For those of you who have been sleeping under a rock, Ken Uston was a notorious card counter who, decades ago, sued Atlantic City casinos. The end result was a ruling that AC casinos could not bar players for being skillful. The card counters all rejoiced—or did they?
Every few years, someone brings up the argument—try to follow the “logic” here—that because AC casinos couldn’t bar skilled players, the casinos were then forced to make the game conditions tough across the board in order to protect themselves from the scary card counters. Before we break down this tired argument, let’s note that the only people who propose the argument are weak, amateur card counters. I’ve never heard any professional player who subscribes to the theory.
The theory is flawed in its premise, logic, and data. Let’s start with the premise—that casinos would try to make the game unbeatable. Why would they do that? Maximizing profit does not mean making a game so that no one on earth can beat it. Take full-pay Double Bonus Video Poker as an example. A sharp player could earn a 100.2% payback, and the casino industry knows this well. Nevertheless, they offer the game due to its popularity with the masses, competitive factors with other casinos, and the proven profitability of such games. Some casinos, such as the Palms in Las Vegas, would advertise such games with signs proclaiming “Over 100% payback!”
I will concede that it feels that some casinos are so stupid and mean that they would rather make sure no one can win than maximize profit, so let’s look at the logic that there are only two options—barring players or offering unbeatable games—with casinos forced to choose the latter. What? There’s no option in between? What about countermeasures? The Uston lawsuits said AC couldn’t bar skillful players, but they can certainly countermeasure those players to the point where card counting is not feasible. The casino can cut the shoe in half. Heck, the casino can shuffle after every round. The casino can impose a $5 max bet. The casino could offer “normal” games and then countermeasure any identified threats, and flyer those players up and down the boardwalk as usual.
Let’s get to the data. So the card counters are whining that conditions are bad. Really? By “conditions,” I figure they mean bad rules and bad penetration. Are those conditions so bad in AC? AC mostly hits soft 17, but H17 is now the default rule nationwide, even in Las Vegas, where they can and do bar players. I think when I started out, the Trump Plaza and Trop World let you hit out after splitting Aces, but one card to split Aces is now the national standard. Surrender is also a dying player option. AC has lots of 8-deck games, but so do the Las Vegas Strip properties, such as the Venetian. Mandalay Bay has CSMs, the bane of counters, and Mandalay Bay manhandles skilled players! The national trend has been more decks, worse rules, worse payoffs (6:5 on BJ), and mediocre penetration, regardless of the casino’s ability to legally bar players. The tribal casinos have some of the crummiest conditions you’ll find anywhere, and those “sovereign nations” do whatever they want to players. The deteriorating rules have nothing to do with card counters. Vegas gets 3.5 million visitors a month, and the casino might as well hit soft 17 against these apathetic, ignorant masses. The 100 card counters a month have nothing to do with it. Sorry, Copernicus.
But who cares if technical conditions in AC are as poor as they are in lots of other venues? Any serious player cares little about penetration, and even less about rules. When I scout casinos, I barely notice those things. I notice the games offered, the max bet, and the most important condition of all—the heat. Top players can always beat the cards. Sometimes that aspect is trivial. But the heat, that’s everything. If we take the main form of heat—getting barred—off the table, you’re left with a potential playground for a clever pro.
And counting isn’t the only game in town. AC has had all kinds of attractive games—hole-carding, tracking, cutting, machine plays, comp plays, tournaments, loss rebates, to name some. Casinos may not be aware of a particular play as it happens, and in AC they can’t just kick you out because you’re a known AP.
There is one more benefit to serious APs. The fact of the matter is that when casinos are given the legal authority, or perceived legal authority, to bar players, they don’t just say, “Sir, your play is too strong for us, and you are no longer welcome on our property.” No, what they do is attempt to backroom players first, saying this is a necessary way to implement a barring. These backroomings lead to violent encounters, illegal searches, and illegal detentions. Many players, myself included, are afraid to go to certain casinos, due to the possible ugly confrontation that may occur. In AC, backroomings are quite rare, and the APs I know feel comfortable in that at least it’s safe to be in the casino and play some cards—but don’t go out on the Boardwalk at night![poll id=”4″]
Your video poker comparison/analogy is seriously flawed in that there are perhaps 3% as many fullpay video poker games out there as there were ten years ago. The casinos’ reasoning is similar to that they use when putting in unbeatable shoe games–the idiots will play anyway, so nothing is lost by driving away a few skillful players in the process. You miss the point in saying that there is a middle ground between offering unbeatable games and barring players. The naivete and utter stupidity of the gambling public means that the casinos don’t have to even approach this middle ground. Just make every game total crap and you drive away the (very few) skilled players without antagonizing the morons in the least. Yeah, there’s 10/7 Double Bonus here and there–but there are a hundred times as many 9/6 (or worse) DB (98%), and people are happily playing them. 6:5 blackjack shouldn’t even exist for lack of patronage; ditto, continuous shuffle games. Yet, the ploppies flock to such games and keep the casinos happy.
