• Author / Uploaded
• tkk

Citation preview

Bill Zender’s

Casino-ology

 

“With affection beaming in one eye, and calculation shinning out the other” - Charles Dickens - Quote from Martin Chuzzlewit, 1844

February 2010 This month’s Casino-ology topic is more abstract in nature than normally discussed, but still proves an important point in table game time and motion issues. The question posed to me by a casino executive is based on the theory that one big player playing alone on a blackjack table makes more money than one big player and a couple smaller players playing on one blackjack table together. Is this theory true or false? Is it important or irrelevant? Take a moment and grab a hot cup of good Kona bean coffee, get comfortable in a chair on the veranda, and enjoy this month’s Casino-ology. Casino Executives Question: Can you help me? I was wondering what would financially be better for the casino in one round; 6 players wagering $1,000 each on one blackjack table, or 6 players wagering $1,000 on 6 individual tables. Zender’s Comment This is an interesting question. Do several players wagering alone on a number of blackjack games win more money, in theory, than if they are placed on the same table? Well, a short question requires only a short answer. Zender’s Reply: If we had unlimited tables, CSM's, and didn't have to pay the dealers or supervisors, it would be best to have one player per table. We could expect approximately 200 rounds per hour per table on six tables, or 1,200 hands per hour. On one table with six players we could expect 62 rounds per hour that would generate 372 hands hour. In this situation, I would take 1,200 hands per hour over 372. This theory does not work well in the real world for a number of reasons. Zender’s Explanation: In a perfect situation, one player per table is the optimal situation for gaining the most playing decisions within the realm of real world situation. The game of blackjack, dealt by a human dealer across an actual green felt layout requires the use of an economic element known as “utility”. In real life situations, two

1   

utilities exist; (1) cost in monetary value to accomplish the task, and (2) time in order to complete the necessary number of tasks required. For example; if the casino had six blackjack tables available for six players, it would require about eight dealers and several supervisors to accommodate the six $1,000 players. However, if there were more players, say 100, to function under the same criteria, the casino would have to purchase 94 additional tables, and hire 125 dealers, and a large number of additional supervisors. That’s if the existing casino is large enough to accommodate the increase in tables. The cost to hire the additional dealers and supervisors, and the necessary tables might be quite high, not to mention any modifications needed to enlarge the table game’s area. Second, the primary utility of “time” must be considered. It takes a blackjack dealer time to deal the cards, complete the players’ hand strategy requests, play out their hands, settle the different hand outcomes, and prepare for the next round of cards. This time utility breaks down in the game of blackjack on the average as follows: • • •

Time per player hand: 8 seconds Time per dealer hand: 5 seconds Time between hands: 5 seconds

Using these established time utility measurements, it takes approximately 18 seconds for a dealer to deal a round of blackjack to a solitary player hand at the table. Using the same metrics, it will take 58 seconds to deal a round to six player hands at the blackjack table. Based on the casino executive’s question, it would be an advantage for the casino to deal to one player per table on the six separate tables than have all six players on one table. Since the dealers playing against six separated players accomplish the same task simultaneously, one round to six players will take only 18 seconds. Using these criteria, by the time one dealer could deal one round to the six players on one game, the six dealers on six tables would be able to accomplish three rounds, and in less time. Does this offer up a worthwhile suggestion to the gaming world? Not really, because this situation involves the mixture of theory with a small dose of reality, and is not a reflection of the real world situation the casino executive is contracted to deal with. This story does support the need to develop a table limit strategy for adjusting minimum limits upward when necessary, and also a limit strategy supporting the raising of minimum limits to accommodate the large limit player. Funny, most executives don’t even consider a limit strategy for accommodating the bigger players on the lower limit tables. For instance, if a $100 minimum bet player lands on a dead $25 limit game, what should you do? Immediately raise the table to $100 minimum. It’s a calculated fact that one player at a table wagering $100 creates more revenue potential then a lone $100 player joined by several $25 players.

2   

Table 1 – Three Players vs. One Player (six decks utilizing a CSM)

Average Bet per Player (s) Rounds per Hr Handle H/A Theo Win

3 Players $ 150 106 $ 15,900 1.2% $ 191

1 Player $ 100 200 $ 20,000 1.2% $ 240

By raising the limit and isolating the $100 player, or at least limiting additional play to other $100+ players, the game has a higher revenue potential. At first consideration, a table accommodating three players, betting a total of $150, sounds like a better deal that one player sitting on a game betting $100. However, when you consider the effect of time and motion that allows the lone $100 customer to participate in 200 hands during that hour, versus the 106 hands experienced by the three players, your opinion will quickly change. If you have any comments on this article, please contact me via email: [email protected].

3