Card Counting in Australia
| The effect of card removal at the game of Blackjack, and counter measures casinos employ to prevent exploitation by players in Australia. By Andrew MacDonald Gaming Manager, Casino Operations, Adelaide Casino, 1994 |
Introduction | Brief Overview | Card Counting Legalities (Precedents) | Counter Measures | Profit Analysis | Sensitivity Analysis (%profit) | Conclusion |Bibliography | Blackjack Simulation- Experiment- December 1990 | Experiment Conclusion |
To combat the effectiveness of card counting systems, casino operators in this country and around the world have implemented various counter measures. A brief outline of some of these is listed below:-
(N.B The current counter measures employed by the Adelaide Casino are marked with an asterisk)
The listing of some of the other counter measures is not intended to imply support for their use.
*a. Use of more than one deck. Multi deck games increase the starting advantage of the casino, as well as substantially decreasing the fluctuations in percentage advan tage experienced throughout the shoe. The Adelaide Casino utilises four to eight decks in the play of all Blackjack games.
*b. Lesser deck penetration prior to reshuffling. As card counting systems rely on information relating to changing deck composition, lesser deck penetration reduces the degree of certainty in the short term. Conversion of a running count to a true count by the card counter is done by dividing the running count by twice the number of decks remaining (dependant on the system used). Therefore, the true count is inversely proportional to twice the number of decks remaining in this case. The true count is utilised by the card counter to make betting and playing decisions. As the divisor is increased (decks remaining) the result will obviously decrease. Also fluctuations in advantage are substantially flattened as deck penetration is reduced, as is the percentage advantage experienced reduced. The Adelaide Casino standard policy is that normally one cut card (shuffle marker) is placed one deck in from the end of the stack with another placed half way in from the rear of the stack. The cutting card placed at the 50% penetration level is used to initiate the shuffle only when card counters are present.
*c. Restriction on bet size to the table minimum if a player enters a Blackjack game after the initial round or first two rounds of play have been dealt, or if a subsequent round of play is missed prior to reshuffling. This requirement obliges the card counter to play all hands of a shoe and not just wait till he/she has a positive expectation. This substantially decreases the counters percentage advantage as they then must play minimum bets for most of the shoe at negative expectation (see (d) for Adelaide Casino usage). This has a large effect only if maximum table limit spreads are low.
*d. Restriction on the number of boxes playable by one player. This requirement reduces the betting potential of the card counter in positive situations to either one or two boxes at the table maximum. The Adelaide Casino provisions relating to (c) and (d) are:-
1. A player who has not made a wager on either of the first two rounds of play in any shoe may enter the game on a subsequent round of play, but may be restricted by the casino operator to wagering on a maximum of two boxes, to the minimum limit posted at the table on each box, until the cards are re-shuffled and a new shoe is commenced.
2. A player who after placing a wager on either of the first two rounds of play, declines to place a wager on the third or any subsequent round of play may be restricted by the casino operator to wagering on a maximum of two boxes, to the minimum limit posted at the table on each box, until the cards are reshuffled and a new shoe is commenced.
e. Exclusion of the player from the premises. Barring techniques vary widely. In Atlantic City at one time the following statement was read to suspected card counters:-
“You are considered to be a professional card counter. You are not allowed to gamble at a Blackjack table in this casino. If you attempt to do so, you will be considered a disorderly person and be evicted from this casino. If you subsequently return to the casino, you will be subject to arrest for trespassing. You may participate in games other than Blackjack offered by the casino.”
This practice has been discontinued in Atlantic City after Mr K Uston’s litigation. Nevadan casinos have also excluded card counters from the premises as have most European casinos at one stage or another. Australian casino operators generally do not exclude card counters from the premises due to State Government regulation.
*f. Restriction on the unit increase allowable by players at a Blackjack table. This stops the card counters from increasing his/her bet from the table minimum to the table maximum in one step. Some casino operators prohibit a unit increase of more than three times the previous bet. This practice reduces the card counters potential advantage by decreasing the allowable amount to bet in situations where the player has a positive expectation. In Adelaide a recognised player may be restricted to a maximum bet of ten times the table minimum (per box) on any one round.
g. Reshuffling of the deck when a card counter substantially increases his/her bet. This obviously returns the deck to the casino’s starting advantage.
h. Continuous automatic shuffling machines within the dealing shoe. These machines return the deck to standard after each round of play. However, they are bulky and the technology does not appear to have been developed sufficiently at this stage. Most such automatic shufflers merely shuffle the cards at the end of the deck/s and are not continuous random shuffling devices. Worse still some such devices actually increase the opportunity for shuffle tracking.
i. Rule changes which make the game as a whole less attractive. This practice has the effect of increasing the casino house percentage and thus changes the probability of situations with negative expectations.
j. Preclusion from play at the game of Blackjack. This policy is structured on the basis that a betting transaction at a game is in essence a contract. With there being no obligation on either party in entering into such a contract. That is just because the operator offers the game of Blackjack does not mean that the operator must accept bets from any player. Whilst this is true in contract law other questions are raised such as anti discrimination laws, civil liberties and the practice of free trade. The Jupiters Casino in Queensland currently follows this practice.
*k. Second cutting card. This is employed to negate the productivity decrease which occurs if all Blackjack games operate with only one cutting card and substantially reduced deck penetration when card counters are present in the casino. In essence two cutting cards are placed in the deck, one at 50% penetration and the other at 85% penetration. If a counter is playing the shuffle is initiated at the 50% level.
Comment
Both positive and negative aspects apply to the counter measures listed, these will be addressed later in the text. As can be seen casinos view the potential threat of persons utilising card counting systems very seriously. The erosion of bottom line profitability by these players can be substantial which then places the viability of operating Blackjack games at risk and impinges upon shareholders returns.
