The core principle is that a finite asymmetrical distribution enforced by an additional asymmetrical factor dictated by the rules will make slight more probable the formation of decent asymmetrical sequences.

By taking into account the columns filling speed we've seen that an overalternating movement (-+-+-+...) can only happen with the BBPPBBPP...sequence (or rrbbrrbb...etc). 
It's now that the "general long term findings" will help us to approximate when such kind of movement will happen, obviously without interest to know "how long" the overalternating sequences will last.

Anything different than that will 100% form a + or - cluster (++ or --) and again who cares about its lenght?

Therefore any 3/3+ streak will form at least a - - cluster, any streak ending up followed by a single is a + + sequence and any couple or more singles succession is a + + ...line.
The only possible pattern where + or - signs are coming out as isolated are whenever any 3/3+ streak will be followed by a double then another "no double" streak (BBBPPBBB ---> - - + - + - -.
In this scenario we'll get three isolated + or - signs.

Yet even in this example we could find a kind of asymmetrical distribution (+ coming out as isolated)

Now and to expand the last concept, let's build a sort of perfect asymmetrical BP succession where 
+ and - signs take an "isolated/clustered" shape at both sides.

For example a succession as BBPBBBPPBPPPBBPB
The columns filling speed (CFS) is - + + - - + - + + - - + - + +

Isolated - signs and + signs are followed by - and + clusters, yet the shifting side pace is one or two.

A more complicated example:

BBBBBB
PP
B
P
BBBB
PP
B
P
BB

CFS is - - - - - + - + + + - - - + - + + - -

Any - or + sign is followed by a different same sign quality (clustered followed by isolated and vice versa), yet isolated signs are just two in a row and the original succession is made by two consecutive streaks-two consecutive singles-two consecutive streaks-two consecutive singles...

Besides of this succession and of many correspondent situations (streaks lenght and singles lenght) any bac shoe will make quite room to + or - clusters (++ or --) and anyway distinct forms of apparition (isolated or clustered + or - signs) will be sooner or later followed by opposite shapes. The above example was extremized to present a perfect 0 step isolated/clustered delay as any isolated or clustered + and - sign (considered individually) was always followed by an opposite shape.

In any way we wish to consider result lines only those things could happen:

1- An important part of the shoe will make + or - signs being clustered at some point;

2- + or - individual signs shape will change along the shoe;

3- Itlr + and - signs move more likely by 1 or 2 steps vs superior steps (sums will be slight shifted toward the left), but this feature must be considered by a lot of caution as our primary strategy will always be directed to get clusters of something.
So by taking into account those opposite factors, only +/- double clusters will get us a two-fold propensity. Obviously once a pattern had surpassed the first (losing) 1-step, we should not be interested to chase any longer.

4- Even consecutive isolated + or - signs will constitute a pattern, but most of the times this is just a second-level strategy as generally it happens at few segments of the shoe.

See you next week.

as.

3- Most of the times the original BP succession will make room to many "opposite" simultaneous situations happening at sub sequences

And of course those opposite situations are showing up by more likely "ranges".

Let's consider the basic (very simplified) example of the common derived roads (byb, sr and cr).

The BP shoe's fragment is BPBPBPBP

byb: r,r,r,r,r,r

sr:  r,r,r,r,r

cr: r,r,r,r

At all three d.r., just one "color" happened: the red. This is strong asymmetrical situation derived by a kind of perfect symmetrical BP original sequence.

Along with BBPPBBPPBBPP... and BBBPPPBBBPPP... (and other very unlikely superior perfect symmetrical BP sequences) those are the only spots where all d.r. present just red spots.

Then there are the infrequent long B/P streaks forming possible long red successions that anyway must start with a blue sign at all derived roads.

In fact long BP streaks will delay the columns filling speed at all derived roads, so producing long lines of -1 spots.
Yet here the overalternating results production will be somewhat reduced. But mostly by an "isolated/clustered" statistical point of view as the +/- rhythm cannot be uniformed shaped for long.

