I Agree (nt)
I would let them play. I would use the software that tells me what counting system they use and what their win rate is. If they started winning "too much", I would have a VERY attractive casino hostess (Or host depending on if the player was male or female) walk over to them and say very nicely "sir (ma'am), we really appreciate your business, but since you are obviously very skilled and are using the XYZ counting system and your win rate per hour is XXX$$$, we would appreciate it if you would limit your bet spread to 1 to YY, and here is a comp for a nice dinner (or drink, or hotel room or ?) on us". And, then I would let the counting player play using this bet spread. If the player was a high stakes player I might make the bet spread very narrow, if the player was a red chip player I might not even care, but if I did care I would make the spread much wider for the red chip player than the green or black or purple chip player.
I think this would let the casino have the nice atmosphere they want, give them a higher win rate per hour (because of deeper penetration) and make it so they aren't paranoid about counters. The attitude being, we like for counters to play with us as long as they use reasonable bet spreads and then adjust the bet spread for the player in question.
If a casino treated me that way - asking me to narrow my bet spread that is, I may not stay, but I wouldn't be irritated at them either.
Personally, I think that this approach makes a lot more sense than the ridiculous way most casinos act.
This is my theory, there are so few blackjack players who are proficient at counting and have the proper sized bankroll that in the long run they don't matter.
Thanks for everyone's input.
Steve
Okay, so the software wouldn't know whether you were using wong halves or UPC, but it would know that you were using one of the two and since the outcomes are the same (in terms of win rate per hour) - your argument, not mine - what difference would that make? The point is, the software needs to calculate your expectation per hour so it can determine what counter measures the casino needs to take (if any). If, as you say, some group of counting systems gives the same answer, then the software just needs to know which of several closely related counting systems you are using, so that it can calculate your win rate per hour, which is the entire purpose of the software I was describing.
Given your argument, then what the software needs to know is which counting systems are similar enough that it can just pick one of them as a representative and use that to calculate the players win rate per hour. Knowing exactly which counting system out of several very similar counting systems the player is using, if they result in comparable win rates per hour, is not important.
There are counting systems which give very different answers for selected plays than any of the counting systems you mentioned, these counting systems would not fit into the nice categories you describe. Personally, I use level 2 or 3 count systems with select side counts or Gordon with many side counts. The way on observer would know a player was using Gordon is because of play variation at the higher counts. For example, I might stand on a hard 12 when UPC or Wong halves or Hi-Lo says hit because of knowing the density of 8s, 9s and 10s in the remaining cards. The theory here is that if there are very few 8s and 9s compared to the remaining 10s and the remaining 10s are dense you would be crazy to hit a 12 because you won't push or win and you will most likely draw a 10 and bust. Now, some people would argue that this play doesn't have a big enough pay back to go to the trouble of learning a system like this, but when you have a $2,000 bet out there and you stand due to knowing the density of the remaining cards (very few 8s and 9s vs lots of 10s) and the dealer is showing a 10, and then reveals a hole card which gives the dealer a stiff hand and hits it and takes the card that you would have busted with (a ten, and because you knew the chances of busting this hand far exceeded the chances of winning with it, the odds are higher in this case that this is what will happen) if you used Hi-Lo or Wong halves or UPC, well then you will thank yourself for not listening to these people. Now, some will argue that he dealer could as easily have had a 10 showing with 2 for the hole card and then pulled the 9 that you needed to give yourself the 21 that the dealer got instead, but they would be wrong, because you would only vary the play - standing on a 12 instead of hitting - if the card densities of the remaining cards told you that the odds favored the variation.
Of course, knowing the density of the remaining cards in 6 deck or 4 deck shoes doesn't help a lot, but I like single deck, so I use an approach optimized for single deck.
My point is that there are counting systems, and some systems which are not really "counting" but rely instead on knowing the density of select cards for select play variation decisions which are far more effective than the count systems you mention. The blackjack professionals I know do not use the counting systems you mentioned, they use more effective approaches. A software program that is intended to measure win rate per hour would only need to know the various categories of approaches and could lump the ones that were similar enough together and pick one of them as a representative adn then use that one to determine win rate. For the appraoches that do not have any comparable sytems this grouping would not be possible or necessary.
Steve
Casinos are driven by faith in one thing: The mathematical Edge. This tiny portion of a percent Edge is what pays for all the lights, glitter, glitz, paychecks, and profits. That small percent of a percent is what causes all the broke bums, divorces, crimes to pay for the gambling, bankruptcy, and all the other little nasty things that casinos see every day.
