Why Do They Always Change Dealers When I'm Winning?

I hear this question frequently, as some people tend to think that when they are winning, the casino tries to "mess them up", by doing various things known as applying "heat"... one of the most common being switching the dealer.  In most cases, this simply isn't true.

Most likely what you are witnessing is a scheduled change.  Table games dealers usually get 20 minutes of break-time for every 60 minutes they're on the game.  Depending on the casino and assuming a single dealer for your game (unlike Craps or Baccarat that require more than one dealer), you may see a different dealer every 20 minutes, or one dealer who is there for 60-minute intervals while a second is only there for 20-minute intervals.

Still not convinced?

If you're witnessing a change that you think is not conforming to the above schedule, there are still other explanations.  Sometimes dealers return late from break... perhaps they were eating or something.  Other times, dealers have a restroom emergency.  There are occasions when dealers are being sent home and shuffling of the staff is necessary because not all of the dealers are able to deal the same games.  There are many legitimate reasons for an unscheduled dealer change.

Furthermore, unless it somehow bothers you psychologically, changing dealers doesn't really do anything.  In Blackjack, dealers are typically required to burn a card when coming on to the game, but this can keep a hot shoe hot as frequently as it can turn a hot shoe cold.

However...

I won't lie... I have seen at least one casino try and change the current trend of the table by switching dealers.  This was not my perception or opinion... I heard it straight from the supervisor in charge of the decision who believed that he could "change the shoe" (so that the casino would win) by switching the dealers.  But this happened in a very small casino with a very superstitious manager.  I'm not trying to justify it, or say that it happens frequently in small casinos, I'm just saying that the world isn't perfect.  There's probably a good chance that you will never see something like this happen in the casino you visit.

I think it's fair to assume that most successful casinos (even the small ones) see the big picture.  Your short-term wins are okay because it may lead to your long-term business.  They're not changing dealers to try and jinx you... it's just a part of normal operations.  They won't jeopardize your loyalty by trying to "break your mojo".

Do you have a topic or question related to casino gaming that you'd like to see discussed on this blog?  Send me an email at FogOfGambling@gmail.com and let me know!

Why is the Stickman Messing With My Dice?

Some people have asked why the stickman on a craps game sometimes messes with the dice before he sends them to the shooter.  Could this be because they are trying to jinx you and mess you up?

Nope.  What you could be witnessing is a security measure so that the boxperson can check if the dice are legit.  In a process known as "squaring the dice", the stickman is supposed to bring the dice in front of the boxperson (hopefully the same way they landed), flip them over so the bottom is now face up, and then angle the dice so that the boxperson can see two sides of each die facing him.  The other two sides of each die can be seen in the mirror that lines the wall underneath the stickman.  By doing this, the boxperson will have seen all six sides of each die.  This is typically done after the come-out roll.

"How does checking the sides help find weighted, or other kinds of fixed dice?"

Other security features can be built into dice to prevent dice switching.  Dice have what you can think of as serial numbers on them, but a casino logo can also be on the dice as well as a single letter printed on the reverse side of one of the white pips.  If there's any doubt about the dice, there are die calipers that they can use to make sure they are balanced.  I'm sure there are other security features as well.

"You said they only square the dice after the come-out roll, but sometimes I see the stickman play with the dice even if it's not after the come-out roll."

That's right.  The stickman is also supposed to avoid sending the dice on the totals of 2, 3, 7, 11 and 12 (known as naturals).  The only reason for this is to accommodate superstitious players... of which there are plenty on Craps.  If you're a dice setter, sometimes the stickman will recognize this and set them for you before sending them out.  But he/she will only do this if it is allowed, there is time to do it, knows how you set the dice, and if you're nice to them.

Do you have a topic or question related to casino gaming that you'd like to see discussed on this blog?  Send me an email at FogOfGambling@gmail.com and let me know!

Blackjack's Basic Strategy Chart and Other Players

Setting any discussions of card counting, cheating, or ESP aside, many players should agree that playing according to basic strategy is the best way to approach the game of Blackjack.  We have all seen the basic strategy charts, and some of us may have even read about them in books.  So what happens in the casino?

In the casino, many basic strategy players follow the chart religiously.  Some of these people interpret the chart as a road map to figuring out what's coming out next... as if all of the cards have somehow been shuffled in such a manner that allows the game to be beat if everybody plays according to basic strategy.  In reality, nothing can tell you what the next card will be.  Nevertheless, you always manage to see some guy yelling at the player on third base for either standing or drawing a card when he's "not supposed to". 