More later

as.

2- A long term successful player must be able to exploit the actual asymmetrical situations always considering that the asymmetrical world could be extrapolated by innumerable ways

For example how do you consider a BBPPBBPPBBPP succession?

Possible answers:

a) This is a perfect "balanced" situation as B=P, our registration (see above) will get a
-+-+-+-+-+- symmetrical sequence;

b) This is a perfect asymmetrical deviation as there are no singles and no 3/3+ streaks;

c) The columns speed is "neutral" so featuring a 2-step moving rate.

At the end the BBPPBBPPBBPP sequence will make as constant perfect opposite features, so we'll need to exploit just one of the three possible factors to get a homogeneous detectable succession.

But in the real world such B/P sequence won't happen so frequently, most of the times stopping after two or three BBPP patterns.

Yet the general probability teach us that doubles are the most likely occurence, anyway we do not know whether such doubles will show up consecutively or intertwined with singles.
Or of course not happening at all so far.

Now let's consider a more "mixed" pattern sequence as:

BPPPPBBPBPPPBBBPPB

B= 7 and P= 10

Our registration will get a +---+-+++--+--+-+ succession.

How many symmetrical patterns are you able to spot on?

Just one.
That is the -- patterns being clustered two times in a row (hand #12 and #15).

There are no "silent" pattern categories showing up for long and the columns speed is
+1, -1, -1, -1, +1, -1, +1, +1, +1, -1, -1, +1, -1, -1, +1, -1.

More importantly, we see that - signs will come out more clustered than isolated (3 times vs 2 times) and + signs will show up more isolated than clustered (4 times vs 1 time).

The +/- hopping situation where both + or - signs will happen alternatively either isolated or clustered for long are not happening at the vast majority of shoes.

As an asymmetrical card distribution cannot arrange results by an overalternating QUALITY factor acting at both sides for long, so quality takes a primary role over quantity.

Check your shoes and let me know how many times an overalternating +/- isolated/clustered sequence will take place at both sides and, more importantly, about how much long this possible event will happen per any shoe played.

Let baccarat experts keep stating that baccarat is a unbeatable game, it's our interest to  confirm they are right.

as.

1- The higher two card initial points are overall strongly math favorite to win the final hand

Obviously we want our side to get a 9, 8, 7 and a 6, yet any side getting a superior two card point vs the opposite side will win a lot more hands than what a 50/50 proposition will dictate.

Thus any 2 point vs any zero point or any 3 point vs any 2 point will win by a percentage way superior than 50/50.
The reason is because about 30% of the shoe is "neutral", that is formed by zero value cards (third card/s) not changing the first situation.

Of course many first two card situations present the same point (especially a zero point at both sides), so the third cards impact will decide the final hand's destiny.

Moreover, some card distributions keep privileging one side (especially the Player side that is entitled to draw more third cards than Banker) so kind of disrupting a math propensity for long.

Nonetheless, the vast majority of card distributions will make more probable some greater two card initial points ranges, the reason why an average final amount of columns will be filled no matter how are whimsically distributed the cards.

Even though it's impossible to know when a high two card point (6, 7 or even an will succumb to an even greater point (at the first or after two stages), a part of those math underdog situations will come out at our favor, but this is a transitory unwanted spot that itlr will make us losers and not winners.

I mean that ranges must be assessed either from a general point of view (general distribution and average speed acting toward the right end of the display) and by actual situations that most of the times aren't showing up by symmetrical paces.

More later

as.

The following is an article I came across about professional gamblers and others in reference to the Dragon 7 or the Fortune 7 exploitation bet.  The article was written by Max Rubin with references to Dr. Elliot Jacobson, with that misinformation article a while back that was published on the Wizard of Odds forum.