Of course, this Edge is masked in all the games by another thing called Variance. Variance it what causes the million dollar winning slot machine players. Variance is responsible for the drunk at the crap table to roll a hot $50,000 hand. Variance causes the guy splitting 5s and 10s at the blackjack table to clean out the rack of chips. How can casinos smile, and shake these lucky winners hands, and congratulate them on their good fortune? Faith in the Edge.
Now a card counter is able to create a small Edge in their favor. Forget logic, forget everything. A player having an Edge violates everything a casino believes in. The casino is built on having the Edge, if a player has an Edge, it scares the living hell out of them.
It would be similar to people who believe in a loving and tolerant God. A God who preaches things like "Love your Neighbor", A God who thinks it is better to forgive and forget then to seek revenge. No matter how deeply a congregation believed in these teachings, if I burst into a church and screamed at the top of my lungs, "God is Dead, Long Live Satan!" My reception probably wouldn't be the kind, turn-the-other-cheek reaction, that this kind, loving, tolerant God would expect. No, I would probably be thrown out the door on my ass.
The same reception is my fate from the casinos. My mere presence is a fundamental violation of the Edge Faith that they all believe in. I am a Heretic and should be banned from the temple.
If you had been standing there since the shuffle then the software would be able to tell the pit crew the count, using any count system they picked, at the time that you sat down and made those bets. If the True Count were high then the pit crew would suspect that you had back counted the table and the next came you came in that casino, you might get backed off. This is one of the reasons this software was written.
If you had not been standing there since the shuffle, then you didn't use any counting system, you got lucky.
Obviously, we could waste time coming up with countless scenarious where human intervention would be needed to help identify that someone was counting and the software would be an aid in this identification and not the end answer. I would prefer not to waste such time.
Steve
although, I have yet to convince any casinos I have consulted to of this fact. As a simple example, given two BJ games, one which has an edge of 2% but penetration is so shallow that it yields only 50 hands per hour, and one that has an edge of 1.5% and deeper penetration that yields 75 hands per hour, the second game yields more total profit to the house. In reality, the second game will yield more than the theoretical return because there are more bad or under financed players than good or adequately financed players, so they will lose at a faster rate because of playing more hands (IMHO).
In my experience, casino management did not base their decisions totally on statistics like this, so you may be correct.
Steve
First you stated that you have seen software that could tell �exactly� what counting system you were using.
Then it was pointed out that since all effective count systems are pretty close on identifying your betting and playing advantage, this would be impossible.
Now you story has changed. The software merely identifies which �category� of count I am using.
For clarification, I bet $500 on the next hand positive EV hand. Am I a HiLo counter playing strict kelly to a $10,000 bankroll? Or am I using Unbalanced ZenII with a 7/8 sidecount, and slightly underbetting my optimal $510 bet? Perhaps, I am simply a huge bankrolled KO player who should be actually betting $2000, but only betting $500 because I like having a 1% risk of ruin.
Your example of 12 vs 10 is ridiculous, please try again.
How often does the count become such that a departure for 12 vs 10 is called for, using any count? You would have to scan 10,000 hands to maybe even see 1 example of this play. And then? I stood on 12 vs 10 on that 1 single instance because ...
I am an idiot and I had a hunch.
My 7,8,9 block side count told me too.
I shuffle track, and keying off the previous card played, I know the next card is a 10.
I shuffle track and the next card is an ACE, wait till you see what I bet on the next hand!
I spotted the dealer�s hole card and know he has a 6.
I didn�t stand, I hit because I use HiLo.
I didn�t stand, I hit because even though I use the Gordon count with a 7,8,9 block side count, I don�t know the index for 12 vs 10.
Maybe if you scan the next 10,000 hands, you will be able to determine which of the above is correct.
The above assumes you are dealing with rational intelligent management. In the casino industry, that animal doesn't exist.
by myself...but I have lots and lots of friends who combined would be able to match the casino blow for blow until the casino blinks. I agree with DD' above that the casino would only go bust if they just let the action continue...it would snowball until every advantage player in the country was there to get a share of the pie. Most casinos when being pounded just change the game or promo involved and the teams leave town.
If every casino had great games then the action of the counters would be spread out and would not affect any single casino all that greatly...but when only a single casino (or a few) have a great situation or promo the advantage play gets focused on those and they take a thrashing.
