3 ms·

Adding to this as someone who has mingled with people that worked at some casinos: if you're losing very badly and seem like a 'problem gambler', sometimes they

Adding to this as someone who has mingled with people that worked at some casinos: if you're losing very badly and seem like a 'problem gambler', sometimes they'll send someone to try and dissuade you. It's bad PR if the casinos ruin people. On the other hand, if you're winning a lot, you will get A LOT of scrutiny and extra measures, and if you're cheating, you'll probably get caught. This is likely why she had that level of nagging doubt. "Am I not winning enough to warrant extra scrutiny? Certainly if I was that good they'd have figured out what I'm doing and busted me?"

bluntfang 6y ago
>if you're losing very badly and seem like a 'problem gambler', sometimes they'll send someone to try and dissuade you. It's bad PR if the casinos ruin people. That's a really good point. Casinos aren't a windfall business. They're there to rake the 1% advantage on blackjack. It's important to have people at the tables moving money, not to have 1 person lose their $100k nest egg in 12 hours.
- rlucas 6y ago
  I disagree. Although I'm not in the business, my understanding from wide reading in the topic is quite the opposite. Casinos make money from "whales," who may or may not end up ruined to a man, but who are certainly losing enough money to ruin an average bettor. The guy losing $500 at BJ once in a while (and once in a blue moon winning some back) is the "economy coach class super saver" flyer. Yes, enough of those small fry help defray the fixed costs of the flight. But it's the last minute business class flyer that brings the margin. Similarly, the real money for the casino is in some mix of 1. problem gamblers, almost by definition, and 2. money laundering.
kelnos 6y ago
> "Am I not winning enough to warrant extra scrutiny?" I didn't really understand this bit from her, though. Her position in the team was not to win a lot, but to bet consistently, probably overall slowly bleed money, and signal the Big Player to come over when the count was favorable. "Not winning enough to warrant extra scrutiny" is literally her role in the team.

bluntfang 6y ago

>if you're losing very badly and seem like a 'problem gambler', sometimes they'll send someone to try and dissuade you. It's bad PR if the casinos ruin people. That's a really good point. Casinos aren't a windfall business. They're there to rake the 1% advantage on blackjack. It's important to have people at the tables moving money, not to have 1 person lose their $100k nest egg in 12 hours.

rlucas 6y ago
I disagree. Although I'm not in the business, my understanding from wide reading in the topic is quite the opposite. Casinos make money from "whales," who may or may not end up ruined to a man, but who are certainly losing enough money to ruin an average bettor. The guy losing $500 at BJ once in a while (and once in a blue moon winning some back) is the "economy coach class super saver" flyer. Yes, enough of those small fry help defray the fixed costs of the flight. But it's the last minute business class flyer that brings the margin. Similarly, the real money for the casino is in some mix of 1. problem gamblers, almost by definition, and 2. money laundering.

kelnos 6y ago

> "Am I not winning enough to warrant extra scrutiny?" I didn't really understand this bit from her, though. Her position in the team was not to win a lot, but to bet consistently, probably overall slowly bleed money, and signal the Big Player to come over when the count was favorable. "Not winning enough to warrant extra scrutiny" is literally her role in the team.