Your thoughts, please ...
- Thread starter The Mayor
- Start date
I agree with Revereman
The casinos are in business for the sole purpose of making money. The reason why they keep making the games worse and worse is to continue to generate larger and larger profits off of the games. The reason why the usual methods to change casinos won't work is that they have not impacted the bottom line. Ploppies en masse still come to Vegas with the idea that it is a gambling mecca, and that they have a chance for riches. However, we in the AP world know the truth of how hard it is to make money playing BJ. Until the word gets out in a large scale of how poor the games are, people will keep coming to Vegas, ignorant of the poor conditions. People don't like to feel cheated. If the message gets out that the games really have little chance for a ploppy to make money, maybe then he/she will feel cheated and stop thinking about wasting money in a place like Vegas. Only then when volume goes down will casinos take notice. We have the internet. It should be put to use for educating people of how bad the math is in gambling. Then maybe change would result. You see this in every other business. I don't think Vegas would be any different
The casinos are in business for the sole purpose of making money. The reason why they keep making the games worse and worse is to continue to generate larger and larger profits off of the games. The reason why the usual methods to change casinos won't work is that they have not impacted the bottom line. Ploppies en masse still come to Vegas with the idea that it is a gambling mecca, and that they have a chance for riches. However, we in the AP world know the truth of how hard it is to make money playing BJ. Until the word gets out in a large scale of how poor the games are, people will keep coming to Vegas, ignorant of the poor conditions. People don't like to feel cheated. If the message gets out that the games really have little chance for a ploppy to make money, maybe then he/she will feel cheated and stop thinking about wasting money in a place like Vegas. Only then when volume goes down will casinos take notice. We have the internet. It should be put to use for educating people of how bad the math is in gambling. Then maybe change would result. You see this in every other business. I don't think Vegas would be any different
Re: Cellini
I would trust Cellini with your life too, Rob.
You may be privy to the reasons Cellini left and came back to and then left again the other board, but I am not. The secrecy surrounding his movements to and fro left me with a very uneasy feeling. I had corresponded with him, and have no reason to believe that he has betrayed my confidences, but that whole episode left me with a very uneasy feeling.
I would trust Cellini with your life too, Rob.
You may be privy to the reasons Cellini left and came back to and then left again the other board, but I am not. The secrecy surrounding his movements to and fro left me with a very uneasy feeling. I had corresponded with him, and have no reason to believe that he has betrayed my confidences, but that whole episode left me with a very uneasy feeling.
Re: Cellini
Very few know the exact details of the demise of BJFO (even I don't), but I will say this... Cellini sticks with and supports his friends to the bitter end. That is a fact. That's why Rob trusts him with his life and that's why I trust him with mine. Those who are closer to this man know of what I speak. There a valid reasons for his departures; I will not offer specifics so don't ask.
Very few know the exact details of the demise of BJFO (even I don't), but I will say this... Cellini sticks with and supports his friends to the bitter end. That is a fact. That's why Rob trusts him with his life and that's why I trust him with mine. Those who are closer to this man know of what I speak. There a valid reasons for his departures; I will not offer specifics so don't ask.
Re: Texas Shootout...
I was just making the point that a lot of dumb games are pushed on casinos, and very few make it. This one, by the makers of Lucky Ladies (copyright Galaxy Gaming), is typical. I know it is in a few places, but my guess is that it will be gone within a year. I don't know what Rob Saucier (CEO of Galaxy Gaming) was thinking. He will lose a lot of money on this one by the time its all over.
By the way, some have asked if Texas Shootout is beatable by any reasonable AP strategies. I have looked at it closely, and the answer is no.
Most of the major game makers are consolodating. For slots it's IGT. For table games it's Shufflemaster. How vicious is it? Recently Shufflemaster just sold its slot interests to IGT. You want innovation, you head to one of these two companies and pitch your idea.