The truth is, the actions of other players on the table have nothing to do with the reasons why you made the decisions you did on your hand/s.  Note that I didn't say that other players don't affect your hand... this is discussed in the last paragraph.  Basic strategy charts are created by finding the best play with the information you know (your current total and the dealer's up card) and considering all possible combinations of the information you don't know (the dealer's hole card, the card/s you may or may not draw, and the card/s the dealer will draw, if any).  It has nothing to do with what other people do with their hands.

"I saw a guy take the dealer's bust card when he should have stayed.  The guy had 12 and the dealer was showing a 6.  The guy hit a 10, bust, and the dealer had 16 and hit a 5 for 21."

Yeah, that happens.  Other people's actions sometimes have an effect on the final outcome of the hand.  But nobody knows what kind of effect that will be.  It could help, hurt, or not make any difference at all.  The 10 and 5 in that situation could have just as easily been in the reverse order, and that play would have "saved the table".  So why does it seem like these kinds of plays usually make it worse for the players?  It's the product of what I like to call, "gambler's selective memory".  They tend to remember when the "wrong play" hurts them, but completely forget when the same type of decision helps or makes no difference.  In the end, it all evens out.

Do you have a topic or question related to casino gaming that you'd like to see discussed on this blog?  Send me an email at FogOfGambling@gmail.com and let me know!

The Future of Table Games? Part 2

... Click here for Part 1

These days, traditional brick and mortar casinos are facing competition from the Internet.  Like the electronic table game, Internet casinos can also offer lower betting limits, but with the added bonus that they are much more convenient than physical casinos.  However, Internet casinos are only gaming competition.  As long as casinos focus on providing entertainment (in various forms), these physical establishments should not find themselves losing their most loyal and profitable customers.  Now I ask you, how much more entertainment can a player look forward to when playing with virtual dealers, as opposed to playing on the internet?  Will it justify the trip to the casino?

Well, there's certainly a social aspect involved with other players, even though you're at an electronic table. And that brings me to my next type of electronic game: Craps.   In the summer of 2011, I conducted some research at a nearby casino.  Throughout the summer, they had been advertising that they now had Craps – a big step for a non-tribal casino in this particular state.  This particular casino had been known for several years to have slot machines, and more recently, they had added Roulette and Craps.  But in line with local gaming regulations, these games could only be electronic tables.  Half of the Roulette tables had virtual wheels, while the other half had real wheels.  Both electronic Craps tables were fully virtual – nothing but computer touch-screens.

What I thought was interesting was the fact that the Craps game allowed the shooter to set the dice before throwing them.  Obviously, the creators of the game realized that they could please many people by allowing them to set the dice as they would with physical dice, but overlooked the fact that many people set the dice as part of their attempt to make a controlled throw.  And in case you hadn't figured it out yet, there is no such thing as a controlled throw on these machines.  The setting of digital dice caters to the ultra-superstitious, and only gives the illusion of control - much like the buttons on a slot machine.  Or maybe this is an example of how some businesses really don't understand their customers (or perhaps they figured that it's an easy feature to include, and only slows the game down a little... who knows).

The Craps players I saw however, did not seem to mind the virtual dice tossing (although this is sure to deter people who believe in the art of dice influencing), but there was something obviously missing from this version of the game.  The social aspect of Craps had disappeared along with the dealers.  Players would sit in front of their screens and place bets with very little cheering or conversation. There were no praises to the shooter if he had rolled well – perhaps something to do with the fact that it was often hard to tell who was actually doing the shooting.  This electronic version of the game did not deliver all of the excitement of a real Craps table with real people working it.

Additionally, there was no "contagious betting" (as I like to call it).  Nobody would see what each other was betting, and nobody had to call out his or her bets like in real Craps games.  There’s no chance for players to ask each other, “hey, what was that you just bet?” As a result, overall betting may have been reduced. 

Another interesting thing I saw was that the history of the games were being analyzed.  On Craps, you could see many of the current shooter's previous throws, as well as shooting streaks.  On Roulette, there were history boards (common on real Roulette games also) and also an analysis of "hot" numbers (if you believe that sort of thing) and "cold" numbers (if you believe the opposite sort of thing).  But again, these are only of value to the the ultra-superstitious or gambling-fallacy-challenged (or is that "unchallenged"?).

One person I spoke to on the subject of electronic Roulette said that he trusted the real wheel over the virtual one, and would trust a game with a dealer even more.  There was something about the computerization that he didn’t fully trust, and claimed that a dealer’s spins might be more fair.  

