Comments on: World Game Protection Conference: Day 3

By: Mike Aponte

Mike Aponte — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:25:30 +0000

What I found surprising is that the same lack of knowledge and understanding that’s prevalent among gamblers also exists on the casino side of table. Before the WGPC I didn’t go in with a pro or anti-surveillance bias. During the course of the conference I gained a better understanding of all the responsibilities of surveillance and game protection. If I owned a casino, having a top notch surveillance team would be an important priority. It’s just good business sense.

By: Alvin

Alvin — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:24:55 +0000

Interesting to see it from the survelliance side. It definitely gives me a different view of them. I wonder how much money casino’s estimate that they lose to cheaters and internal theft. I’m sure they wouldn’t publish that information. I also wonder if they ever estimated how much revenue they lose out on by having bad cut cards and no mid-shoe entry. I remember a while back, I was in the high stakes pit at Caesar’s. (Watching not playing of course!) This one guy was beting a couple grand/hand. He leaves and then comes back like 30 minutes later. And the dealer wouldn’t let him re-enter mid-shoe. I couldn’t believe it. He just bounced to an empty table, but he could have just as easily gone to another casino.

By: Randy

Randy — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 04:22:18 +0000

It’s funny how the casinos are screwing themselves with the no mid-shoe entry and bad cut cards. I can’t count cards but I hate how my local casino has a 2.5 deck cut card. I find it interesting that you seem to be a little bit pro surveillance in your post.