I will put my two cents in here before I copy and paste the article. One side of wagering for a Fortune 7 also known as the Dragon 7, 40:1 wagers is the following.  IMO, experience and knowledge about the wager-for myself and my protocols of wagering for it, is that I like it.  Although I do not wager constantly and repetitiously for it. I have a greater than 50% rate on it and have profited from it quite well in the past several years. Like everything in the game a baccarat, if you wager on anything repetitiously you will eventually be ground down and lose all your buy-ins as well as your bank roll.

The simple fact that is indisputable reality, concrete solid reality is most will only talk about, is that the game of baccarat can be counted down along with several of its side bets. But as Max Rubin says, within this article, is the huge $100,000 plus bank roll a player will need to have for a possible return of somewhere around $25 an hour. Go figure.  Well said! 

In theory, talkers are great but the bottom line is, in theory and not at the tables in reality. In reality the game is presented completely different than the math and the theory it appears to have.

START ARTICLE.  On the Friday before G2E, Dr. Elliot Jacobson published a short paper at wizardofodds, which illustrated how a card counter could theoretically exploit the Dragon 7 wager on EZ Baccarat and win a quarter of a betting unit per hour.

By the time the show was in full swing, the article had convinced a number of table game operators that the Dragon 7 wager was so dangerous that the now-popular EZ Baccarat side bet should be modified or removed. 

This is a perfect example of how a little bit of (published) information can be a dangerous thing. The reality is that offering players EZ Baccarat—with the Dragon 7 wager—is one of the easiest—and smartest—decisions a table game manager can make, for one simple reason:

Professional advantage players simply will not play EZ Baccarat and count down the Dragon 7 wager. Why? It's one of the least profitable advantage plays a competent professional can (or will) make.

To understand why, let's look at the math, as proposed by Dr. Jacobson. In a perfect world, assuming that the casino were to deal a full eight-deck shoe every hour (which they don't), if the player were to wager $100 on the side wager every time there was a slight advantage, the player could harvest a whopping $25 an hour.

And that's if the conditions were perfect. By perfect, I mean that they would be able to sit on the game for hours on end without making a single Player or Banker wager (impossible) and that they would also be assured of getting a full 80 hands an hour (nearly impossible, as well) and have no need to tip (after hitting a $4,000 bonus—highly unlikely).

If that weren't enough to dissuade the pros or wanna-be pros from tackling the game, in order to make that near-impossible $25 an hour, they would also have to be willing to risk a $100,000 bankroll on the high-volatility $100 wager to avoid an unacceptable risk of ruin. And then they'd have to factor in expenses (travel, lodging, etc.).

In fact, it would be much easier for a seasoned pro (or even a novice counter) to grind out an easy $25 an hour earn—with a much smaller bankroll and a limited risk of exposure—by simply playing existing blackjack games (shoes, 6/5 or Superfun, you name it), the same games they've been exploiting for years. Or they could play some other games/side bets that are more easily exploitable, including Caribbean Stud (which can be played at a 2.3 percent advantage on every hand with shared information and miniscule bankrolls), Mississippi Stud (at more than 3 percent) with shared information and Shuffle Master's "Margin of Victory" Dragon Bonus, which can return a 10th of a betting unit each shoe with a very small risk of bankroll ruin. Yet none of these games has been assaulted by the pros; they're just not worth the time or effort. 

There are two kinds of advantage players—those who talk about it and those that make a living at it—and I don't know a single professional advantage player worth his salt who would even think about sitting on a game on which he would make that measly $25 an hour. But I digress.

The proof that savvy table game operators should continue to offer EZ Baccarat and the Dragon 7 wagers is indisputable; long before Dr. Jacobson released his paper, the pros were aware that game could be counted down, yet none of them played it and in virtually every instance in which an EZ Baccarat game has replaced a conventional baccarat game, the EZ game has made the casino more money.

To further clear up any confusion, check out what Jacobson himself said following the show:

"For the record, I don't believe the Dragon is vulnerable in a significant way. The typically low house limit as well as the high variance of the wager will make it unappealing to professional players. I don't think any changes need to be made to the game to protect it."

