Lets take a *hypothetical* case.
Lets say that somebody was living in a place where all of the casinos were really bad. (6D, D9, DAS, RSA, ENHC, Cheating Shuffling Machine), admission charge, no free drinks, and no comps. Obviously nobody who wasn't stupid would want to play in this casino! But there would certainly be opportunity to organize 'private' blackjack games. (Again we are being completely hypothetical here).
Lets say that these 'private' games wanted to offer a really good experience to the customer so they set up the rules very liberally. (2D, Double any hard hand, DAS, RSA, ENHC) and give players at minimum, somthing to drink.
The organizers will also be upfront abou the house advantage (0.25%) and even print the correct basic strategy on the Baize!
They want to be fairly liberal about advantage play and don't want to bar card counters or rough them up. However, the casino does want to limit lossed due to advantage play to be somwhere around 15% of table drop.
As the LV losses due to AP are estimated at around 8% of table drop, it would seem that the organizers aren't taking a huge risk. However, given the private nature of the games, it is anticipated that the quality of play from the non-counters will be much higher than in a real casino, so even though the game is happier to give back a higher %, the total $ given back would have to be lower or the game will run at a heavy loss.
(Assuming that with 0.25% BS that the game only takes an average of 0.5% per player, a single AP playing at 2% advantage could wipe out the take from an entire table. The casinos here get about 8% on average due to the amount of poor play, so really shouldn't worry about anybody with a 2% advantage)
Some thoughts are
(1) Lousy pen. This might make the game not worth the CCs time, but that hasn't stopped aspiring counters from turning the Western and El C. into their training grounds.
(2) HIgher minimums and lower spreads ont the table. Limiting to minimum 25 max 100 again reduces the AP advantage and probably wouldn't make a difference in table drop.
(3) Preferntial shuffles. Although if this were employed there would have to be some compensation to the non-counters. One thought was to preferentially shuffle after a counter places a big bet, but then award something at random to a non-counter at the table (Pushing his losing bet or something) to keep the game fair.
(4) Mid-Shoe entry prohibition/limits. Maybe even if you leave a shoe early you have to sit out the whole next one!.
(5) Limiting wonging in. If your at the game, your at the table. If you're at the table, your playing.
(6) Refusing to deal to counters if they are the only one at the table.
(7) Charing an admission fee and (liberally) selectively waiving it.
(8) Refusing to serve the APs drinks!
Any other ideas?
Things that would not be considered: barrings, physical abuse, cheating shuffling machines, preferrential shuffles without compensation to the non-counters.
Lets say that somebody was living in a place where all of the casinos were really bad. (6D, D9, DAS, RSA, ENHC, Cheating Shuffling Machine), admission charge, no free drinks, and no comps. Obviously nobody who wasn't stupid would want to play in this casino! But there would certainly be opportunity to organize 'private' blackjack games. (Again we are being completely hypothetical here).
Lets say that these 'private' games wanted to offer a really good experience to the customer so they set up the rules very liberally. (2D, Double any hard hand, DAS, RSA, ENHC) and give players at minimum, somthing to drink.
The organizers will also be upfront abou the house advantage (0.25%) and even print the correct basic strategy on the Baize!
They want to be fairly liberal about advantage play and don't want to bar card counters or rough them up. However, the casino does want to limit lossed due to advantage play to be somwhere around 15% of table drop.
As the LV losses due to AP are estimated at around 8% of table drop, it would seem that the organizers aren't taking a huge risk. However, given the private nature of the games, it is anticipated that the quality of play from the non-counters will be much higher than in a real casino, so even though the game is happier to give back a higher %, the total $ given back would have to be lower or the game will run at a heavy loss.
(Assuming that with 0.25% BS that the game only takes an average of 0.5% per player, a single AP playing at 2% advantage could wipe out the take from an entire table. The casinos here get about 8% on average due to the amount of poor play, so really shouldn't worry about anybody with a 2% advantage)
Some thoughts are
(1) Lousy pen. This might make the game not worth the CCs time, but that hasn't stopped aspiring counters from turning the Western and El C. into their training grounds.
(2) HIgher minimums and lower spreads ont the table. Limiting to minimum 25 max 100 again reduces the AP advantage and probably wouldn't make a difference in table drop.
(3) Preferntial shuffles. Although if this were employed there would have to be some compensation to the non-counters. One thought was to preferentially shuffle after a counter places a big bet, but then award something at random to a non-counter at the table (Pushing his losing bet or something) to keep the game fair.
(4) Mid-Shoe entry prohibition/limits. Maybe even if you leave a shoe early you have to sit out the whole next one!.
(5) Limiting wonging in. If your at the game, your at the table. If you're at the table, your playing.
(6) Refusing to deal to counters if they are the only one at the table.
(7) Charing an admission fee and (liberally) selectively waiving it.
(8) Refusing to serve the APs drinks!
Any other ideas?
Things that would not be considered: barrings, physical abuse, cheating shuffling machines, preferrential shuffles without compensation to the non-counters.