vpFREE2 Forums

More on Bill Zender

#1

Don't miss this week's Bob & Frank Show, because this guy Bill Zender is really interesting. Here are a few of his ideas on blackjack.

For one thing, he seems to think the "danger" to the casinos' bottom line, from card counters, is HIGHLY over-rated. Essentially, if a player isn't wagering big money, it's hardly worth even worrying about. I don't think I am misrepresenting his view by saying that green chip players should practically be ignored as far as card counting is concerned.

Also, I believe he thinks the "no mid-shoe entry" rule is counter productive. Not only is it rare that a player is competent enough to be of concern, but even if he is competent and trying to jump into the middle of a positive shoe the mathematical "cost" is minimal. At most, the player should be observed later. And besides, it just sends the wrong message saying that "We do not want you playing."

And here's something I found especially interesting. In regard to shoe penetration, Zender apparently thinks there should be DEEPER penetration, not less. Again, he feels that the number of competent counters is over-rated, but even so, the threat from counters is dwarfed by the fact that less penetration means less hands dealt out, or less decisions rendered, and thus it costs the casinos in the long run.

Fascinating! I am so looking forward to this week's show.

#2

I've never met Bill Zender, but he seems like a very good guy. Several years ago I exchanged a few emails with him when I was doing some work on Pai Gow. He was extremely generous with his time and information.

As Bob Bartop noted, Zender's view on the threat posed by card-counters has always been far more rational than the typical casino exec's.

--Dunbar

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:

Don't miss this week's Bob & Frank Show, because this guy Bill Zender is really interesting. Here are a few of his ideas on blackjack.

For one thing, he seems to think the "danger" to the casinos' bottom line, from card counters, is HIGHLY over-rated. Essentially, if a player isn't wagering big money, it's hardly worth even worrying about. I don't think I am misrepresenting his view by saying that green chip players should practically be ignored as far as card counting is concerned.

Also, I believe he thinks the "no mid-shoe entry" rule is counter productive. Not only is it rare that a player is competent enough to be of concern, but even if he is competent and trying to jump into the middle of a positive shoe the mathematical "cost" is minimal. At most, the player should be observed later. And besides, it just sends the wrong message saying that "We do not want you playing."

And here's something I found especially interesting. In regard to shoe penetration, Zender apparently thinks there should be DEEPER penetration, not less. Again, he feels that the number of competent counters is over-rated, but even so, the threat from counters is dwarfed by the fact that less penetration means less hands dealt out, or less decisions rendered, and thus it costs the casinos in the long run.

Fascinating! I am so looking forward to this week's show.

#3

Mr. Zender may be a fine fellow ... but as a player I seek out "no mid-shoe
entry" tables. I see it as a player protection .. period. I have no problem
accepting Zender's belief that the rule has no impact on card counters,
but why Zender would want to get rid of the mid-shoe entry bar mystifies
me. Unless he is acting as an advisor to the house on how to increase its
hold.

I am sure I am not the only person who occasionally finds him or herself at
a table populated by a group that has been playing together for a number of
shoes, developed a rhythm and comeraderie, and to its delight finds itself
in the middle of a warm or hot shoe ... when all of a sudden some rube plops
down and makes an outlandish bet or play that effectively the tables' luck.

It should be a matter of common courtesy. If I see a seat at table that I
want to join, I wait until the next shoe to start playing....unless invited
to join by those already in the game.

···

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:18 AM, Bob Bartop <bobbartop@yahoo.com> wrote:

**

Don't miss this week's Bob & Frank Show, because this guy Bill Zender is
really interesting. Here are a few of his ideas on blackjack.

...... I believe he thinks the "no mid-shoe entry" rule is counter
productive. Not only is it rare that a player is competent enough to be of
concern, but even if he is competent and trying to jump into the middle of a
positive shoe the mathematical "cost" is minimal. At most, the player should
be observed later. And besides, it just sends the wrong message saying that
"We do not want you playing."

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4

Uhh, yes, that would be it. He's a consultant, for the casinos.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Rprosdc <rprosdc@...> wrote:

I have no problem
accepting Zender's belief that the rule has no impact on card counters,
but why Zender would want to get rid of the mid-shoe entry bar mystifies
me. Unless he is acting as an advisor to the house on how to increase its
hold.

#5

Indeed, will be a great show--he's been on Vegas Gang and Dr. Dave's pocasts--IIRC, he specifically instructed his blackjack dealers at the old Aladdin to cut off only half a deck off of a six-deck shoe--his rationale goes along with what you've already said

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:

Don't miss this week's Bob & Frank Show, because this guy Bill Zender is really interesting. Here are a few of his ideas on blackjack.

For one thing, he seems to think the "danger" to the casinos' bottom line, from card counters, is HIGHLY over-rated. Essentially, if a player isn't wagering big money, it's hardly worth even worrying about. I don't think I am misrepresenting his view by saying that green chip players should practically be ignored as far as card counting is concerned.