Jacobson further explained, "The potential earnings are small and the volatility is enormous. It would require an immense amount of time and a huge bankroll to yield a very small long-term profit. Any casino that removes the Dragon 7 wagers from EZ Baccarat based on my article is making a mistake. No competent advantage player will attack it. Like blackjack, the fact that it can be counted in theory is more likely to draw valuable customers. However, unlike blackjack, no undue measures need to be taken to protect it. I strongly believe my analysis will help those casinos that place EZ Baccarat make more income from the game, not less."

I've known about the theoretical possibilities of beating the Dragon 7 wager for almost a year, yet as a consultant for Barona casino, I have urged them to continue offering EZ Baccarat and the Dragon 7 wager—which they have, with great success.

Should table game operators fear professional Dragon hunters? The answer is no. Why? Because there aren't any.

The following is an article written by Roger Gros, IMO a fantastic and super intelligent casino expert. 

Ethical actions versus unethical actions by casino executives exists, in the past as well as today.  The difference is, in the past it was blatant and today it is, "let's see how we can manipulate and still be within the rules and regulations we have to abide by". 

Anyway, what Roger Gros is referring to in Atlantic City, is where I got my start in gaming and introduction to high limit baccarat.  I have written about it before.  OMG, the baccarat rooms and pits were ungodly busy with stacks of money being thrown up on the tables and exchanged for chips.  Although Roger highlights the movie, 'Owning Mahowny' (which by the way is worth watching) the majority of the money back then brought in by players, was from their businesses in the New York City, Northern New Jersey and Philadelphia markets.  Legal money as well as illegal was brought in and accepted, no background checks of course and only federal CTR's when the $10k limit within 24 hours was hit.  No SAR's or anything of the type.  $10k - $50k was really not out of the norm by any means whatsoever. 

Side Note.  The casino hosts were the front line defense as well as the offense for their employers, the casinos.  The hosts would alert their players when they approached certain levels of play and how to avoid being CTR'd, etc.  As well, a large amount of players would play under fictitious names and their hosts would check them in to the hotel, obtain their room keys, all without the player ever being ID'd. 


Start Article.  When I was a dealer in Atlantic City in the late 1970s and early '80s, I saw a lot of unethical behavior by casino executives. After spending some time as a blackjack dealer (a long time!), I became a baccarat dealer and was promoted to deal in the busiest pit in the city at the time. In those days, Atlantic City was a boomtown. Millions of dollars crossed the tables in that pit every day, and some of it was what we'll call ill-gotten gains.

Now, the baccarat pit was dark, and had many columns creating different segments. Back in its recesses stood a phalanx of blackjack tables that were usually busy, but in the daytime, it was quiet. It was during those times certain characters, escorted by top-level casino executives, would show up with small suitcases. They would be filled with money and the process of a "buy in" would begin. I remember, one day I counted out $500,000, and passed the chips off to the player, who played one hand (for $500) and cashed in.

Now, to be clear, while I think this was clearly unethical, at the time, it was not illegal. It was the days before money laundering laws were put into place, or the "$10,000 rule" as we called it then, which required casinos to record and obtain identification of players who engaged in transactions in excess of that figure.

In another event, I was brought in specifically to deal to a "rich" Canadian gambler. He didn't look rich, wearing a flannel shirt and jeans. But he was the fastest baccarat player I ever saw, and there were only a few dealers who could keep up with him, playing $10,000 to $50,000 a hand. It turns out, he was a bank clerk from Toronto who was embezzling money from his bank and gambling at the casino. The incident was later made famous by a movie, Owning Mahowny, which I haven't seen yet. I wonder who played my part. But because the casino failed to investigate the source of his funds, a severe penalty was charged, with the casino forced to close for two days.

Neither of these events was technically illegal, but they were certainly unethical and no doubt, 30 years later, are today illegal.

