Has Blackjack’s “No Mid-game Entry” Finally gotten Out of Hand?

By Bill Zender

What does “no mid-game entry” actually accomplish? As far as I’m concerned, based on issue surrounding restrictions on players wagering accomplishes nothing but costing the casinos money in lost revenue. During past seminars I have calculated that the basic rule of “no mid-game entry” will cost the casino approximately two rounds of the blackjack game per hour based on a casino that has an average of 5% of its blackjack players stuck in a mid-game situation and unable to place a wager. Is this an acceptable trade-off in revenues lost when considering it against the possibility that your casino may or may not have saved money from deterring the occasional back-counter that could be playing in your casino? (Note: Losing two rounds on a medium size casino [15 to 20 blackjack games] will cost the casino approximately $250,000 per year in lost revenue.)

I think the use of “no mid-game” entry procedure in casino blackjack has finally gotten out of hand. After reviewing the latest copy of Stanford Wong’s Current Blackjack News, September 2006, it has become apparent that “no mid-game mania” has finally reach the length on North America and has permeated practically every casino market from Las Vegas mega-resorts to Native American gaming hall. My question; why? Why has this “perceived” game protection procedure “serpent” grown so many heads? Have we all finally lost our minds?

Here how it all started:

• No mid-game entry

Several years ago no mid-game entry started out as a fairly legitimate game protection procedure that was used by casinos to deter “Big Player” count teams from table hopping. It also prevented individual card counters from back-counting six and eight deck shoe games. Some individual counters used back-counting as a way to sidestep detection by the floor and surveillance since they didn’t have to employ a large “attention getting” bet spread in order to gain a 1% average advantage over the casino’s shoe games. What many gaming executives didn’t realize that the procedure of not allowing players to join the game in mid-shoe cost them more money in lost revenue then they gain in counter deterrence savings. As consultant Bob Del Rossi comments about no mid-game entry, “The casino wants everyone to gamble…but not just yet”.

(Note: a card counter back-counting a six deck shoe game and jumping into the game on “plus” counts only provides him or herself with approximately the same theoretical gain as the counter who sits through all counts and spreads from one to sixteen units. This happens because the back-counter only wagers on approximately 20 hands out of 100, or an average of 12 hands an hour.)

Now here is where this whole idea goes bad. After reviewing the rules of all casinos in the Las Vegas areas I discovered that forty-four casinos utilize some form of no mid-game entry (Oh, yes there’s more then one procedure). How many of these casinos restrict mid-game entry only to multi-deck shoe games? Would you believe none? That’s correct, not one of those forty four casinos use no mid-game entry only for the specific purpose it was design for; to protect against back-counting and team play on the four, six, and eight deck games. Only two of the forty-four casinos use this restriction on shoe blackjack games, while still using the same restriction on their hand dealt games. That means the over whelming majority use no mid-game entry on single and double deck games; games which require minimal bet spreads in order for the card counter to gain a 1% edge over the casino. What’s up with that?

Now let’s go back to Wong’s blackjack report and see what other methods of “no mid-game entry” are used in different casinos throughout the gaming industry.

• No mid-game entry and no mid-game spread to multiple hands

I guess this makes some sense. If you restrict entering a game after the dealer has dealt the first hand, then it makes sense the same restriction should be put on the player who got in under the wire.

• No mid-game entry upon request

Here’s a casino that hasn’t decided whether or not they want the player jumping into a game in progress. At least their open minded enough to accept addition players, but what criteria do they use to determine which players should be denied participation?

• No mid-game sitting out hands; must sit out until shuffle

Under these conditions the players getting in under the “no mid-game entry” wire may also fall pry to the same restrictions if they elect to sit out a hand. I hope no one has to stop play to get out their hanky.

• No mid-game dropping from two hands to one; if you do you can’t spread back to two hands

Concerning this procedure; why? Card counting is a system used to collect information and the ability to use this information deeper into the deck. Very few counters would consider dropping a hand and then trying to wager on it later, especially in single and double deck games.

