I've heard many people on here argue that the casinos would make more money if they actually made the games more favorable to the players ie 4 decks instead of 6 decks and so on so forth. My question is, if this is true, why haven't we seen any casinos making their rules better. Maybe some have but certainly not on the east coast.
Casino profits
- Thread starter Thunder
- Start date
cardcounter0
Well-Known Member
The casino industry holds the record for most idiots in management. The only thing that comes close is some Movie Studios.
Steve Wynn is one of the big time casino owners. One of the most respected, "smart guy", long time former management people is Bobby Baldwin. Bobby dropped out of Community College in Tulsa, wound up as VP of Finance for Wynn.
Not to say that Bobby isn't really a smart guy. But could you see someone with that education sitting on the Board of Directors of GM, GE, IBM, etc???
Steve Wynn is one of the big time casino owners. One of the most respected, "smart guy", long time former management people is Bobby Baldwin. Bobby dropped out of Community College in Tulsa, wound up as VP of Finance for Wynn.
Not to say that Bobby isn't really a smart guy. But could you see someone with that education sitting on the Board of Directors of GM, GE, IBM, etc???
callipygian
Well-Known Member
I can think of at least 4 explanations:Thunder said:
(1) I think people on here are overly-optimistic about casinos actually making more money if they made the games better for counters. There's probably a fair amount of research bias because people would like the scenario to be win-win for casinos and counters.
(2) Changing the rules of the game doesn't make as much difference as people generally assume because most patrons play with so many errors that what the house takes on blackjack is much greater than the house edge. This cuts both ways - casinos don't have a whole lot of incentive to make their games worse, but they don't have a whole lot of incentive to make their games better either. From a house standpoint, it's mostly about the number of people playing and how fast they can deal. Deeper penetration is good for them (and us), but not more 2D and 4D games.
(3) Casinos are risk-averse. They don't want to offer a beatable game, because what if a team of MIT card counters takes them for millions of dollars? This isn't an irrational fear - casino employees get fired all the time because an idiot player got absurdly lucky. So it pays to be a little paranoid. Nobody's going to notice if the floor is only pulling in $8 million instead of $8.5 million possible, but they'll sure as hell notice if you start pulling in $8.5 million and suddenly a big team hits you for $3 million.
(4) Casino managers are idiots. No further explanation is necessary.
My good friend ,Jim Shooter ,sold his first script at the age of 13. By 16, he had regular writing assignments, until DC found out he wasn't old enough to have a checking account.He was let go and sales dwindled to the point of cancelation.cardcounter0 said:
He moved over to Marvel Comics and rather quickly rose to the position of Editor in Chief.During his reign, sales skyrocketed, enabling the fairly new ownership to sell the company for almost double its purchase price. When the new owners discovered the company was run by a guy with only a high school diploma, they tried to replace him and eventually created a position above his. He left and within a few years, Marvel Comics went bankrupt.
While having an advanced degree is great, its not always needed. Look at how Harrahs has suffered since they replaced their gambling guys with pencil pushers who worship at the alter of the theoretical worth of each and every gambler.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
That's the big one. These are the people who went to college only because their parents insisted on it and picked the major that they felt would leave them the most time to beer-pong.callipygian said:
They are truly over paranoid about counters and particularly the semi-myth of teams of counters. Their efforts would be better spent by observing employee theft. The three things that would most definitely help both AP's and casinos are: 1) implement the late surrender rule on every game, 2) deal faster- less shuffling and better trained dealers, and 3) open more tables. The salary of a BJ dealer is negligible to their profit and accommodating the people who prefer playing alone or at a less than full table can only help them. Who knows how many people walk up to a BJ table, see this big mass of elbows and cigarettes and just keep on walking?
bj bob
Well-Known Member
1) Amen! The more rope you give an idiot ploppy, the more he hangs himself. At a world renowned truck stop last month I entertained myself watching this numb-nuts surrender any hand (except 19-20) against a dealer 10. At $10 /hand the house was making a cool $5 automatically. DAS also allows stupidity to blossom. First they split with the wrong pair, then they compound that by doubling against it, i.e. 4,4 v. 7 then catching a 5 and proceeding to dd 9's v 7.Automatic Monkey said:
2) Amen! Ala my thread "Profit vs. Penetration". As in any floor game a handful of "big winners" makes the "fever" spread to passers-by. Look how much the house goes out of it's way publicizing big Keno and Slot winners, pictures, balloons, nymphs, mega checks etc.