These days, there are enough rules and regulations to control these kinds of things, but there are still many ethical issues that need to be addressed.

We have many examples, some of which are emanating from Macau these days. Questions about the VIP operators, the effectiveness of the Macau regulations and the commitment to anti-money laundering programs abound. Are background checks even conducted there? In many ways, Macau regulations are like Nevada regulations in the 1950s and '60s. While many jurisdictions understand and accept that Macau is going through these regulatory growing pains, others won't wait.

In many areas of the world, gaming regulations are being scaled back because of the economy. While the casino industry applauds this move for the most part, there needs to be a combined effort between the industry and government to ensure that while unnecessary regulations are eliminated, integrity does not suffer.

And of course it's in the casino industry's best interests to focus on integrity. If the games aren't secure and the operators aren't squeaky clean, the industry is at risk.

And as we move into the legalization of online gaming, ethics become that much more important. There is so much potential for abuse (which we've seen clearly by the illegal operators), if major licensed casino companies become involved, it's important that the operations and regulations are transparent and fair.

Now, I don't mean to suggest there's an absence of ethics in the gaming industry today. There's not. In fact, most of the gaming executives I know are completely ethical, almost to a fault. But we're entering a new phase in the industry, by inviting in online partners and operating in a financially depressed market. The pressures to do something that may be considered unethical are growing, and hard to resist sometimes if the payoff seems acceptable.

In my view, however, there is no payoff to conducting yourself unethically. You wouldn't sell your soul, and in a sense, that's what you're doing when you lack ethics. Let's keep gaming on the straight and narrow so we never have any questions about whether we're doing our best for our customers, our employees and the shareholders in the enterprise.

Will table-game discounting be the downfall of the casino industry?

The following is a great article I ran across from 2011 written by gaming expert, Roger Gros.  It highlights what Don Johnson did mostly with baccarat and his multi million dollar wins, etc. 

START ARTICLE:  Everybody loves a winner, and Don Johnson seems to be a favorite of all casino gamblers. Although he built a very successful horse-race handicapping business and managed Philadelphia Park racetrack for a time, Johnson's fame has risen from his proficiency in playing blackjack at Atlantic City casinos.

Over the past year, Johnson has won $4 million from Caesars Atlantic City, more than $5 million from the Borgata. But his biggest "score" to date—and the one that attracted most of the media attention—was a $5.8 million win at Atlantic City's Tropicana in April. While Johnson admits to some losing sessions, his success, he says, is due to one key concession from the casinos where he plays: a discount on his losses.

Johnson's consistent wins made some suspect that he may have been cheating or manipulating the cards, but others knew better. He was merely taking advantage of a situation that the casinos themselves agreed to. Johnson understands numbers and proposed set game rules, betting spreads and limits, and discounts on losses, which he says was crucial.

Discounting History

Table game discounts are hardly a new development in the gaming industry. They've been going on for at least 30 years. Jim Kilby, a casino consultant, former executive and author of Casino Operations Management, the "Bible" of any gaming operation, is critical of how casinos offer these discounts and claims to have been there at the beginning of the trend.

"I'm sorry to say I may have been partially responsible for this when I worked at the Trop (Las Vegas) in the early '80s," he says.

According to Kilby, the competition for high rollers was reaching a peak at that time.

"We had a group of high-rolling gamblers who would come in and play for 50 or 60 hours each trip," he explains. "They'd lose around $1 million and take months to pay it off. So our casino and others made a deal with them. If they paid off their markers before they left, they'd give them a 5 percent or 10 percent discount."

While it seemed like a rational offer at the time, Kilby said discounting began to spread like wildfire.

"It began to spread as executives moved around," he says. "If a baccarat pit manager wanted to move down the street, that casino would want him to bring players with him, so they would agree to deepen the discounts. It became a vicious circle. It's insidious."

The problem, says Kilby, is that the discounting isn't as simple as it appears.