--Mayor
I was just making the point that a lot of dumb games are pushed on casinos, and very few make it. This one, by the makers of Lucky Ladies (copyright Galaxy Gaming), is typical. I know it is in a few places, but my guess is that it will be gone within a year. I don't know what Rob Saucier (CEO of Galaxy Gaming) was thinking. He will lose a lot of money on this one by the time its all over.
By the way, some have asked if Texas Shootout is beatable by any reasonable AP strategies. I have looked at it closely, and the answer is no.
Most of the major game makers are consolodating. For slots it's IGT. For table games it's Shufflemaster. How vicious is it? Recently Shufflemaster just sold its slot interests to IGT. You want innovation, you head to one of these two companies and pitch your idea.
--Mayor
what's the diff ?
these 21 sites reduce to financial methods to extract funds, ultimately from usual suspect casino guests. these sites are not religious creches.
i see zero ethical diff among posts or articles by zender, thompson (unlv), vancura, anthony curtis, patrick, "wong", even the bishop. all have predictable stances. most use their podia to flog their stuff, ultimately at the expense of the aformentioned casino guests (aka "ploppies").
would anyone refuse to read a post on wong's or nacht's board because they employ "lackey running dogs" to spin responses to their products ?
the situation reduces to a reader's ability to extract value from in this case, message board posts, regardless of the slant of the author. discarding any 21 info out of hand because of some prejudice indicates a limited intellect. even j. patrick material may contain value. all walks through a joint, whether or not i play, are of value to me.
instead of sermonizing on the future merits of the mayor's posts, i'd welcome his soon to be enhanced perspective.
these 21 sites reduce to financial methods to extract funds, ultimately from usual suspect casino guests. these sites are not religious creches.
i see zero ethical diff among posts or articles by zender, thompson (unlv), vancura, anthony curtis, patrick, "wong", even the bishop. all have predictable stances. most use their podia to flog their stuff, ultimately at the expense of the aformentioned casino guests (aka "ploppies").
would anyone refuse to read a post on wong's or nacht's board because they employ "lackey running dogs" to spin responses to their products ?
the situation reduces to a reader's ability to extract value from in this case, message board posts, regardless of the slant of the author. discarding any 21 info out of hand because of some prejudice indicates a limited intellect. even j. patrick material may contain value. all walks through a joint, whether or not i play, are of value to me.
instead of sermonizing on the future merits of the mayor's posts, i'd welcome his soon to be enhanced perspective.
An observation from afar...
It has been said, "that perception is realty." What I am about to say bears no reflection on you, towards you, or about you. No judgments, just observations with the above concept as a guide.
An example: Assume for a second that you're a political consultant with strong views and beliefs towards one political party, which we'll call Party Good (consistent with your current belief system). You work diligently towards electing all representatives of your political belief system and further your political party's influence - to do good as you see it. You do this for years.
One day, for whatever reason, you change (assume, not your belief system, but who you labor for) your efforts to work on behalf of Party Bad (your former adversary). When asked, you give whatever reasons seem honest, sincere, plausible and genuine. You're still working for the greater good. You still associate with individuals, and identify with causes from Party Good.
Question. Would you still feel the same about the person? Would trust still be there? The questions can be asked in a multiple of ways.
For me personally, I have no stake in, or influence of, your deciding factors for entertaining this offer. I don't know you, so I have no opinion, as previously stated, about this and you, regarding your thought process.
I will say this, the fact that you have solicited comments regarding this means there is some conflict within you. Whatever you do, won't diminish what your contributions have been to the BJ community.
If there is a real life example that could fit into the mold referenced above, it would include a fellow by the name of Dick Morris.
Wishing you the best of luck with your decision process.
bfb
It has been said, "that perception is realty." What I am about to say bears no reflection on you, towards you, or about you. No judgments, just observations with the above concept as a guide.
An example: Assume for a second that you're a political consultant with strong views and beliefs towards one political party, which we'll call Party Good (consistent with your current belief system). You work diligently towards electing all representatives of your political belief system and further your political party's influence - to do good as you see it. You do this for years.