Some people who work in the casino industry believe that as the video game generation gets older, they will prefer slots.  Still, there are some who believe that they actually prefer table games.  So could this generation actually prefer the combination of the two that manifests itself into electronic table games?  My opinion is... I don't think so.

If it's really the video game generation that's going to occupy the casinos of the future, think about what happened to the video arcades from many years ago.  Once home gaming consoles became popular, these video arcades started to vanish.  Why go to the arcade when you can play the same game at home?  What would happen to casinos if the games became more like what could be found more conveniently on the Internet?

My assessment of these electronic games is that it is not so much different than playing at an online casino over the Internet. For some casinos, where the law prohibits them from having real tables, there is no alternative.  In places where table games are allowed, I believe the step towards more advanced technology is actually a step backwards.  Electronic table games blur the line between Internet and brick and mortar casinos, when the latter should be focusing on differentiating themselves by providing greater value and memorable experiences.

Do you have a topic or question related to casino gaming that you'd like to see discussed on this blog?  Send me an email at FogOfGambling@gmail.com and let me know!

The Future of Table Games? Part 1

While in Las Vegas several years ago, I noticed something that I had never seen before - what I like to call a "virtual dealer".  What looked like a multiplayer arcade style video game from my childhood was actually a Blackjack table.  The table was one large flat-laying screen on which all of the (digital) cards were dealt, players had buttons in front of them that were used to make their decisions on the hand, and a vertical screen was dedicated for the virtual dealer.  Could this be the future of table games?

Before then, the only completely automated table game I had seen was Roulette.  The first Roulette machine I had seen looked very similar to a slot machine - it was for a single player, and there was no real gaming equipment like chips or a wheel.  I never played it, but since they were right next to a bank of normal slot machines, I thought that the casino was able to pre-program the return (money paid back) like they do on other machines.  Looking back, this probably wasn't the case, but let's face it - unless you really believe in dealer signature, visual ballistics or things like that, Roulette isn't the greatest game to try and win at anyway.

Then there was the next step up - same concept, only with a real Roulette wheel.  Right now, I do not recall if a dealer was required to spin the ball because the game was closed.  This had more closely resembled the type of Roulette I was used to seeing, as multiple people could bet on a single common outcome.  There was no actual table with a layout, but several touch-screens had been setup around the wheel where people placed their wagers.  At the time I thought, "hey, that's pretty cool... I wonder what they'll think of next."

The next thing was the virtual dealer.  That's where they crossed the line.  I'm a real big fan of technology advances, but I believe that this was an example of poor application.  On the surface, it doesn't take much thought to see why virtual dealers may be a good idea.  Dealer errors are eliminated - no more miscounting hands or taking bets that push or win, et cetera.  Additionally, the game is faster - the pace only determined by the players.  But by far the biggest plus for the casino must be the savings on the employees they don't have to pay to run the games.  Virtual dealers don't need breaks, get sick, need benefits paid to them, or require floor supervisors nearby.  Faster games and lower operational costs lead to increased profits, right?

Wrong... well... let me rephrase that... not always.  All else being equal, faster games do lead to an increase of expected profits for the casino.  Operational costs are a bit trickier.  With a fixed number of customers, it may be advantageous for the casino to have more tables open (and therefore increased operational costs) than necessary to accommodate these players.  For example, one player on each of six tables can be better than those same six players on one table (this concerns yield management, which might be a topic for a future article).

Where was I?  Oh yes, virtual dealers.  The problem with virtual dealers is that they are replacing real people.  People are a very important part of many service based industries... just ask any marketer.  Have a question about the game?  Good luck asking the virtual dealer.  Want to have a conversation?  It might be a bit one-sided.  Okay, I'll be the first to admit that sometimes you don't get the friendliest real dealer, and this is something that casinos need to pay particular attention to.  Variability in service delivery is just something that comes with the territory.  It should be carefully controlled, but it's a relatively small price to pay for having real people involved.  What about the price players don't pay?  Players don't tip virtual dealers... but assuming the same monetary outcome, I'd rather be entertained by a good dealer and tip them rather than save a few (more than a few?) bucks and interact with a machine.  What does this mean? 