"It looks like the discount only costs you 10 percent," he says, "but it's usually more costly. We discovered that for the average discount player, we just broke even. And that was without the expenses of actually operating the marketing department."

Kilby shudders when he hears an executive talk about how his casino "beat" a particular player, explaining that there is no such thing.

"I hate that term 'beat' because you do not keep what losing players lose; you only keep the difference between what losing players lose and what winning players win," he explains. "So they ask me, 'If a player loses $500,000 and we refund $100,000, haven't we just won $400,000?' No, because you're going to have another player or another group of players that comes in and wins, and you won't get that $100,000 you discounted to the first player back from them."

Making the Choice

Casinos have to evaluate their risk when competing for the big players. Max Rubin, a former casino executive and author of Comp City: A Guide to Free Casino Vacations, believes discounting has a place in the industry, but executives have to evaluate it very carefully.

"Today's casino operators are very savvy," he says. "They understand the business, particularly the big companies like MGM, Caesars and the Sands. They know what they're doing and who they can offer those discounts to and who they can't. There is a professional here and there who will slip through the cracks, but by and large it makes the casino money. And those companies get enough business so they can overcome the deep discounts and the wins that some players make. But you don't see a Gaughan or any mid-tier operators in Vegas getting into that game because they understand that they don't understand it. That's really a crucial point to grasp."

Kilby believes the small margins make it a loser for every casino but the largest corporations.

"The good thing about premium play is that there is a high profit margin," he says. "The bad thing about premium play is the extreme volatility. When we invented the discount, we kept the bad—the volatility—but we've done away with the good—the profits."

Rubin says the big companies can still make profits even with a narrow margin.

"Unquestionably it is a small-margin business, always has been," he says. "But it's a small margin on a huge amount of money, so they can still make a lot of money."

But the smaller casinos had better beware, he says.

"If you're a single, stand-alone property and you don't have an appetite for volatility, it might not be the way to go," he says. "The Tropicana (Atlantic City), probably given the nature of where they stood with the markets and ownership, probably should not embrace these players as much as a Wynn Resorts would or one of the other big companies."

The bad economy probably influences the decision these days, says Rubin.

"Casinos get so desperate to get a big win given the erosion of profits, they are gambling," he explains. "And that's the trap that some of these smaller and stand-alone casinos get caught in. This often offsets all of the other business you take in. For example, it's highly probable that Don Johnson was betting more on one hand than all the other players in the casino were betting at the same time. It's impossible to offset. And they just ran unlucky. Had they had a war chest like an MGM would have, they could have withstood those kinds of hits. But I don't think its good business for a small casino to take the chance they'll take a hit like that."

All casinos have owners, whether they are individuals, boards of directors or Indian tribes. Rubin says the decision to pursue this action should take place at that level.

"From an operator's standpoint, there are other implications to whether you should take the bet simply because you have the edge," he says. "Some of those implications are what does it do to your quarterly earnings, what does it do to the longevity of your management team or CEO. In Indian Country, you have to answer to a tribe that may not want to embrace this volatility. An MGM, on the other hand, isn't going to worry about a player that beats them for $5 million or more. They know they'll get it back."

And there are other reasons that would preclude taking the action that have nothing to do with volatility.

"It takes all the energy out of your company," says Rubin. "If you start focusing on this player or this small group of players, everything else becomes secondary. You lose focus on the larger pool of players who are really providing the foundation for your organization. Most casinos are much better served not trying to get this business, not trying to play the game. They'd be much better served trying to get the $5,000, $10,000 or $25,000 credit-line players in action rather than pursue this often unrealistic group, where the margins are much slimmer. Those smaller players won't affect your bottom line as much, and won't threaten your career longevity either."

Aaron Gomes, the vice president of casino operations at Resorts Atlantic City, turned down Johnson when he proposed a similar deal to the one accepted by the Tropicana.

