In response to some of the points below, first of all, while I agree that team play was a greater threat to the casino than individual card counters, my experience was that I was able to play as an individual and extract a significant amount of money from the game, until I gave it up due to the frustration of being barred (and losing my comps when that occurred, forcing me to check out or pay full rent for my room). I believe that in the absence of barring, I could have easily made my living playing blackjack, if other counter-measures (see below) were not enacted.
Barring mid-deck entry and utilizing shoes do not "stop" card counters.
Team play often involves a minimum bet player who keeps count and signals the "whale" (large bettor) to join the table when the count is favorable, which is not permitted if mid-deck entry is prohibited, so certainly that most common method of team play is stopped by prohibiting mid-deck entry. In fact, that alone can stop virtually all profitable team play.
For the individual, however, while "back counting," also known as "Wonging" by the pen name of the person advocating this technique (observing a table with a few open seats and only sitting down and playing when the deck / count turned favorable) is an option, and one I tried for a while at casinos where mid-deck entry was allowed, most individual card counters don't choose to play that way. I found myself spending over two thirds of my time not playing, and I felt I was less likely to be detected and barred if I just sat down and used the more common bet variation method. I would bet small until the deck was favorable and then bet larger, and if the deck turned unfavorable enough to be unlikely to turn back to favorable, I would go to the rest room and not resume play until a shuffle was underway.
Shoes are not that much more difficult to count than single and double decks, but they do present two problems for the card counter -- first of all, the count MUST be adjusted to the size of the remaining deck (a good idea for single and double deck as well, but not as essential) and secondly, favorable opportunities to bet big are less frequent, so that the ratio of big bets to small ("waiting") bets must be much larger in order to get an overall advantage -- which significantly increases the chances of detection, which leads to barring, of course.
Finally, to the point that "no one should be excluded for playing the games the casino offers in the
manner presented" -- while all players seem to agree to this (and not just advantage players and card counters), casinos have few options to overcome the advantage of these players: (1) do all they can to attract losing players who will lose enough to offset the advantage players, and just eat the reduction in their profits that result from the advantage players, (2) bar the advantage players from playing, or (3) change the games to the point where the advantage players can't get an advantage. One other option, not "comping" the advantage players, is certainly reasonable as well, but only reduces the money flow a little bit since those give-aways rarely cost the casino anything close to their face value.
(1) is clearly not going to be perceived as "good business" by the casinos, no matter how much we advantage players may argue that it's important for the casino to make all players think the games can be beaten by freely allowing skilled players to play (and I agree with the argument, especially since so many skilled players are not a threat because they make enough mistakes to wipe out some or all of their edge, and since so many misunderstand bankroll management sufficiently to lose all their money in spite of their skill).
(2) is what they do in Nevada, like it or not - and the state law permits "trespassing" for any reason. In a state heavily financed by casino tax money, we are not likely ever to succeed in getting the law changed, or in persuading casinos not to take advantage of it. They simply want to improve their player mix to include fewer of those who win (or, in fact, who are likely to win, as I've been identified as a card counter and barred in the middle of a losing session many times). Their biggest mistake is when they exclude unskilled players who happen to win more than they would like, of course. I don't think casinos are sophisticated enough to correctly identify advantage players while permitting unskilled winning players to continue to play, without making an occasional error with both groups.
(3) is what Atlantic City did with blackjack -- using 8-deck shoes and setting minimum / maximum table limits that prevented a card counter from getting an advantage - which does not usually impact a non-counter from how they would play anyway. And of course, affecting all players, changes in the rules such as paying 6:5 for blackjack instead of 3:2, restricting double-downs to totals of ten and eleven, and others -- again, while affecting everyone, the losing player is often unaware, although some are smart enough to realize that such restrictions make them lose faster / more. And also affecting all players, the changes in paytables for video poker that this list is constantly discussing and that is the entire point of vpfree2.
While I, of course, personally agree that the casinos should offer lots of games that I can beat and allow me to play those games as much as I want and with no restrictions that don't apply to everyone, I'm not so stupid as to think that they will do so. Please understand that I'm not calling others who also want unrestricted access to beat-able games "stupid" -- although the title fits if they think things will change.
--Barry Glazer================
>>>I'm sure Bob won't be surprised that I mostly agree with his
position, as operating games in a reasonable manner (using common
sense to prevent giving an unfair advantage to ANYONE) is implied in
my original thesis. One was even stated directly:
>
> For example, card counting posed a real "threat" when practiced by
> organized teams, with counters spotting opportunities and well
> financed bettors jumping onto them. This was easily eliminated by
> barring mid-deck entry and utilizing shoes rather than single decks.
...
What Bob didn't address (and I suspect he agrees with me) is that no-
one should be excluded for playing the games the casino offers in the
manner presented.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Posted by: Barry Glazer <b.glazer@att.net>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (2) |
