Card Counting in Australia

Introduction | Brief Overview | Card Counting Legalities (Precedents) | Counter Measures | Profit Analysis | Sensitivity Analysis (%profit) | Conclusion |Bibliography | Blackjack Simulation- Experiment- December 1990 | Experiment Conclusion |

Card counting systems are simple, efficient and effective. They may be mastered by anyone with time and patience and provide the competent user with substantial profits under the right conditions.

This trend is substantiated throughout the world in casinos where card counters may play unfettered. In Tasmania for example the Wrest Point Casino has had a growing problem with these players since approximately 1980. In that time the number of known or recognised card counters has increased to some 30 players whose winnings total not in the thousands or even hundreds of thousands but potentially in the millions of dollars.

The counter measures available to any casino are controlled to varying degrees by the Government Regulatory Body which controls that casino. Even though these players are obviously also effecting Government revenue by reducing gross revenues, in some jurisdictions this factor is outweighed by the objective of the regulatory body in remaining an objective, unbiased statutory entity. Where this is the case card counters may still play in the casino but certain restrictions may be placed upon them.

Whilst these counter measures reduce the card counters potential profit, in most cases, they by no means negate the advantage, also the counter measures that must then be used can themselves reduce profitability. For example, when deck penetration is reduced the dealer must then shuffle more often, thus reducing the turnover achieved by other players. This can have a substantial effect if all tables in a casino or even in a pit are cut to the 50% level if card counters are playing in the casino. In an eight deck game this increases shuffling time by approximately six minutes per table per operational hour. The magnitude of this increase in non productive time is enormous when viewed in the context of the total number of tables and the operational hours in a week or a year.

Obviously the ultimate countermeasure for the casino operator is indeed the “ultimate” strategy or system which is available to any potential player in a casino of a negative expectation game, namely not to play it. Whilst there is no obligation on any person to play any game in a casino (which are all negative expectation games for the unskilled player) why then must an obligation be placed upon the casino operator to accept all bets from all players? Whilst some authorities claim that this concept infringes upon civil liberties, anti discrimination laws and the right of free trade the Queensland Casino Control Division has a refreshing point of view on the subject.

This control body maintains the following general philosophy:

The Government approved casino legislation on the basis that casinos would generate millions of dollars in revenue both directly and indirectly. The games of chance which were approved for play were approved on the assumption that they were positive expectation games from the casino view point and that the individual house percentages were authorised by the Control Division. Therefore, where a player or players may jeapordise the revenue generated by “changing” the expectation of a game the casino operator need not be obliged to accept wagers at the game from these particular players. In fact the casinos themselves are not defined as public places and special right of entry by the Police had to be written into the Casino Control Act.

Thus the Queensland Casinos after identifying card counters follow the policy of allowing them to play any other game but Blackjack. At this stage no person who has been restricted in this manner has taken legal action. Crown law advice, apparently, has suggested that any legal undertakings would be unsuccessful on the basis of contract law.

In Tasmania where the Gaming Commission considers itself to be more objective, the casinos have gone through what may be described as a war with the card counters. Restrictive measures have come and gone with varying degrees of success. The Gaming Commission has authorised various rule changes and procedures which may be applied to counters. The problem is recognised by the Commission in that without the counter measures the casino operator may not be able to continue to offer the game of Blackjack to the general public.

Perhaps another solution will eventually be the development of a continuous random shuffling device.

Until such time as this occurs the search for an equitable solution which satisfies casino operators, regulatory bodies and the law will continue. In the meantime Blackjack remains as the backbone of most Casinos in this country as well as many other locations in the world.