Blackjack Performance Series II
(This is an article that was printed in the January 2006 issue of the Casino Enterprise Management Magazine)
Do Key Game Protection Procedures Cost More Than They’re Worth?
Last month’s Blackjack Performance Series article illustrated the importance of time and motion issues, and the importance of increasing rounds dealt in blackjack. The more hands that are dealt the greater revenue the casino achieves, and the more profit the casino can contribute towards the bottom-line. The article also indicated that there are several areas where the casino can increase their profit potential based on considering adjustment to their presently established game procedures, but where? Probably in places you as an executive least expect them; hidden in what one would think are positive attributes to game protection. Once we examine three specific game protection procedures; (1) multi-pass or complicated multiple deck shuffles; (2) prohibited mid-shoe table entry; and (3) limited deck or shoe penetration, you as an executive may wish to rethink your game protection strategy.
Multi-pass Shuffles
Although many casinos have gone to either batch or continual shuffling machines in their shoe games, many operations rely on their dealers to hand shuffle the cards. In most situations where hand shuffles are utilized, the casino executive has placed a high priority on creating a shuffle that will protect their casino against advantage players, and has not considered the cost the complicated multi-pass shuffle will cost the casino in lost rounds of play due to time and motion problems. It’s many executive’s understanding that it is better to protect the casino against shuffle tracking players, which seems tangible, then it is to worry about intangibles like the effect of wasted time. This belief is actually convoluted since the effect of time and motion issues can be calculated, while not one in ten casino executive can give a realistic estimate as to the number of professional shuffle tracking teams posed to attack a weaken blackjack shuffle. As a gaming expert very well versed in advantage play, I would be willing to say that there isn’t more then a dozen professional shuffle tracking teams world wide, indicating that most shuffle tracking concerns are well overblown.
So how much does a multi-pas shuffle cost the casino? First we need to put together reasonable assumptions and a benchmark in which to analyze the situation. Then we need to compare several different base shuffle conditions against the benchmark situation to determine relative cost or gains. Then we need to consider what external cost a simple shuffle will attract from possible advantage play situations.
For this exercise, to develop a realistic example we will use a double pass shuffle of a six deck shoe game as the benchmark condition which is also consistently used throughout the industry. A two pass shuffle consists of two entire shuffles of the six decks of cards, which, from beginning when the remain card stub is removed from the finished shoe, to end when the cards are cut and placed back into the shoe, last approximately two minutes. Next we need to estimate the number of times an hour the six decks need to be shuffled. This is based on the number of players on the table at a given timer, the number of cards each player uses on the average (2.7 has been established by several blackjack experts as the correct average), and the anticipated number of rounds that will be dealt in the sample hour.
Table 1 – Estimated Shuffles per Hour of a Two Pass Six Deck Shuffle
Time of shuffle (minutes) 2
Decks dealt per shoe 4.5
Number of players and dealer 5.5
Avg. number cards per hand 2.7
Est. rounds per hour 60
Shuffles/shoes dealt per hour 3.8
Percentage of time dealing 85%
Based on the medium size casino used in the previous Blackjack Performance article, calculations for the two pass shuffle indicate the six decks will be shuffled 3.8 times an hour while utilizing 85% of the hour dealing cards and achieving wagering decisions. If it’s assumed that the shuffle time will increase to a three minute shuffle because of the institution of a more complicated third pass shuffle, the percentage of dealing time drops to 76%, resulting in an approximate loss of four rounds an hour.
Based on these assumptions and metrics, the complicated three pass shuffle will cost the medium size casino approximately $500,000 in lost revenue annually. Is this a fair trade off for protecting the mid-sized casino against a handful of worthwhile shuffle tracking teams? On the inverse side of this argument, a decrease from a two minute shuffle to a single pass, minute and fifteen second shuffle will increase the casinos revenue potential. This increase, as compared to the two pass shuffle, could result in a gain of $375,000 annually given the same assumptions and metrics.
No Mid-Shoe Entry
A number of casinos have gone to the procedure of prohibiting entry onto an active blackjack game after the cards are shuffled and the first hand has been delivered. This technique not only has been applied to shoe game but also applied to the double deck hand held game as well. The reason most executive have turn to “No Mid-shoe Entry” is to discourage card counters who count down the game from off the table, then jump into the game and wager on hands when the deck’s card composition are in the player’s favor. Some executives also claim that this procedure is in place to keep players on the table from getting upset at other players jumping into the game and changing “the flow of the cards”. Regardless of their reasoning, “No Mid-shoe Entry” prohibits customer in mid-shoe entry situations from placing bet, and subsequently limits to some extent a customer’s ability to wager their money. Is the money lost through eliminating wagering opportunities less or equal to the money saved by the casino from discouraging professional players from back counting?