One day, for whatever reason, you change (assume, not your belief system, but who you labor for) your efforts to work on behalf of Party Bad (your former adversary). When asked, you give whatever reasons seem honest, sincere, plausible and genuine. You're still working for the greater good. You still associate with individuals, and identify with causes from Party Good.
Question. Would you still feel the same about the person? Would trust still be there? The questions can be asked in a multiple of ways.
For me personally, I have no stake in, or influence of, your deciding factors for entertaining this offer. I don't know you, so I have no opinion, as previously stated, about this and you, regarding your thought process.
I will say this, the fact that you have solicited comments regarding this means there is some conflict within you. Whatever you do, won't diminish what your contributions have been to the BJ community.
If there is a real life example that could fit into the mold referenced above, it would include a fellow by the name of Dick Morris.
Wishing you the best of luck with your decision process.
bfb
Re: Ponderings
Eliot,
Based on all these excellent posts, it certainly appears as though some deep soul searching is in order.
Here are few questions and thoughts you may want to ponder...
At the end of the day, will you be happy? What would make you happy? Or, will this possible engagement bring frustration into your home affecting your relationships with family (most important) and friends?
Would you take this position based primarily on access to casino management so as to advance your (and our) thoughts towards your goals stated here and in your podium? If access to casino management is your goal, are there possible alternatives that may not have been explored?
Do you honestly feel that casino management is going to listen to you? Do you really think you will be able to provide them information they don't already know? I suggest carefully re-reading Cellini's essay "Paranoia Chain of Command Casino Style".
Do you feel any obligation to the community you have established here at cardcounter.com? How would you feel if you had to abandon this site?
Personally, I will support any decision you make and look forward to communications with you well into the future. As you know, our mutual friend thinks you will make BJ history one day. My hope is that he is correct.
Warmest,
toddler
Eliot,
Based on all these excellent posts, it certainly appears as though some deep soul searching is in order.
Here are few questions and thoughts you may want to ponder...
At the end of the day, will you be happy? What would make you happy? Or, will this possible engagement bring frustration into your home affecting your relationships with family (most important) and friends?
Would you take this position based primarily on access to casino management so as to advance your (and our) thoughts towards your goals stated here and in your podium? If access to casino management is your goal, are there possible alternatives that may not have been explored?
Do you honestly feel that casino management is going to listen to you? Do you really think you will be able to provide them information they don't already know? I suggest carefully re-reading Cellini's essay "Paranoia Chain of Command Casino Style".
Do you feel any obligation to the community you have established here at cardcounter.com? How would you feel if you had to abandon this site?
Personally, I will support any decision you make and look forward to communications with you well into the future. As you know, our mutual friend thinks you will make BJ history one day. My hope is that he is correct.
Warmest,
toddler
Hallo Mayor,
please help the casinos to increase their profits, let`s say for
200,000 Million a year. This can be done with excellent table conditions(surrender)and deep penetration in shoe games(1 deck or less). These conditions have to be made public. Because: The market will GROW.Because: People will think, these excellent conditions, now introduced, are making the game beatable, but millions of ploppies will more lose than before.
please help the casinos to increase their profits, let`s say for
200,000 Million a year. This can be done with excellent table conditions(surrender)and deep penetration in shoe games(1 deck or less). These conditions have to be made public. Because: The market will GROW.Because: People will think, these excellent conditions, now introduced, are making the game beatable, but millions of ploppies will more lose than before.
Right idea, wrong motivation.
The idea is not that more people will play the games if the rules are better. That surely is not the case. Witness 6/5.
What would help both sides is the knowledge that the methods casinos use to deter counters cost the casinos more than the counters could ever take.
--Mayor
The idea is not that more people will play the games if the rules are better. That surely is not the case. Witness 6/5.
