forum/

 

[Deathclutch]

The number one thing for almost all businesses is internal theft. I use to work Loss Prevention for a few retail stores and it's insane as to how many people we catch for external theft, and how it usually only takes one inside job to cost us much much more. As an example, we'd catch about 10-15 people in a month, most averaging between $15 and $50 in theft. One inside job that year had an Assistant Manager taking over $30000.

 

[Cardcounter]

Costly to the casino!

Dealer mistakes can cost the casino money that is why they get so many breaks. A dealer in collusion with a player could cost the casino a fortune, that is much bigger threat than theft from either side. Slow play will also cost the casino money that is why a lot of casinos have shuffle machines.

 

[UK-21]

Yes, if you think about it it's a wonder that all casinos don't drop a CSM on every table where a card game is dealt? They solve the problem of having to identify and take steps against APs (surveillance costs), potential dealer collusion (loss prevention), iron out the variances so the HE bites in quicker (less chance of long swings against the house) and of course speeds the game up (so more goes across the felt and is subject to the HE).

I think the only reason some of the major chains in the UK don't use them are the leasing costs, and the fact that they would eat into what are already very thin margins. In the UK I suspect there would be little cost reduction in surveillance (as it's probably minimal in most places here anyway - I do wonder at times whether they're real cameras above the table) and the advantages in the other areas mentioned wouldn't justify their cost. Just as well really.

 

[StudiodeKadent]

Yes, if you think about it it's a wonder that all casinos don't drop a CSM on every table where a card game is dealt? They solve the problem of having to identify and take steps against APs (surveillance costs), potential dealer collusion (loss prevention), iron out the variances so the HE bites in quicker (less chance of long swings against the house) and of course speeds the game up (so more goes across the felt and is subject to the HE).

I think the only reason some of the major chains in the UK don't use them are the leasing costs, and the fact that they would eat into what are already very thin margins. In the UK I suspect there would be little cost reduction in surveillance (as it's probably minimal in most places here anyway - I do wonder at times whether they're real cameras above the table) and the advantages in the other areas mentioned wouldn't justify their cost. Just as well really.

In many ways, I find it ironic that CSMs are only used on low limit tables.

Low limit card counting cannot do any substantial damage to the casino. The amount of revenue that the casino 'protects' with a CSM is extremely small. The game speed increase of ten to twenty percent (versus hand-shuffled shoe games) is probably only slightly more than an ASM-shuffled shoe game, and again the marginal benefit would be very small on low limit tables.

The real damage to casinos can only really be done in high limit rooms. It is these places that actually would benefit most from CSM use. Yet those places seem to always get more countable games.

It reminds me of the discussion we had a while ago about whether or not a BS player should take a shoe game over a CSM game (I argued that if played slowly to keep the game speed constant, the BS player should take the CSM game wheras you argued for a shoe game). One thing that I do remember is the point about variance... A game with more variance, naturally, is a game that is more 'exciting' overall. Of course this benefits bigger bankrolls, but I do admit that CSM-dealing does remove a level of 'emotional dynamics' in the games.

One of the reasons I think that the CSM+discard tray arrangement will get bigger is that it adds more variance to a CSM game, avoiding the emotional flatness effect, whilst still providing a level of game protection (dependent on the size of the discard tray) and basically functioning as an ASM (thus speeding up the game slightly).

The point you make about leasing costs is important. Everything I have heard about the costs of a CSM is somewhere in the vicinity of "astronomical."

 

[UK-21]

Someone on this board did advise around US$1500 per month - $50 a day, or ten min bets on a low limit table. Not that expensive but I suppose if you have ten tables in use it all adds up, and it is of course a completely avoidable hard cost against the bottom line.

 

[bjcounter]

Why don't you ask Zender?:whip:

 

[ihate17]

Spend some serious time in the U.S. and you will find out why!

Yes, if you think about it it's a wonder that all casinos don't drop a CSM on every table where a card game is dealt? They solve the problem of having to identify and take steps against APs (surveillance costs), potential dealer collusion (loss prevention), iron out the variances so the HE bites in quicker (less chance of long swings against the house) and of course speeds the game up (so more goes across the felt and is subject to the HE).

I think the only reason some of the major chains in the UK don't use them are the leasing costs, and the fact that they would eat into what are already very thin margins. In the UK I suspect there would be little cost reduction in surveillance (as it's probably minimal in most places here anyway - I do wonder at times whether they're real cameras above the table) and the advantages in the other areas mentioned wouldn't justify their cost. Just as well really.

Why CSM,s in the U.S. have decreased in number and are only on low limit tables.
Because casinos have competition and want to make money.
Years ago many casinos tried CSM's at all sorts of limit tables only to find that the CSM table would be dead while every hand shuffled or ASM table would be nearly full. Players, even the worst of players overwhelmingly dislike or distrust a CSM. In a place like Vegas and many other gambling locations in the U.S. there is competition and if your casino goes totally CSM's you will quickly see your competition now has nearly all of your old customers.

In places like the U.K. and moreso in Macau, where different ownerships have gotten together and agreed to be totally or nearly totally CSM's, the player has no choice, as there is no decent game nearby.
I have met cardcounters from areas near Macau who refuse to play there.