In order to develop a true picture of the effect of “No Mid-shoe Entry” we need to establish what percentage of the time a given blackjack game is in a mid-shoe entry situation, and then we need to establish an assumption as to what percent of our blackjack customers are inhibited by this game protect procedure situation. Calculating total time of mid-shoe entry situation is fairly simple. Based on the previous metric the percentage of time a mid-shoe entry situation occurs is 79% (see Table 2). If our assumption is that an average of 5% of our customers are in a mid-shoe situation, not able to immediately wager due to moving from one table to another, returning to their table of origin, or from entering the table area to begin play, the effect is equivalent to a reduction of play on all tables by 2.4 rounds (79% x 5% x 60 rounds). The example given in Table 2 is based on a six deck shoe game, however using the same calculations the double deck game isn’t much different. “No Mid-shoe Entry” cost approximately 2.2 rounds per hour in the double deck version even though entry possibilities increase from 3.8 to 11.4 (times per hour the decks are shuffled).
Table 2 – No Mid-shoe Entry Effect on Rounds Dealt in a Six Deck Game
Estimate Rounds per hr 60
Shuffles per hr 3.8
Percentage time dealing 85%
Mid shoe per hr 79%
% customers 5%
Cause Rounds per hr -2.4
When questioned about the realistic possibility that “No Mid-shoe Entry” costs 2.4 rounds an hour, I like to use the example of the “in sync dealers”. What if all you’re blackjack dealers just happened to be in total sync with each other, and had just finished shuffling and dealing the first hand as a new player entered the live game pit area? Do you know that the new player would have to wait approximately 14 minutes before he could wager on a hand of blackjack? This is an extreme example, but there will be many situations where busy periods and availability of limit tables will prevent your customers from betting when they want to, forcing them to sit and wait or search for possible non mid-shoe entry situations.
Based on the medium casino example the cost of eliminating two rounds per hour on the annual profits of the casino is an approximate decrease of $250,000. Does the elimination of back counting advantage players justify the cost incurred by prohibiting players from wager in an open manner?
Limiting Deck Penetration
This is probably the most abused game protection procedure costing the casino the most money. Many executive believe that a decreasing blackjack hold percentage can be corrected by decreasing the number of cards that are dealt to the players before the shuffle. Their reasoning…because the lower hold percentage is due to an increase in card counters playing in the casino. This is a major mistake made over and over again. How can the act of limiting wagering opportunities help create more revenue for the casino? All the process of decreasing the shuffle point and limiting deck penetration accomplishes is lowering revenues, and is a primary element in decreasing the hold percentage even further.
Table 3 – Effect of Changing Deck Penetration in the Six Deck Game
+/- number of decks 0.5
Number of players plus dealer 5.5
Avg. number cards per hand 2.7
Shoes per hour 3.8
Additional/less rounds played (hr) 6.7
Based on the metrics that have been used in this series and using a 4.5 deck shuffle point as the benchmark shoe penetration, the change in shuffle points in the six deck game alter the number of rounds obtainable per hour by approximately 6 to 7 rounds. This means that a procedure change decreasing the six deck shuffle point from 4.5 decks to 4 decks will cost the medium size casino approximately between $770,000 and $900,000 in loss of revenue because of loss in hand production.
[Note: 0.5 (half deck or 26 cards) equals 1.75 lost rounds. Lost rounds are calculated by dividing the number of cards used (5.5 x 2.7 = 14.85) into 26 cards. The number of rounds lost multiplied by the number of times the decks are shuffled equals the total number of rounds lost per hour. In theory, the lost rounds are replaced by additional time spent shuffling. The inverse situation also explains why deeper deck penetration increases rounds dealt per hour and increases blackjack’s profit potential.]
Of course these models used to calculate shuffle time, “No Mid-shoe Entry”, and changing deck penetration are an approximation of the true effect for several reasons. These reasons include the nature of the models own changing situation and shifting metrics, as well as their application in a real world situation. Nonetheless, even if the negative effect is diminished by half these three game protection procedures still indicate their losses in revenue can not be supported logically through any possible gains these game protection procedures may create by discouraging advantage play.
|
|