3) And amen!(#3). Not only do many players prefer a non-crowed table, but even one player at a table usually attracts (unfortunately) several more.
ihate17
Well-Known Member
The table is open but it is really closed???
I live near a casino where what seems to be one of their most important procedures is that if a table goes dead during a shoe, that shoe shall never be spread and shuffled for a new player. It has nothing to do with shuffle time since they use all ASM's.
I have explained to shift managers that the table appears to have a "bad shoe"
, and that players will not play. I go on to say that if they would shuffle up, I would play and am willing to bet that shortly at least one but probably more players will join in. One night I witnessed one of these tables dead for two hours, went and had dinner and came back and the table was still dead (discards looked the same) and left an hour later with that table still dead. That was almost 5 hours in a shop that was fairly busy. The reaction of these minor managers to my observations is something akin to their thinking that I am suggesting some kind of major scam on them, so I have not mentioned this for many months, but it still amazes me.
ihate17
I live near a casino where what seems to be one of their most important procedures is that if a table goes dead during a shoe, that shoe shall never be spread and shuffled for a new player. It has nothing to do with shuffle time since they use all ASM's.
I have explained to shift managers that the table appears to have a "bad shoe"
, and that players will not play. I go on to say that if they would shuffle up, I would play and am willing to bet that shortly at least one but probably more players will join in. One night I witnessed one of these tables dead for two hours, went and had dinner and came back and the table was still dead (discards looked the same) and left an hour later with that table still dead. That was almost 5 hours in a shop that was fairly busy. The reaction of these minor managers to my observations is something akin to their thinking that I am suggesting some kind of major scam on them, so I have not mentioned this for many months, but it still amazes me.ihate17
bj bob
Well-Known Member
Sounds like the critters are just as superstitious as the ploppies... or even worse, maybe they lease the ASM's and are charged per shuffle.:grin:ihate17 said:I live near a casino where what seems to be one of their most important procedures is that if a table goes dead during a shoe, that shoe shall never be spread and shuffled for a new player. It has nothing to do with shuffle time since they use all ASM's.
I have explained to shift managers that the table appears to have a "bad shoe"
ihate17
ihate17
Well-Known Member
Critters are generally superstitious
I have had pits change cards and change dealers on me several times and have seen this happen often on lucky players. Got to laugh inside when instead of backing me off they are backing off their unfortunate dealer instead.
Based upon what I know about this place you probably have hit it with that charge per shuffle. If it cost them 25 cents to shuffle, they would save that quarter rather than have 3 players at a $25 table. In other words they are stupidly cheap!
bj bob said:
I have had pits change cards and change dealers on me several times and have seen this happen often on lucky players. Got to laugh inside when instead of backing me off they are backing off their unfortunate dealer instead.
Based upon what I know about this place you probably have hit it with that charge per shuffle. If it cost them 25 cents to shuffle, they would save that quarter rather than have 3 players at a $25 table. In other words they are stupidly cheap!
N&B
Well-Known Member
Here's a few rules that would apparently hurt the house upon more than casual inspection, for the reasons listed elsewhere in this thread.
1) limit spread to 10-200
2) no mid-shoe entry
3) BJ pays 7:5 but Player wins
At first glance, these rules would almost surely keep the counters at bay, close the insurance advantage, and limit the max wager to the casual player. But, it hurts by taking away the gimmick bet, the rich and stoopid, and limits entry.
1) limit spread to 10-200
2) no mid-shoe entry
3) BJ pays 7:5 but Player wins
At first glance, these rules would almost surely keep the counters at bay, close the insurance advantage, and limit the max wager to the casual player. But, it hurts by taking away the gimmick bet, the rich and stoopid, and limits entry.
bj bob
Well-Known Member
1) Don't think that would be a good idea, since it's already a 20:1 spread for a CC. You'd just be keeping out bigger bettors.N&B said:
2) Now that's a simple to execute rule that would thwart team play. If it's only applied to "new" players and not to re-entry then I would consider that fair since Wonging in and out would still be OK.
3) BJ pays 7:5 but player wins WHAT?. Please complete your thought.