Then we have a few casino executives that have an understanding of the degree of revenue loss through restricting play and allow the smaller bets to enter the game. At the same time they also attempt to prevent higher wagering card counters from plying their trade. But doesn’t this school of thought punish the normal big player that represents the most valuable segment of your casino customers?

• Limited Mid-game entry allowed if bet is equal to or less than an implied amount

I’ve seen that several casinos allow bets below a specific limit to be placed during mid-game situations. These limits range from $100 to $500 mostly at the Las Vegas mega-resorts.

• Maximum aggregate bet limits on mid-shoe entry

A few casinos have established “aggregate” limit restriction on mid-game entry. The question is how is the amount of an aggregate amount determined? Does it represent all entry attempts during the no mid-game period?

• Limited Mid-game entry allowed if bet is table minimum

Again the question is why do you want to restrict the amount of wager a customer makes? Doesn’t the casino win more money when more money is wagered? And why would anyone want to enter a game and have to wager the table minimum?

The next several rule restrictions seem to be based on someone’s creativity. They are good examples of how the basic procedure of “no mid-game entry” has been misused and abused since the original procedure was first instituted.

• No mid-game entry at specific times and/or sometimes enforced
• No mid-game entry on games with minimums of $25 and up
• No mid-game “backline bets” after shuffle (Connecticut)
• On “no mid-game entry” games, entry is allowed during first third of the shoe

All the previous examples illustrate how useless and ineffective no mid-game entry really is. If it were that effective wouldn’t the wagering restriction be more uniformed in nature then the multiple headed serpent it has become?

Over the last several years every time I walk through a casino that utilizes the no mid-game entry restriction I find a casino executive on duty I ask them why they discourage players from playing on games after the dealer has dealt the first hand. The answers I get basically fall into three categories, which I will list below:

The three main reasons why casinos opt to restrict mid-game play:

1. To prevent card counters from back-counting games and jumping in on rich decks
2. Keep players, specifically coupon players, from jumping into games and disrupting the customers on the table
3. Because the guy down the street is using no mid-game entry

We’ve already discussed why reason number one doesn’t accomplish what it was design for in single and double deck games so there’s no need to rehash that subject.

Reason number two is interesting. It was suggested that the players on the table like the “no mid-game entry” rule because they don’t like players jumping in and changing the flow of the cards. I thought this was part of the game of blackjack. A player can enter and leave the game at their own discretion. Haven’t they been doing this for years? And if that’s the real case, then why isn’t it a policy on all games, not just the hand dealt games? I once asked a shift manager at one of the “off Strip” locations why they had “no mid-game entry” on their double deck games, and he told me it was to keep the 2 for 1 coupon players from disrupting the games while in progress. When I pointed out that all his double deck games had a minimum of $10 and the 2 for 1 coupons were limited to a maximum $5 bet and could only be played on $5 minimum table, he couldn’t come back with a reasonable answer for that situation.

Now we come to the third reason. When I conducted a little more research, the most common reason for restricting mid-game entry was, “the other guy does it”. Most of the time the reason why a casino put in “no mid-game entry” was due to the fact that some other casino in their area was already doing it. Usually it was one of the major gaming companies. “If XYZ is limiting mid-game entry then it must give them some sort of gaming advantage”. If the big boys are doing something it has to be good, right? This isn’t always the case. Major corporations tend to fall into a decision making processes problem know as “group think”. Some person, usually a person high up in the organization, decides that a certain idea or processes is the best for their organization. Then the rest of the executives in that group immediately agree with the decision. In many cases contrarian thoughts or ideas are never examined, and in many cases a person possessing contrarian opinions is considered to be “not a team player”. Consequently, some of the major gaming corporations have jumped on an idea and will not come off their position even after someone proves their position is costing their operation money through lost revenue. My suggestion; don’t always listen to the big boy, think the situation through yourselves.

Let me throw this question out to everyone one more time for consideration. If “no mid-game entry” was the solution for a specific problem such as back-counting a blackjack game, then why are their so many variations to the rule, and why isn’t it being used on the game type it was originally meant to protect? This situation alone should cause enough reason why the “no mid-game entry” procedure should be called to question. Does it accomplish what needs to be accomplished? Is this procedure best for your organization? You make the call.