Most of the points below are spot-on -- as the player being barred from blackjack, I understood and accepted the practice by casinos more readily than my friends who were not the victim.
In fact, the general public's perception that a "good player" who "uses their brain" should not be punished by not being allowed to play, is a perception that probably keeps the casinos somewhat in check from getting too far out of line with their barrings.
And of course, the public's CORRECT perception that some games can be beat by skill is what keeps them playing, even though they don't bother to learn the skill that is necessary to beat the game!? If they knew that even a skillful player couldn't win long-term, then the only players left would be the absolute gamblers -- who are, of course, the overwhelming majority of casino players anyway.
The casinos should understand that even many of the players who can count cards, can not do so with a low enough error rate to maintain a positive EV against the casino, and even more of those players do not understand what an adequate bankroll is and proper bet-sizing to be able to survive the inevitable variance of the game. I would guess that 90% of "card counters" are not successful, for a variety of reasons, under-bankrolling (or over-betting relative to the bankroll, same idea) being probably the most common "error."
While the casinos "should" understand this, and should be far more certain that they are only barring true threats to their expectation of steady long-term income from every player, they instead err on the side of barring players, and undoubtedly make the most serious mistake of all on occasion, barring someone who is NOT a card counter at all.
I always wondered what the impact was of the negative PR that might come from barring a player who coincidentally was winning and playing in a way that appeared to be "professional" (in the case of blackjack, a card counter) ONLY BY CHANCE -- it could happen, of course! In fact, I sometimes attempted to act as shocked, when barred, as this clueless player might be if he somehow was incorrectly identified as a counter and asked not to play anymore. Incidentally, that ploy never worked :) But I always hoped that I'd sent some pit boss home that night wondering if he'd screwed up and barred a good customer.
The only thing I'd disagree with is that if you are a recreational player, it doesn't matter. Just because you play for fun does not mean that you don't want to win, and even moreso, certainly does not automatically mean that you will lose money. Certainly you can't consider yourself a professional if you do NOT have the knowledge, skills, and discipline to make money consistently long-term, but that does not ean that if you do NOT consider yourself a proessional, you therefore can't have the knowledge, skills, and discipline to win.
And it's my experience that it (being an occasional / recreational player) does not mean that you won't be barred, nor that you won't mind if you are. Certainly, if I'm making a living playing blackjack or video poker, it's much more serious if I'm barred, and if I have to go to less than optimal locales to play, and perhaps have nowhere to play / work where I can earn the money I've grown accustomed to.
But I assure you, if you like to go "on vacation" in Vegas, and enjoy the food, shopping, weather, and shows, and you are willing to "gamble" enough that the casinos will support some or all of those recreational activities via comps, you will most certainly be offended, and to some extent harmed financially, if you find your favorite casino(s) no longer comp you for anything and won't let you play there. Now an activity that you could reasonably expect (1) to break even at - or better -- and (2) to indirectly finance a good portion of your recreational activities, has become an activity that you can no longer engage in. Now you can't play, and don't get free stuff. That's bad for anyone who WAS playing and getting free stuff - obviously, I'd think.
Basically, it hurts the recreational player compared to the professional in the same way that a layoff hurts a part-time employee compared to a full-time employee -- the part-timer is still without income (and perhaps without benefits), but the reduction is not as great (in dollars - it's still a 100% reduction!), and it may or may not result in a significant change in lifestyle. Interestingly, with gambling, the part-timer is more likely to receive "benefits" while the professional may have to forego them in exchange for an opportunity to earn money.
Incidentally, the light went on in my head early in my blackjack playing days, as to how my conduct was that of a card-counter. While others would gladly give their ID and get a playes card and be rated for their play, I would decline to be "rated" and probably appeared disturbed when asked who I was and asked to fill out a form for a players card. When I realized that the "real" gamblers not only had a card, but pushed for comps, I realized what I had to do. I bought a bulky gold bracelet that I only wore in Vegas, dressed well (blazer), got a players card, and always asked to be rated, and always was trying to get lots of comps - and pushing for more. Now I was acting more like a real gambler :)
Once I got to that point, the barrings were far less frequent, but I finally decided to play some games where I was not likely to be barred at all, so I switched to video poker (some) and live poker (a lot) -- but I no longer am the well-comped (and high-earning) player that I once was.
--BG
=================
> 4b. Re: LVRJ: Ruling raises questions about laws concerning
> advantage ga
> Date: Fri Nov 2, 2012 12:48 am ((PDT))
>
>
>
>
> armchairpresident
> wrote: the casinos are wrong, period. A business should not
> ban a patron for
> being a patron. Hire business people with brains who focus
> on the business, not
> punishing customers.
>
>
>
> I don't
> blame you for your feelings. Many players feel the same
> way.
>
>
>
>
>
> However,
> casinos can and do restrict players, in Nevada anyway, for
> almost anything
> other than race, ethnicity, sex, religion, or something like
> that.
>
>
>
>
>
> Players are
> not required to like this. Obviously you don't and
> you're not alone. But if
> players are going to survive in the gambling business they
> should be aware of
> the "rules of the game." And one of those rules is that
> casinos can restrict
> you if you don't "behave" according to their
> preferences.
>
>
>
>
>
> Players who
> conform to what the casinos prefer find they are welcome
> more than if they do
> not conform. Back in the 60s I had a beard and would call
> this "selling out." Selling
> out was a bad thing. Now I call it an intelligent business
> decision.
> Intelligent business decisions are good things. Same event.
> Different perceptions as I matured/sold out.
>
>
>
>
>
> If you are
> a recreational player, largely this doesn't matter much.
> Most recreational
> players lose enough that casinos don't restrict them ---
> although sometimes players
> are punished for big jackpots whether they know what they
> are doing or not.
> Mostly it is the serious player who needs to be concerned
> with being restricted
> and the steps to take to avoid it or to get reinstated.
>
>
>
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (1) |
