Will My Winning Streak Continue?

Question:  when i play [Craps] i take 2 come bets with 2x odds ......i play $25 dollar chips….i might maybe take a very ocassional hard way or field bet if i am playing with their money…..i have been keeping records of my won loss record as well as money won lost per session.
am i getting lucky and running hot or does this look about right to you ?
also keep in mind that when i play IF i lose 600 i fold the tent cap the loss.
if i am winning i usally will play until i make 2,000 or just get exhausted which ever comes 1st.
as of now i have 12 online sessions 2 live sessions that look like this.
WON 10
LOST   5
Live + 550….+ 175…...= 2 wins
online…all pluses on the this colum,,,1050…975…460….860…465….1445….1515….527
Online all lost….minus….410….620…500…540…510

do you think i am riding a hot streak or do you think the continuation of such type numbers could be realistic ?
I am under no illussions that i can beat the game or earn a living at it…...on the other hand i am starting to get the feeling i could vist AC like 8 times a year and come away a winner 5 of the 8 times for an overall profit.

Thanks for your question.  My honest answer is that it is impossible to accurately predict how you will do in the future playing Craps based on what has happened in the past.  There is nothing that says that you couldn’t continue winning like you currently have been… but there’s nothing that says that it won’t end, either.  Since the math of the game is not in your favor, it is more likely that you will not continue this streak… but that’s only “more likely” - nothing definite.

That’s probably not the kind of answer you wanted to hear.  Sorry about that.

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 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!

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!