What would help both sides is the knowledge that the methods casinos use to deter counters cost the casinos more than the counters could ever take.
--Mayor
Re: New games
"...Unfortunately, that's a hugely competitive market, and to sell a game you need (at the very least) one of the $10k spots at the annual gaming show in Vegas, then you need to market it hard, compete with 1000 other people marketing their games, then provide all the on-site support for the game, and lastly, be ready for the lawsuits when your game doesn't do what you "promised" in the contract.
The best option is to hook up with an established company (e.g. ShuffleMaster) but then they just give you a low paying "research" job and they keep all the profits. ShuffleMaster now owns all the rights for "3 card poker," for example..."
... ... ... ... ... ...
Hi Mayor
Creating a new game is a time-consuming and expensive project and very few games become successful (compared to the number that ere submitted). It's a little like trying to write a 'Best Seller'.
As far as approaching a company like 'ShuffleMaster' is concerned, then it depends on what stage your game is at as to what deal to have offered to you. For example, if you have an idea, which is untested in the marketplace, then you will likely just get a 'research' fee even if they are interested in the concept. However, if your game is installed in, say, 20 casinos in the USA, then you will get a 'buyout' fee, which can be quite large. You are then faced with a decision as to whether it will be more finacially beneficial for you to sell or to keep the ongoing license fees. You can also offer the rights for a company to sell on your behalf and still retain a % of the license fee.
The rewards, apart from the obvious financial compensation, is to see something that you have created being played (and hopefully enjoyed) in a large casino - it's truly an exhilarating feeling.
Finally, 'ShuffleMaster' do not own ALL rights to '3-card poker' as the inventor kept the UK rights.
Best regards
Geoff
"...Unfortunately, that's a hugely competitive market, and to sell a game you need (at the very least) one of the $10k spots at the annual gaming show in Vegas, then you need to market it hard, compete with 1000 other people marketing their games, then provide all the on-site support for the game, and lastly, be ready for the lawsuits when your game doesn't do what you "promised" in the contract.
The best option is to hook up with an established company (e.g. ShuffleMaster) but then they just give you a low paying "research" job and they keep all the profits. ShuffleMaster now owns all the rights for "3 card poker," for example..."
... ... ... ... ... ...
Hi Mayor
Creating a new game is a time-consuming and expensive project and very few games become successful (compared to the number that ere submitted). It's a little like trying to write a 'Best Seller'.
As far as approaching a company like 'ShuffleMaster' is concerned, then it depends on what stage your game is at as to what deal to have offered to you. For example, if you have an idea, which is untested in the marketplace, then you will likely just get a 'research' fee even if they are interested in the concept. However, if your game is installed in, say, 20 casinos in the USA, then you will get a 'buyout' fee, which can be quite large. You are then faced with a decision as to whether it will be more finacially beneficial for you to sell or to keep the ongoing license fees. You can also offer the rights for a company to sell on your behalf and still retain a % of the license fee.
The rewards, apart from the obvious financial compensation, is to see something that you have created being played (and hopefully enjoyed) in a large casino - it's truly an exhilarating feeling.
Finally, 'ShuffleMaster' do not own ALL rights to '3-card poker' as the inventor kept the UK rights.
Best regards
Geoff
More reasons to agree with LVBear
As an employee, you would have a legal and ethical duty to act in your employer's interest. From that perspective, how would you handle these situations:
(1) My personal opinion is that the profit-maximizing approach for a casino is the Zender method at the old Aladdin -- deal very deep, get lots of hands per hour, train your personnel to spot the actual counters and weed them out. Suppose the company says to you, "Eliot, one of our customers wants to try that. They want you to spend some time there and tell their pit crews and surveillance people everything you know about counters, how to spot them, what kinds of acts they tend to use, what techniques work and don't work against them, etc." You're being asked to put to use the knowledge you've gained over the years from your own play, but also from reading thousands of posts on your site and from personal conversations with AP's. Are you comfortable using that knowledge to make conditions worse for counters?