"It wasn't a smart offer, and common sense told us that it wouldn't work for us," he says.

Tony Rodio, the recently appointed president of the Tropicana in Atlantic City, says his casino's goal is simply to increase business.

"Our strategy is to offer higher limits," he told Global Gaming Business. "And the more you allow them to bet, the more they can win. When you allow a player to bet $100,000 a spot on blackjack, they can win quickly. For the first eight or nine months of the program, the Tropicana played lucky. Just my luck, when I arrive it swings back the other way."

Setting Limits

A report in Blackjack Insider said that Johnson's deal was hard to beat. In addition to his 20 percent discount, he set the rules of the game—a hand-shuffled six-deck show, standing on soft 17, splitting up to four times were just some of the rules—and the betting limits. He reportedly had the option to bet $15,000 on three spots, $25,000 on two or $100,000 on one spot.

Kilby says that was just playing into his hands.

"The casino was just encouraging more volatility," he says. "This player knew that he'd much rather bet $100,000 on one hand than smaller amounts on two or three hands."

It's the deal that makes discounting so bad, says Kilby, not the rules of the game.

"If a player can make a discounting deal with a casino and really understand how it works, he can lower the house edge on any game," he says. "There's one dice player in Las Vegas who shops deals that turn the game in his favor. The last one I looked at, he had a positive expectation of about $20,000 an hour."

Johnson's deal required him to buy in for $1 million and he'd get the 20 percent discount after he lost $500,000. But Johnson said he'd never lose the million.

"If you got to minus-five hands, you would stop and take your 20 percent discount," he told Blackjack Insider. "You'd only owe them $400,000."

It's that discount that caused Resorts to refuse his play on his terms.

"When you think about discounts, a 20 percent discount is really a 40 percent discount," says Gomes. "We'll assume that there is no edge, since the numbers are so small, so the player will win half the time and lose half the time. You'd be crazy to give them a 20 percent discount because you don't get a discount when you lose! So there's their 40 percent discount. And when you add show-up money, match play, airfare, comps, they player has the edge. It's nuts!"

Kilby says craps is even worse.

"Forget about discounts on dice," he says. "The fluctuations are too great."

Rodio found that out the hard way when a second player beat the Tropicana for $5 million at the craps table.

"We allowed a player to bet $10,000 on the line at craps," he says. "It doesn't sound like a lot, but when you throw in five-times odds; he's buying all the numbers and prop bets; he's got $180,000 on the table for every roll. If he holds the dice for 15 minutes he can win hundreds of thousands of dollars. That said, over time, it's going to swing back."

Rubin agrees about the math.

"The math will catch up," he says. "It always catches up. But if the math is in the player's favor, then you have to expect that it will catch up big time."

If you're going to offer a discounting program, you have to set reasonable parameters. Gomes says Resorts has done just that.

"We do have a discount policy, but it's a quarterly program with at least three trips during that period," he explains.

The long time period and a requirement for time played will avoid the problems encountered by creating short "trips," says Gomes.

"If you have a customer who comes in one day and loses $200,000 with a 20 percent discount, and then comes in the next day and wins $200,000, he's even gaming-wise, but he's up 40 grand! How does that makes sense?" he asks.

Kilby says the numbers will tell the story.

"Casinos have requirements on how long a customer has to play, but then have a provision for a quick loss, which is silly," he says. "Mr. Johnson in Atlantic City would be done after losing five hands, so how does that work? You have to develop an objective system.

"It cannot be based about how much a player loses. It has to be based on how many hands he plays and the volatility of his betting. And then of course you have your administrative costs."

Rubin says that it takes more than just a computer program to determine if a casino should accept action from a particular player.