Maybe not one big player but a few big players will destroy it if they have $40K bank and can play 100 hands an hour. Using an optimal spread with 13.5% ruin, he can make $1500 an hour on this game. Plays 40 hours a week, will make $60000 a week. Maybe nothing for a big casino, but they will start feeling the pain. And then just like you say big player, a couple of buddies come in and the game would be destroyed. I think the original author of this post is undersestimating the power of penetration and the power of pros swarming in on a place. A better solution to his problem would be to offer games dealt at the .6 level (good penetration) and have shuffle machines shuffling single decks while the dealers are dealing (sort of like LVC in Vegas, however don't be dumb and flash the bottom card as you are getting it out of the machine). This way you are dealing lots of hands an hour without interruption but not giving insane penetration to make pros want to take flights!!!
Actually my opinion on a better solution would be to offer
1) good games with good penetration
2) a deck being shuffled while dealer is dealing (more rounds)
3) low table max limits (like $200, so they don't attract pros)
4) table limits can be changed for customers that do not show a threat (for example some huge whale is in from China and management
know he is a voodoo player so let him play whatever limits he wants). They can determine on a players card whether a player can be allowed to exceed low table limits. This way they would offer the greatest BJ game in the US and still not be exposed to pros swarming in (pros guys hate low table max limits)
"If you had not been standing there since the shuffle, then you didn't use any counting system, you got lucky."
Maybe I just walked into the casino. You see the guy at first base (which your miracle scanning software determined wasn't counting because he always flat bet the table minimum and always hit 15 vs 2)
Well, that guy rubbed his nose. (Which was my signal to come in and lay down the heavy wood).
Yep, I just walked in and played two hands. Blackjack and a Twenty. Yep, $750 profit, and I walked away. Must have just got lucky, what else could it have been?
LOL.
I did't say the software could tell "exactly" what count system you are using. You said that. The purpose of the software is to determine your win rate based on your betting patterns and your hit/stand/double down/split decisions, and to compare your actual win rate based on past play to the expectation based on the actual composition of the remaining cards every time you played a hand. If your actual win rate is higher than the actual expectation then this is reported as an anomaly. It is up to the pit to decide what to do about it. They can then look at your play history to look for patterns that tell them why your win rate is higher than it should be.
Someone argued that the software cannot determine "exactly" which counting system the player is using because too many of the counting systems are too similar, my resposne was that if two count systems are very close in outcome then it doesn't matter if the software can tell if you are using Count System A vs Count System B, it only matters that it can tell that you are using a count system LIKE Count System A and Count System B, since the expectation is the same. Since I only breifly mentioned this software in passing, I don't understand where you get off talking to me in such an insulting manner, accusing me of "changing my story" etc. because I did not explain every possible feature of the software in the post where I briefly mentioned it in passing.
since I only briefly mentioned this software in a post that was really asking for people's opinions on how realistic it would be for a casino to offer a blackjack game that is the kind of game we would all like to see, there was no way I could explain all the ins and outs of this software. so, your accusations and insults are wasting everyone's time. I did not make any statements that were absolutes, I very briefly mentioned something that exists that I have seen. Others, including you, jumped to conclusions in order to "prove" that this software cannot exist, I guess in hopes of proving me a liar, although I cannot imagine why someone would make up something like that.
My only point was that what the casino needs to know about an advantage player is their win rate per hour and software exists that can watch a player's play and determine which counting system they use. Of course, if several counting systems are very similar in outcome concerning the bet sizing and the play variation then the software has to make a judgement call about which count system it will say you are using. But since the player's win rate per hour is the same for two so similar count systems, it doesn't matter. What the software tells the pit crew is your win rate per hour, they don't really care if you are using Wong's halves or UPC or Hi-Lo, what they care about is your win-rate per hour.
If your point is that I did not do a good job of explaining how the software works in my original post then you are correct, because I only breiefly mentioned it. if, however, your point is that this software does not exist and I am a liar and that is what you mean by your insulting "you are blowing smoke", then I must take exception with that because I have no reason to lie and I do not like being insulted. I do not insult you, please do not insult me if you intend on speaking with me further.
In regards to my example of standing with hard 12 when the density of the cards remaining are high in 10s and very low in 8s and 9s being "ridiculous", I only used this play as an example of counting systems and card density tracking systems that tell the player to vary play from BS and popular count systems like Hi-Lo, etc. While that particular play varation only occurs rarely, all the play variations you are likely to make taken as an aggregate occur often enough to be important. You are correct in that the software seeing this one play doesn't tell the software anything. But, the software seeing the player's play over enough hands and seeing the variations the player makes over enough hands tells the software something indeed. This software's main purpose is to report anomalies. The software keeps track of the player's play and determines the players theoretical win rate based on the advantage during the actual hands played. If the player's win rate is greatly higher than this, as your counter argument is insinuating it would be because you are hole card spooking or shuffle tracking, then the software would report that your win rate is higher than it "should" be. You are correct in saying that there are lots of reasons why this could be so. When I saw this software in use, the pit had some reason to want more information on a particular player, they had the eye in the sky begin watching that table and the software began tracking the player's play. The pit crew could then make informed decisions about the player based on real statistics, instead of just marching over and reading the player the trepass card.