(2) Suppose they say to you, "It seems like these CSM's are a win-win -- we screw the counters AND we get more hands per hour from the ploppies. If some players don't like it, the lesson from many other joints is that we can force the machines on the low-rollers, who have fewer options, thereby freeing our surveillance people to concentrate on the higher-limit hand-shuffled games. What do you think?" So, what do you tell them? My guess is that, over time, as the technology improves, CSM's will become cheaper and more reliable. We tend to reflexively deride the CSM's because we say that the money lost to counters would be less than the cost of the CSM's, but I'm not sure that's true, especially when you factor in the improved exploitation of the ploppies. Here again, for you to apply your knowledge honestly on behalf of your employer might well result in making conditions worse for counters.
(3) Elsewhere in this thread you commented, "What would help both sides is the knowledge that the methods casinos use to deter counters cost the casinos more than the counters could ever take." That's clearly not correct about all of the methods now used by casinos. For example, if I were running a casino, I think I'd find BJSV and a Griffin subscription to be worthwhile investments. I wouldn't try to get by with fewer people in surveillance by telling them to look only for cheating or mispays and to stop spending time on evaluation of suspected counters. What advice would you give your new bosses on these points? Beyond that, there may be instances in which casinos use tactics that have a short-term negative EV for them, but pay off in the long run by discouraging red-chip counters before they turn into capable black-chip counters. That would be harder to assess, but it's a valid consideration.
Assuming, though, that you could establish that some current anti-AP practices aren't worthwhile economically, I agree with other contributors who've commented about the psychological aspects of casino attitudes toward us. You might point out a change that would slightly increase their profits, but they wouldn't do it because they don't want to feel that we're getting away with anything. There's also the prevalence of the response But We've Always Done It This Way, and nobody wanting to be the first to make a significant change and possibly looking like a jerk if it backfires. For these reasons, I don't think there'd be many instances where you'd be able to effect a change that benefited both the casino and the AP community.
A final point: You and others sometimes talk about how much money counters now win. You have to think about what would happen in a hypothetical world in which casino countermeasures were decreased. Suppose a zealous state regulatory authority were to decree: "You can't ban counters, you can't flat-bet them, you must allow at least a 20-1 ratio to all players at all tables, you must deal at least 75%, and you must pay 3:2 on blackjacks." What would happen? The place would be hit by multiple teams with seven-figure bankrolls. That's an extreme example but it illustrates the point that your analysis for your new employer would have to go beyond the question of how much money counters are now winning.
As an employee, you would have a legal and ethical duty to act in your employer's interest. From that perspective, how would you handle these situations:
(1) My personal opinion is that the profit-maximizing approach for a casino is the Zender method at the old Aladdin -- deal very deep, get lots of hands per hour, train your personnel to spot the actual counters and weed them out. Suppose the company says to you, "Eliot, one of our customers wants to try that. They want you to spend some time there and tell their pit crews and surveillance people everything you know about counters, how to spot them, what kinds of acts they tend to use, what techniques work and don't work against them, etc." You're being asked to put to use the knowledge you've gained over the years from your own play, but also from reading thousands of posts on your site and from personal conversations with AP's. Are you comfortable using that knowledge to make conditions worse for counters?
(2) Suppose they say to you, "It seems like these CSM's are a win-win -- we screw the counters AND we get more hands per hour from the ploppies. If some players don't like it, the lesson from many other joints is that we can force the machines on the low-rollers, who have fewer options, thereby freeing our surveillance people to concentrate on the higher-limit hand-shuffled games. What do you think?" So, what do you tell them? My guess is that, over time, as the technology improves, CSM's will become cheaper and more reliable. We tend to reflexively deride the CSM's because we say that the money lost to counters would be less than the cost of the CSM's, but I'm not sure that's true, especially when you factor in the improved exploitation of the ploppies. Here again, for you to apply your knowledge honestly on behalf of your employer might well result in making conditions worse for counters.