It means that in my opinion, fewer people will be willing to play on these electronic tables when faced with an equal choice of a real live game... and that means lower profits from these tables.  Remember when those continuous shufflers started appearing on lower limit Blackjack tables?  Same kind of effect.  The casino was able to increase the potential hands per hour (and perhaps deter card-counters) by eliminating hand shuffling, but many people were reluctant to play on those tables if they could find a "normal" one.  Did the gain in number of hands offset the alienation of some players because of the shuffler?  Honestly, I don't know - I don't have the data on that.  I also don't know for sure if these electronic tables are giving casino managers what they expected.

Some may argue that the lower operational costs of electronic tables can translate into lower table limits for players.  That's a valid point.  My counter-argument is this: Internet casinos.

Click here for Part 2...

Do you have a topic or question related to casino gaming that you'd like to see discussed on this blog?  Send me an email at FogOfGambling@gmail.com and let me know!

The Captain's 5-Count Method

I have been asked to comment on The Captain's 5-Count Method for Craps, which is a shooter qualification criterion.  It basically says that a player should wait until the shooter makes a certain number throws before betting.  The original article can be found here: http://s113152270.onlinehome.us/proof.shtml  After reading about the method and the "proof" given by some advocates, I am now ready to give an explanation of my point of view regarding this strategy.

Firstly, the data given in the article is somewhat incomplete/misleading.  Total wagers are given for the "Bet-All" and "5-Counter" players, but it is not explicitly stated if these are on a per roll, or per resolved bet basis.  However, after stating that the loss is approximately 1.5% after making Place bets on the 6 and 8, we can assume that the total wagers are calculated on a per bet resolved basis, as opposed to per roll. 

Additionally, the average loss per shooter is given for both types of players, but the number of shooters used in each of the calculations is not shown clearly.  The simulation used 200 million random shooters, so total losses were divided by 200,000,000 in order to come up with the average loss per shooter.  The problem with this is that the 5-Counter did not bet on all of the shooters, so the comparison of averages at this point is meaningless.  It should be obvious that the less often you play, the lower your average loss per all shooters will be.

So, you think this strategy helps avoid the Point-Seven-Out (PSO), or the Point-get-a-few-rolls-then-Seven-Out shooters?  Well, sure it does... and according to the article, that's 50% of all shooters - 100 million in the given example.  But once you enter the game on the shooter's sixth roll, guess what happens?  Using the same mathematical basis, 50 million of those shooters should still seven-out within five rolls - again, 50% of shooters you bet on.  So what will you use to avoid the P+5SO or Point-get-a-few-rolls-plus-5-then-Seven-Out shooters?  Use a 10-Count method? 

It is irrelevant how many throws a shooter makes without a Seven-Out if you're not betting, and you do not have a better chance of winning if you use the 5-Count method.  The article admitted that the losses per money wagered for both the "Bet-All" and "5-Counter" players were about 1.5%, and this should signal right away that you are probably going to lose the same amount of money if you are using this method... just at a slower pace.

What of the claim of making Craps a positive expectation game?  This claim is actually true... sort of.  The method proposes that a player can expect to win playing Craps as long as comps are factored in.  Well, the article states that the casino rates a 5-Count player as if he/she had bet on every shooter, and this is not always the case.  Some supervisors are aware of betting frequency, and they can lower the rate at which a 5-Counter receives comps.  But IF the 5-Counter is rated as if he was betting all the time, it is at least possible to have a positive expectation on the game after factoring in the comps.  But you don't need a 5-Count method for this to be true - you could simply bet on every other shooter and achieve basically the same effect.

Then there's the issue of controlled shooters.  Supposedly, if there is a shooter on the table that is able to deliberately influence the outcome of the dice, then the 5-Count method will have you betting on them more frequently than if you were not using the method.  Again, this is probably true.  I don't want to get into a discussion about dice controllers/influencers at this moment, but IF (big "if" there) it is possible to influence the dice AND there just happens to be one of these people on your table, you actually would have a better chance of winning (contrary to what I said before)... but I'd think that you wouldn't need a 5-Count method to figure out when to bet.  That's just my opinion.

So is the article in question full of lies?  Absolutely not.  The only issue I see is with how people tend to interpret it.  Some Craps players say it works, but have fooled themselves into thinking that they have avoided the shooters that seven-out within five rolls, or that they have better chances of winning because they only jump in during the longer rolls.  Unfortunately, long rolls have very little importance to you if you are not betting, and when you jump in, you might as well toss your count out the window, because your chances of avoiding a quick seven-out have not improved.





Do you have a topic or question related to casino gaming that you'd like to see discussed on this blog?  Send me an email at FogOfGambling@gmail.com and let me know!