If everyone around you is willing to overpay for a product, it’s futile to bemoan the lack of bargains.
So your elaboration shows that my video poker analogy is in fact perfect: the casinos put it in at the beginning with decent rules–as were the AC games years ago–because they were marketing to the masses, not trying to beat every single player. As casinos realized you could give the masses garbage and they would still eat it up, the casinos tightened up on rules and payoffs. This was a nationwide deterioration having nothing to do with pros or the ability to bar pros.
AC has to compete with Pennsylvania. Every casino in Pennsylvania has the same blackjack rules by law, and they are very player friendly. Atlantic City can’t compete with that with offering the player-unfriendly rules offered elsewhere (although CET now offers 6-5 blackjack in AC).
You are right, the casinos in AC have much better rules than you will find in most places on the Strip.
Is the underlying message here, who cares what Uston wrought, because 1) counting is a tough way to go to begin with and if you do it well you’ll be stopped one way or another anyway, and 2) there are other ways to win, so let the casinos concentrate on counters while the law in Atlantic City allows winning players to ply their methods without excessive fear of retribution — which is good, all considered? Just asking.
For hobbyist counters, the Uston lawsuits had no impact whatsoever on technical conditions, but were somewhat favorable due to the reduction in major heat (backroomings, etc). For pro APs, the Uston lawsuits were awesome.
From the way you summed it up it seems being identified and known is how a pro AP loses in AC. If they cannot bar players then it only makes sense from the casinos’ standpoint to employ countermeasures on any suspected AP players to let them know that they are not wanted.
After the Uston court decision came out I would like to know if any rule changes were implemented immediately to AC’s BJ games as a result of the decision, besides for employing countermeasures on suspected AP’s since casinos couldn’t bar players anymore. What was it like on the ground in AC 2 days or a week after the decision
Mr. Grosjean, you are my hero! You’re 1. “on the ground,” 2. been through the battles (backrooming) and won (in litigation), 3. a true blackjack patriot! etc…
Most notably, your deep esoteric statistical insights in blackjack AP play is unparalleled, e.g., 42.08, beyond coupons – even compared to Don Schlesenger’s voluminous writings!
However, I couldn’t disagree more with your statement, “Any serious player cares little about PENETRATION, and even less about RULES. When I scout casinos, I barely notice those things. I notice the GAME OFFERED…” (emphasis added)
1. PENETRATION.
Every AP and blackjack author knows incontrovertibly that penetration is the single most important factor affecting SCORE for any particular blackjack game!
2. RULES:
Every AP and blackjack author knows that the rules to a particular blackjack game determines whether it’s “playable,” e.g., S17/H17 (+/- .20%), DAS (+/- 14%), DOA (+/- .11%), RSA (+/-.06%), etc. – double deck.
3. GAME OFFERED:
Doesn’t that really mean that the RULES actually do matter? A “game offered” is determined by what RULES it has, see #2 above.
4. If the RULES didn’t matter, you sure (correctly) pointed out the dreaded 6:5 blackjack in this article. Isn’t 6:5 a RULE of the game?!!!
Obviously, anyone can surmise I know the “value” of heat. Basically, heat prevents the AP from playing optimally – from making camouflage plays to outright barrings. I get that!
But, no respectable AP can write that he “cares little [or even less]” about penetration and rules of the game!!!
You’re still my hero, Mr. Grosjean…
“1. PENETRATION.
Every AP and blackjack author knows incontrovertibly that penetration is the single most important factor affecting SCORE for any particular blackjack game!”
I don’t know what APs and blackjack authors you’re talking about. I know quite a few APs, and several authors. Penetration is barely on our list. SCORE is a narrow measure designed largely for counting games. You really think hole-carders or sequencers care about penetration?
“2. RULES:
Every AP and blackjack author knows that the rules to a particular blackjack game determines whether it’s ‘playable.’
I’m telling you, the pros I know don’t play the way you apparently do. I cannot remember rules ever entering into our game selection. Ever. The shuffle procedure on every table game is of much greater interest to us.
“3. GAME OFFERED:
Doesn’t that really mean that the RULES actually do matter? A “game offered” is determined by what RULES it has, see #2 above.”
A game offered means we’re not just talking about blackjack. We have logged significant hours on every major table game.
“4. If the RULES didn’t matter, you sure (correctly) pointed out the dreaded 6:5 blackjack in this article. Isn’t 6:5 a RULE of the game?!!!”
Yes, 6:5 is a payoff rule, and it, too, does not influence our game selection. In fact, 6:5 was a huge benefit to many pros, because it reduced heat on games that were vulnerable to beyond-counting methods.
Thanks for reading; eventually I’ll make you agree!
I get what you are saying.
It was just a matter of me comparing apples (counting) to oranges (other AP methods).
Keep up the fight!
Much love….