(3) Elsewhere in this thread you commented, "What would help both sides is the knowledge that the methods casinos use to deter counters cost the casinos more than the counters could ever take." That's clearly not correct about all of the methods now used by casinos. For example, if I were running a casino, I think I'd find BJSV and a Griffin subscription to be worthwhile investments. I wouldn't try to get by with fewer people in surveillance by telling them to look only for cheating or mispays and to stop spending time on evaluation of suspected counters. What advice would you give your new bosses on these points? Beyond that, there may be instances in which casinos use tactics that have a short-term negative EV for them, but pay off in the long run by discouraging red-chip counters before they turn into capable black-chip counters. That would be harder to assess, but it's a valid consideration.
Assuming, though, that you could establish that some current anti-AP practices aren't worthwhile economically, I agree with other contributors who've commented about the psychological aspects of casino attitudes toward us. You might point out a change that would slightly increase their profits, but they wouldn't do it because they don't want to feel that we're getting away with anything. There's also the prevalence of the response But We've Always Done It This Way, and nobody wanting to be the first to make a significant change and possibly looking like a jerk if it backfires. For these reasons, I don't think there'd be many instances where you'd be able to effect a change that benefited both the casino and the AP community.
A final point: You and others sometimes talk about how much money counters now win. You have to think about what would happen in a hypothetical world in which casino countermeasures were decreased. Suppose a zealous state regulatory authority were to decree: "You can't ban counters, you can't flat-bet them, you must allow at least a 20-1 ratio to all players at all tables, you must deal at least 75%, and you must pay 3:2 on blackjacks." What would happen? The place would be hit by multiple teams with seven-figure bankrolls. That's an extreme example but it illustrates the point that your analysis for your new employer would have to go beyond the question of how much money counters are now winning.
Request for the other side ...
This is great. Thanks for your insights. Your points are 100% on target.
If there are any would-be casinos that are reading this board, do you mind responding? I'm dead serious!!! These are some pretty serious points, worthy of your response. Go ahead and tell us your thoughts.
--Mayor
This is great. Thanks for your insights. Your points are 100% on target.
If there are any would-be casinos that are reading this board, do you mind responding? I'm dead serious!!! These are some pretty serious points, worthy of your response. Go ahead and tell us your thoughts.
--Mayor
Re: Request for the other side ...
When you work for casinos you think you are sleeping with sheep but wake up with wolves. Like a moth that flies to close to the flame... They will use you up and burn you out. If they listen at all. Ask whats his name who worked for a time at PPE (not to long ago, remember?).
JWP
When you work for casinos you think you are sleeping with sheep but wake up with wolves. Like a moth that flies to close to the flame... They will use you up and burn you out. If they listen at all. Ask whats his name who worked for a time at PPE (not to long ago, remember?).
JWP
Re: I agree with Revereman
Your typical ploppy is overweight, likes the thought that he can martigale his ass to riches, thinks he still has the looks and moves to pick up chics, can out drink everyone, doesn't have to stop smoking because cancer doesn't run in his family, and thinks that if he takes it easy when he is drunk driving, everything will be right as rain. You'll NEVER be able to steal that dream from him. He LOVES the Matrix. If you unplug him, he'll scream to go back. You are not only fighting the Matrix, you are fighting with the programming of the ploppies mind, which has been conditioned for many years.
Your typical ploppy is overweight, likes the thought that he can martigale his ass to riches, thinks he still has the looks and moves to pick up chics, can out drink everyone, doesn't have to stop smoking because cancer doesn't run in his family, and thinks that if he takes it easy when he is drunk driving, everything will be right as rain. You'll NEVER be able to steal that dream from him. He LOVES the Matrix. If you unplug him, he'll scream to go back. You are not only fighting the Matrix, you are fighting with the programming of the ploppies mind, which has been conditioned for many years.