"If you know your players, you'll know that some will just play as long as possible until they've lost their money," he explains. "That's just who they are. You have to know your players, and that's why you rely on your director of player development when you decide whether or not to take this action. Blackjack isn't simply about the math; it's about the people and their behavior. If you have a brand new player coming in requesting these things, the alarms should go off. But if you have a player who has a record of playing in different places with a long track record of being a profitable guest, the math won't help. You do it. That's a good decision."

that's funny. I don't really see that type of behavior much at my EZ Bac tables. I do occasionally see a few with some odd behaviors crimping the cards at the Midi tables.

A couple Asian women I see at tables together will do some hand gestures together that resembles touching palms and fingers, then doing  a circling motion with hands, and  back to the start and repeat(Seemingly brings them luck/good fortune in their minds I guess). It takes about 5-10seconds total.
Another lady always has a rabbits foot in her lap.

*However I do often see some of things u mention from nearby slot players. They do all kinds of crazy gesticulations(i.e., Touch each ear, then forehead, then heart, then do a tic-tac-toe on the slot screen, and only then push the button).  The behaviors seem very ritualistic and similar to OCD type behaviors. Usually repeated the exact same way for every spin,..etc.


To each their own I guess.

"...The Bicycle Casini admitted that a "high roller" Chinese national gambled at the casino approximately 100 times over an eight-month period in 2016, playing high-limit baccarat in a VIP room with huge sums of cash that on some occasions he transported to and from the casino in duffle bags...."

Good read.
This reminds me of a story.

One of my casinos does not open first Bac table until noonish. So I often play an ETG (Roulette) for 30mins or so) waiting for them to open the Bac table. These are by Interbloc or Evolution I believe and usually have 6 or 8 seats surrounding the video screen.

Several days in a row (or several days per week) I noticed a Vietnamese duo (One 70ish/ other 30ish) came in every day with an old brown leather rustic Harley Davidson saddle bags. The dual bags had alot of wear and actually looked like great antiques.

They would be full of $10 bills and they sat next to each other at the ETG Roulette machines and immediately started inserting bills(nonstop for 30-45mins or until I departed). I assumed they were betting against each other as they didn't seem to care what outcome showed.
I had heard from others they owned an Asian restaurant. So I just assumed maybe they had a $9 buffet and maybe that was why they had these bags of $10 bills,...etc and I didn't think much about it.

*A few months later they were charged with money laundering et al charges and the cash was actually from an illegal cannabis business. The story I heard was they had one legal cannabis business but also had several illegal ones. So they were running all the cash through the casino.


I haven't seen either in several years. Other players have told me we would not be seeing them for at least five years.



Continued Success,

Alrelax comments to my post above:

"...I used to play those hours, but not everyday, weekends and 2 or 3 day mid week trips.  However,  those were at the big 2-sided 14 player seats, 3 dealers and 2 floor people on each end of the table, type of games.  Almost non existent today. ..."


I try to play approx 8 hours per day. I view it as a job (I don't work I don't get paid). Of course some days are not paydays.   
    *I recall one day I had played approx 9 to 9.5 hours and was away from home approx 13 hours. I
    remember on the way home/stopping on the turnpike about 9pm. I put $50 gas in my car/ I was NET
    +$8 for the whole day. 

Mostly 6-deck EZ Bac shoes so during the day during the week a shoe can be completed in 55min--70mins(Early in day often only 2-3 players at table). Some of my casinos don't offer free hands or some only offer 3 free hands per shoe. Therefore I organize my daily routes so Im hitting those casinos later in afternoon so more probable 4-5 others at tables.

Playing during the day during the week is a whole different ball game IMO and more lucrative(Vs weekends--Which I typically avoid). I often travel and carpool with several other full time gamers(Mostly poker /Bac players and most 10-29 years my senior). It has been really enjoyable playing with other like-minded serious players. Great topics/discussions.

*When I first started playing/traveling with these older Bac comrades I told my wife: I know what I will be talking about when Im 75yo. A titanium knee replacement, Latest medical lab results, Weather, How I can predict the weather with my titanium knee,...etc. 
They are a great bunch of guys and played bac for many decades.



Continued Success,