Simply the CSM is a failure when there is competition and a great success when there is none.

ihate17

 

[StandardDeviant]

Of these, what really can affect them the most? Or have I left out anything?

Biggest threat has to be a down economy. Casinos have high fixed costs, and if no one is there to play, margins get squeezed to the breaking point.

The ratio of counters to non-counters is, say, 1:100. The payoff difference between the best AP and the average BS player is, what, 2%? All other things being equal, casinos would take APs all day, and roll out the red carpet, if for every one they allow, 99 ploppies were brought in tow.

The math is just too compelling. This is a volume business, and volumes are down.

 

[StudiodeKadent]

In places like the U.K. and moreso in Macau, where different ownerships have gotten together and agreed to be totally or nearly totally CSM's, the player has no choice, as there is no decent game nearby.
I have met cardcounters from areas near Macau who refuse to play there.

Simply the CSM is a failure when there is competition and a great success when there is none.

Speaking here as an Economist and a frequent Macau tripper, there is some competition in Macau. Yes, it is an oligopoly (of six players) with a more 'corporatist' style of competition than what we see in Vegas (unfortunately, this is typical of most business in Asia), but there is indeed competition.

Before the relative liberalization of Macau's gambling sector, Stanley Ho's blackjack house edge was 0.89% (!) at most of his casinos. Now, his house edge is 0.16% (0.15% at the old Lisboa, and 0.02% (!) at Pharaoh's Palace). The Wynn advertises its low table minimums on its marquee. Clearly, properties and providers compete with each other.

There are reasons for the proliferation of CSMs besides market collusion. First, there is a genuine cultural preference (amongst Chinese generally) for games of pure chance with no dependent trials. Secondly, the game of choice in Macau is Baccarat... the more "non-Western" a Casino is, the more likely there will be almost no blackjack tables and/or the blackjack rules will suck.

The most western casinos (Wynn and MGM Grand) have house edges of 0.1% and 0.08% respectively. The most non-western casino operator (besides SJM) is Galaxy Entertainment and they have double the house edge. They also have less Western clientele than any other operator.

So yes, there is indeed competition between Macau's operators. I concede it isn't the same kind of competition you get in Vegas, but it is far from being a cartel.

 

[Martinstatic]

The majority of card counter wannabe's (the ones who don't research enough really) will fail at it, losing money in the long run, and will avoid CSM's.
All AP's will avoid CSM's, which will cost the casino a fair bit since they make loads from people thinking they can beat the house.
So not using CSM's is like a lure, "Try and shuffle track us and card count here", only to have the majority of players fail.

 

[ihate17]

I was speaking of competition from casinos that do not use CSM's

Speaking here as an Economist and a frequent Macau tripper, there is some competition in Macau. Yes, it is an oligopoly (of six players) with a more 'corporatist' style of competition than what we see in Vegas (unfortunately, this is typical of most business in Asia), but there is indeed competition.

Before the relative liberalization of Macau's gambling sector, Stanley Ho's blackjack house edge was 0.89% (!) at most of his casinos. Now, his house edge is 0.16% (0.15% at the old Lisboa, and 0.02% (!) at Pharaoh's Palace). The Wynn advertises its low table minimums on its marquee. Clearly, properties and providers compete with each other.

There are reasons for the proliferation of CSMs besides market collusion. First, there is a genuine cultural preference (amongst Chinese generally) for games of pure chance with no dependent trials. Secondly, the game of choice in Macau is Baccarat... the more "non-Western" a Casino is, the more likely there will be almost no blackjack tables and/or the blackjack rules will suck.

The most western casinos (Wynn and MGM Grand) have house edges of 0.1% and 0.08% respectively. The most non-western casino operator (besides SJM) is Galaxy Entertainment and they have double the house edge. They also have less Western clientele than any other operator.

So yes, there is indeed competition between Macau's operators. I concede it isn't the same kind of competition you get in Vegas, but it is far from being a cartel.

I understand that there is competition in Macau and also understand that different casinos have different rules there but what would happen if someone opened a casino where all high limit blackjack was hand shuffled?

In Southern California, at several Indian casinos they have an East Asian player total on their high limit double deck and six deck games that is probably near 75%. These games are mostly ASM shuffled with a few being hand shuffled. These casinos also have tables with CSM's and I have yet to see even one Asian player sitting at a CSM blackjack table. So, if your statement about the Chinese wanting to play games of pure chance and prefer CSM's because of that is true, based upon the people I see playing, Vietnamese, Koreans, Japanese, Cambodians, and Thai all totally (I would say 100%) disagree with the Chinese. These people as a rule do not play basic strategy perfectly and do not count. They do depend upon luck but they appear to only play the better games offered and have a real dislike for the CSM.

I think what you have in Macau is collusion based perhaps on so many new tables being added in such a short period of time, a good Shufflemaster salesperson, so many new table game supervisors who may not really know blackjack, the same for people in the eye and the past history where counting teams beat Asian games for large amounts of money. The CSM helps them in everyone of these areas. In the U.S., you go to all CSM's and you go broke (so far).

ihate17