"sending a message"
The gentleman who suggested backing off red chippers as part of a broader strategy to "send a message" that counting will not be tolerated is quite mistaken. He doesn't understand the psychology of advantage players. A paranoid casino may scare away paranoid card counters--but, just as a paranoid casino is seldom especially prosperous or much of a carpet joint, so too is a paranoid card counter seldom worth scaring away. The truly dangerous players can't be intimidated in this fashion. They might even be inspired to send a message of their own back to you.
(February 22, 2012 ~ 10:06 AM)
By Anonymous counter
Low Limit Counters
I believe that Low Limit counters are not necessarily a threat to a casino. We have had two counters at our casino for almost a year. They average about $10.00 per hand. We have counted them almost 50 times. We monitor these two whenever they are in the casino. I say, let them play, but keep track of their play. If, by chance, their play escalates, you already have the proof that they are counting and the necessary supervisors know, then they can be backed-off.
(October 25, 2011 ~ 5:31 AM)
I answered no. But it would spare more questions. Why would a good card counter play the game with ave.bet of $10? I imagine this scenario is for a long period of time? Would this card counter be looking to set up some kind of team play? Is the card counting looking to attack some promotion? Or are they looking to get free drinks like the dudes that sit close to the bar on a slot machine? Or is he kind of stuck there because his wife is off playing slots?
(October 17, 2011 ~ 3:34 PM)
I have to agree with Mr. Bill Z. The fact that someone is able to win at your tables is actually a plus for the casino. I worked some downtown clubs where several local residents were making a modest living at $3-500 per visit, card counting. This club backed off people who counted at higher levels, but was quite profitable, despite poor training of staff and active hole card players.
One needs to look at the table limits, how much the player is actually making per visit, and how much it costs to put Pit and Surveillance staff on evaluating and documenting a player. Sure, if he is making a thousand-a-week profit consistently, maybe get rid of him. But even the time invested in this is expensive, and one should be looking at more expensive things such as sloppy dealers exposing hole cards on carnival games and BJ, dealers stealing off the games, and even Slots staff manipulating the SDS systems, which can cost millions (as seen at a NLV property and several Arizona Indian casinos).
(October 07, 2011 ~ 3:44 AM)
By Jim Goding
A low level expert could be sizing up dealers and seeking out weak dealers for a return in the future with a larger bankroll or even a team. Don't back him off with a $10 avg., wait for his return and ask him to move on when he tries $1,000 avg.
(October 06, 2011 ~ 3:10 PM)
low limit card counters
I have a stong interest in casinos making money. However, let's be honest, in a really fair game we would not penalize the best players (low limit or high limit)for being good at blackjack and we would not refer to them as shady. It all comes down to profitability--not fairness and Zender is dead on correct.
(October 06, 2011 ~ 2:11 PM)
While I respect the opinion of Mr. Zender, from a protection point of view I would differ with him. The low limit counters need to go as well. It sends the message to all that your joint will not tolerate advantage/count play, so don't bother coming through our doors. That is, unless you wish to play our slots!!!!!
(October 06, 2011 ~ 11:47 AM)
Backing off and being fair
So if a low limit player is counting cards and listed as a highly skilled player, then a high limit player sits at the same table with the same skill level, you back off the high limit player and leave the low limit player still playing? Casinos are there to make money yes but they must operate a fair game. I believed I read that somewhere in a half dozen gaming laws. Whats is ok for the low limit player is not ok for the high limit player is not fair. I can see looking at the bottom line overall yet, you still must conduct a fair shake to all players.
(October 06, 2011 ~ 10:47 AM)
Low Limit Counter
Id be worried about said player being bank rolled by "richer" players. He may be just practising at your joint and running his big game at others. Shady is shady.
(October 06, 2011 ~ 8:45 AM)
While I agree with Al and Bill, I think it behooves the operation to be aware of the low limit counter’s presence. It’s unlikely, but possible, to be looking at the next rising star of advanced blackjack strategy.
(October 06, 2011 ~ 7:51 AM)
By Dan Pullen
Backing off low limit card counters
I looked at the results so far and saw that 29% of the people answering this poll indicated that they would back off a $10 card counter. Without insulting anyone, the people who think that low level counters are a threat to the casino, you need to rethink your position. First, low limit counters usually don't know enough of the technique to earn a profit. Second, ones that might be sharp enough to gain an edge will not win anything (70 hands X $10 X 1% EV = $7.00; BTW That's a $5 to $40 spread on the average DD game). Third, they become functionally an unpaid shill at the table. Action creates action, and their presents at the table will increase play and revenue based on the increase in player activity. I'm not commenting to hurt anyones feelings, I'm just trying to help people understand that low action card counting isn't a threat, and should be tolerated.
(October 05, 2011 ~ 3:17 PM)
By Bill zender
Waste of resources
Wasting resources on a low-level grinder is stupid. Casino staff have more important things to do, such as watching for internal theft.