I will address the reasons you gave why my example was "ridiculous":
1. If you are an idiot then an analysis of your play over time will show that you do not use BS or any of the known counting index play variations consistently. This means either you are an idiot and very lucky or you are cheating somehow.
2. If your 7,8,9 side block told you to stand on this play, then your other side block counts told you to make other play variations. If the software sees enough of these play variations it can make some decision about them.
3. If you are shuffle tracking and you are good at it, your actual win rate as you played was much higher than expectation, the software will alert the pit to this and you are probably going to be read the trespass card, becaues a review of your play will show taht you are not just "lucky", a pit person or security person reviewing your play after being alerted that your win rate is much higher than actual expectation will be able to figure out if you are shuffle tracking.
4. If you consistently have big bets out every time you get an Ace as your first card up and the pit has a way to verify this, then you will be read the trespass card. The play tracking software willl not the anomaly of your win rate adn then a pit crew or security person reviewing your play will see that you consistently raise your bet just before you get an Ace. Bye Bye.
5. If you are spooking the hole card then your win rate is higher than normal, the software will alert the pit to this, they will see if your play indidates that you are spooking the hole card. For example do you hit hard 17 or hard 18 because you know the dealer has a 19?
since my example showed the player standing because of the density of the remaining cards, adn your counter argument is that the player did not stand I am ignoring the last two points.
My story did not change, you said that because you quoted me as saying something that I did not say.
If your point is that this software does not work, you are entitled to your opinion. If your point is that the software does not exist and that I am a liar then you owe me an apology. If your point is that I did not do a very good job of explaining how the software works, then you are correct because I only briefly mentioned it in a post about something else entirely.
In the future, do not be insulting when speaking to me or do not speak to me.
Steve
That the software does not exist? Or, that the software doesn't work? or, that there are scenarios that the software is not applicable for?
If your point is that the software does not work, I welcome you to your opinion. If your point is that it does not exist then you are calling me a liar and owe me an apology. if your point is that you can think up millions of scenarios where it is not applicable then you are correct.
steve
Go up in the thread and look at my SIMPLE post titled "Humm". This is all I wanted to say "they can`t tell WHAT COUNTING SYSTEM YOU ARE USING" . Nothing else. I am PERFECTLY AWARE that these types of software exist and HOW THEY WORK. Thanks.
You seem to be the one arguing. There is no need to shout with persistent exclamation marks to get your hypothetical opinion across. Someone disagreeing does not mean they are arguing.
Casinos make tons of money from the shoe. There is no chance in hell they'll replace all shoe games with single deck. A logical tactic used by casinos is the offering of a few good single deck games as bait. This intimidates ploppies to play other table games when the single deck table is occupied. If the casino has a desire to make make more money they can simply deal more cards out of the shoe. Statistics and the hold have proven this to be true.
If you think about all the work,stress,labor,money,time,tweeking,headaches,bugs,etc. involved when using a tracking software in order to be assured the little old lady in the pink flowered dress is a loser but her husband in the yellow shirt could be a winner, then all this software tracking stuff is certainly a waste of time and money. That probably explains why this stuff never caught on with the casino market.
Well we've already been told by the poster that his original question was in regards to a casino that offered a whole bunch
of single deck tables with those conditions and not shoes. So your post went off on a tangent. Big Player is correct. We hear the first aggression from you post stating Big Player posted without logic, while the whole time you posted an answer the poster was not asking (you answered can a casino offer a couple of juicy single deck games).
a casino could display a huge sign saying "card counters welcome" and still make a lot of money.
of the equation. It is not the number of advantage vs non advantage players. It is the number of advantage vs non-advantage dollars. A sufficiently good game will draw action that will dwarf the ploppies. Three full tables of $10 av bet ploppies will not offset will not offset one blackchip counter with a $300 av bet. I have seen this, and participated in it, on more than one occasion. It is rare for games in these situations to hold up for more than a couple of months.
When casinos open up in new markets some rather good games sometimes last longer than usual. This happens because the casinos need a little time to exhaust the funds of the well-to-do gambling addicts that suddenly have casinos in their neighborhood for the first time. This helps dilute the effect of the skilled players. But soon the easy local money dries up as the casino has burned out its easy game. It now has to try to grind out its profits against the lower rolling regulars. These players cannot sufficiently dilute the effect of the skilled players and this soon becomes obvious.
