Casino Player Rating Systems in Australia
| Premium Player Rating Systems and Standards in Australia. By Andrew MacDonald Gaming Manager, Casino Operations, Adelaide Casino, 1996 |
Casino Analyser Reference Complimentary Allowance |
Introduction | The Adelaide Casino Complimentary Policy | Terminology | Other Australian Casinos | Complimentary Policy Profitability | Analysis of Rounds per Hour on Blackjack | Rounds Per Hour (per player) | Hard Versus Soft Comps | Rating Efficiency Levels | Conclusion |
| 7 decks dealt | 6 decks dealt | 5 decks dealt | 4 decks dealt | 3 decks dealt | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 player | 209 | 205 | 199 | 190 | 180 |
| 2 player | 140 | 136 | 131 | 129 | 120 |
| 3 player | 104 | 102 | 99 | 95 | 90 |
| 4 player | 84 | 82 | 79 | 76 | 72 |
| 5 player | 69 | 68 | 68 | 62 | 60 |
| 6 player | 60 | 58 | 56 | 52 | 54 |
| 7 player | 54 | 51 | 52 | 48 | 48 |
This shows the number of variables which exist in determining an average decision rate. The speed of the dealer, the number of boxes played, the player’s decision time, deck penetration may all play a role. In addition to this, dependent upon the players skill level, the Blackjack edge may also vary.
The combination of these factors may seriously distort the complimentary value calculations for individual players. Whilst they should average out over the long run individual players disadvantaged by the method may be left with a negative impression of the Casino. This is true for all games where decision rates are variable dependent upon the volume of play at the time and the various bets with different edges available on the same game. The ultimate complimentary system would be based on absolute knowledge of turnover levels, skill levels and bets placed. No such system for Casino table games currently exists, thus the most appropriate system is an average system with individual over-ride capabilities.
