7a. Casino Bars Basic Strategy Blackjack Players
Date: Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:28 pm ((PDT))LAS VEGAS - It was like any ordinary Saturday night at the Tangiers
casino. Darrin Klein placed a $5 bet on one of the 8 deck Blackjack
tables. Pit boss Stephen Carroll asked him: "Will you be putting a
dollar or two on the Super Sevens side bet, sir?" Knowing that side
bets are usually a bad deal for the payer, Darrin declined. The pit
boss then asked "Would you care to try one of our single deck games?"
Knowing that single deck Blackjack pays only 6 to 5 for a "natural",
Darrin declined again. The response was blunt: "We've been observing
your play for quite a while. You're more than welcome to play slots,
craps, or even [6 to 5] single deck blackjack. However, you're no
longer allowed to play [3 to 2 multideck] here. Please leave."Darrin replied: "Why?"
"You're too good for us. Please leave", replied Carroll.
"But I don't count cards", Darrin replied.
Stephen replied: "I know you don't count cards. But it doesn't
matter. Please leave your seat so that another player can play."With that, Darrin Klien, known to the Tangiers as a perfect basic
strategy player over hundreds of hands became one of the many
Blackjack players barred, not for cheating or counting cards, but for
playing according to a set of strategies known as "basic strategy".
Basic strategy guides players on when to "hit", "stand" and make
other decisions at Blackjack tables.For years, casinos such as the Tangiers have made it standard
procedure to ban card counters. Countermeasures, including technology
and surveilance, have made card counting impossible except for a
small group of highly skilled "advantage players". Since casinos
don't have to worry much about card counters anymore, they are now
trying to counteract the profit-reducing effects of skilled basic
strategy Blackjack players. Many players, including Darrin Klien,
feel that this practice is unwarranted since basic strategy players
still lose money in the long run. "This is outrageous and
overbearing", says Klien. However, Stephen Carroll sees it
differently."We barred Mr. Klien for the benefit of our other players. Barring
was a last resort. We offered [6 to 5] single deck blackjack, but he
said no. We asked that he bet a dollar or two on the side bet to make
up for his basic strategy play, but again he refused. Blackjack is no
longer a profitable game at low bet levels."An average Blackjack player gives the casino a profit, or "house
edge", of 2.5% or $2.50 per $100 wagered. However, a player using
basic strategy only gives up
0.5% or 50c per $100 wagered. As Mr. Carroll explains: "That $2 loss
of potential profit adds up over the course of the thousands of hands
of Blackjack that we deal everyday. Skilled basic strategy players
lower our potential profit by 80%. When you factor in the costs of
dealer salaries and complimentary beverages, skilled Blackjack
players lose money for the casino even if they don't count cards. We
have stockholders to report to. If we didn't deal with this problem,
we would have to remove Blackjack altogether."Gaming industry reports show that the popularity of Blackjack has
clearly declined in recent years as players migrate to slot machines
and other more-exciting table games such as Caribbean Stud Poker.
With players now knowing that they could be barred from a game even
if they don't count cards, the game's popularity could decline even
quicker.Replies appreciated.
As someone who played blackjack and counted cards successfully for about twenty years, finally quitting because I was barred a few places and it took the fun out of it, I am happy to comment.
In a nutshell, this is an idiotic move for the casino, and if word gets out and the average tourist hears about this, they will probably lose far more business (and good business) than the meager "savings" can justify.
People want to at least THINK they can beat a game -- and that's the attraction of games like video poker and blackjack. Knowing that knowledgeable players can win at them, uneducated players will try these games, thinking that they are "easier" to win at, and therefore a better game than, for example, slots.
In fact, the uneducated player at blackjack, video poker, etc., may lose far more than the non-VP slot player for the amount of money they place at risk. ONLY the expert play reduces the house edge to something akin to craps, and only VERY expert play can create an advantage for the player.
Plenty of casinos still offer blackjack such as this casino offers, and do NOT expect side bets, or acceptance of 6/5 blackjack payments -- and the game is still favorable for the casino against a perfect basic strategy player, by probably about 0.2 to 0.5%, depending on the other rules (able to resplit Aces, can you double down after splitting a pair, etc. etc.).
So IF the player was indeed ONLY a basic strategy player, they just decided they don't want someone to play at their casino from whom they can "only" earn a small amount. If ALL the players played like this player, it might be the case that they don't make enough to cover their expenses (floor space, dealer "salaries", and salaries for idiot pit bosses / supervisors who bar players who don't count), but it is still a positive expectation game for the house.
The language they used to bar him is exactly the language I've heard a few times when barred (you're too good for us"), and the offer to play other games where you can and will lose more money often accompanies the barring.
It is POSSIBLE to be a card counter AND flat bet, varying your playing strategy according to the count, and get a very slight edge over the house without bet variation, but not very much -- if this player was identified as being expert in that manner, the house MIGHT have some reason to bar him as a counter, although I think it's a bad idea.
A $5 flat bettor at an 8-deck game, who playes 75 (full table) to 300 (head up with the dealer) hands an hour of blackjack, will probably only lose somewhere between $2 and $7.50 an hour, making it a reasonable way to pass your time in Las Vegas.
And this level of play will usually not earn ANY comps from a casino, so their costs are strictly their overhead.
EVEN if he was a card counter AND varied his bets about 4 to 1 ($5 to $20), it would be difficult to overcome the house edge on an 8-deck game, and at the $5 level, he could reasonably expect to win no more than about $1 to $3 an hour. More favorable games (such as single or double deck with good rules) playing the same will net about 1% of your action WITH counting, taking him up to the $5 to $15 an hour range. This guy is not going to break a casino, and most casinos don't "sweat" the $5 action at an 8-deck shoe at all.
If casinos have decided that they want to offer games of chance with an element of skill, and then will not let players play who still are at a disadvantage to the house, just because they exercise the skill element of the game at a higher level than the average tourist, when will it stop? And how many good customers will the casinos lose, when EVERYONE knows that they not only expect to win money from you, but that they're not happy unless they win a LOT of your money?
There are still casinos that sell basic strategy cards in their gift shops, and I've never heard of anyone being barred for referring to such a card, or for using good basic strategy, until this story!
Like re-setting the pay tables at VP, there are easier ways to make your blackjack games profitable against skilled players, but for the casino that's so greedy that it won't accept games with just a small house edge, I hope they get what their greed deserves - a forced sale of a losing property whose only asset is its real estate.
--BG
ยทยทยท
===========