Also, I believe he thinks the "no mid-shoe entry" rule is counter productive. Not only is it rare that a player is competent enough to be of concern, but even if he is competent and trying to jump into the middle of a positive shoe the mathematical "cost" is minimal. At most, the player should be observed later. And besides, it just sends the wrong message saying that "We do not want you playing."

And here's something I found especially interesting. In regard to shoe penetration, Zender apparently thinks there should be DEEPER penetration, not less. Again, he feels that the number of competent counters is over-rated, but even so, the threat from counters is dwarfed by the fact that less penetration means less hands dealt out, or less decisions rendered, and thus it costs the casinos in the long run.

Fascinating! I am so looking forward to this week's show.

#6

I had never heard of that until I recently read it in his book. He says that during the 5-1/2 years at the Aladdin it had "one of the highest hold percentages in the State of Nevada per the State of Nevada Gaming Financial Reports, especially at blackjack."

And they cut off 26 cards at both their 6-deck games and their 2-deck!

It is unfathomable to me that this is not now standard procedure everywhere, but of course it certainly is not.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, lasvegaspilgrim@... wrote:

Indeed, will be a great show--he's been on Vegas Gang and Dr. Dave's pocasts--IIRC, he specifically instructed his blackjack dealers at the old Aladdin to cut off only half a deck off of a six-deck shoe--his rationale goes along with what you've already said

#7

By the way, thanks for mentioning that. I had not been a follower of the Vegas Gang podcasts, but I definitely will listen from now on. I just listened to the recent program, and it was something I know I will enjoy. I've heard of it before, but I just never checked it out for some reason. I will now. Thanks for the info!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, lasvegaspilgrim@... wrote:

Indeed, will be a great show--he's been on Vegas Gang and Dr. Dave's pocasts--IIRC,

#8

This paragraph is a joke, right? No one in the forum would have the audacity to spout this kind of ploppy BS and actually mean it.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Rprosdc <rprosdc@...> wrote:

I am sure I am not the only person who occasionally finds him or herself at
a table populated by a group that has been playing together for a number of
shoes, developed a rhythm and comeraderie, and to its delight finds itself
in the middle of a warm or hot shoe ... when all of a sudden some rube plops
down and makes an outlandish bet or play that effectively the tables' luck.

#9

That it's based on a misconception doesn't stop a blackjack player
from feeling its effects. I jumped into a single deck game at
Harrah's Tahoe once, probably after 1 or 2 rounds had been dealt after
the shuffle. On my first hand, the count was high enough to split
tens, which I did, the dealer ended up with 21, and, since the dealer
was then going to shuffle, I left. It wasn't appreciated by the other
players.

But I disagree that no one here would believe it. Many people do. It
takes some effort to think past misconceptions like that, which not
everyone has done.

ma18ks wrote:

···

This paragraph is a joke, right? No one in the forum would have the audacity to spout this kind of ploppy BS and actually mean it.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Rprosdc <rprosdc@...> wrote:

I am sure I am not the only person who occasionally finds him or herself at
a table populated by a group that has been playing together for a number of
shoes, developed a rhythm and comeraderie, and to its delight finds itself
in the middle of a warm or hot shoe ... when all of a sudden some rube plops
down and makes an outlandish bet or play that effectively the tables' luck.

#10

The amazing part of the OP's comments is that (s)he knows enough about BJ to know about wonging, yet seems to believe mid shoe entry effects "their game"

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "ma18ks" <89109.nv@...> wrote:

This paragraph is a joke, right? No one in the forum would have the audacity to spout this kind of ploppy BS and actually mean it.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Rprosdc <rprosdc@> wrote:

#11

Just to be clear, I was the "OP", and it weren't me.

Carry on.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "poordueto401k" <hard16@...> wrote:

The amazing part of the OP's comments is that (s)he knows enough about BJ to know about wonging, yet seems to believe mid shoe entry effects "their game"

#12

I fully agree. Perception Becomes Reality. Or in this case, Misconception Becomes Reality.

Sometimes the AP's action will have no effect on the play of the dealer, yet the civilians still react harshly. I was once threatened with violence by a degenerate for hitting my A7 against dealer 10 - a basic strategy play, not even an index play. Said degenerate had a pat 19, the dealer turned over a pat 20, yet it was my fault for hitting.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@...> wrote:

That it's based on a misconception doesn't stop a blackjack player
from feeling its effects. I jumped into a single deck game at
Harrah's Tahoe once, probably after 1 or 2 rounds had been dealt after
the shuffle. On my first hand, the count was high enough to split
tens, which I did, the dealer ended up with 21, and, since the dealer
was then going to shuffle, I left. It wasn't appreciated by the other
players.

But I disagree that no one here would believe it. Many people do. It
takes some effort to think past misconceptions like that, which not
everyone has done.