No they don't - they get that way by making their money somewhere else. Like, if you read carefully, this guy did. You are a retard. I already knew that from some of your other posts, but confirmation is always good
The loss rebate didn't allow him to "clean them out". The poor grasp of the basic economics of the situation on this thread is astounding. The rebate is always given on an amount of play that insures it does not create a positive expectation situation. The guy simply got lucky, and not even outstandingly lucky. Your average slot jackpot winner has experienced a bigger gambling outlier in terms of probabilities than this guy did.
Big D, I agree with your posts, however I'm not sure about this: The rebate is always given on an amount of play that insures it does not create a positive expectation situation. You have some knowledge of this or is this just something that you would think they would do?
That is ridiculous to say. In the history of AC, nobody got this lucky in 33 years. We could probably throw in Las Vegas too. Cleaning out one casino, could be luck, cleaning out 3 in a short period, must be some skill or a system... I read all the profiles in the link I provided listing the BlackjacK Hall of Fame players, the biggest winner was 1.5 million a year if I recall. For comparison, here is a list how much they win online, the biggest is just a bit over half million: http://www.blackjack101.biz/blackjack-winners.htm
that is either one lucky or one skilled player whatever someone wants to call it. a smart player that can leave the casino with the winnings. the fact that he did it three times at 3 different casino's that is not luck. winning the lottery or a big jackpot in slots is luck. maybe just one smart player with lots of luck that knows how to take the money & run. how many gamblers can do that. very few. since greed is the killer for most. i rather be lucky then smart in this situation. he is laughing all the way to the bank.
This particular comp is a very old one, and is very well understood by the industry or at least the parts that will take high stakes table game action. Generally when a whale approaches the casino, the "courtship" goes something like this: - whale expresses his interest in playing game X at stakes Y and asks for a comp - the house, as a measure of good faith, extends a room, food and beverage comp (known as "RFB" in the industry) to get the whale in the door. - ground rules are negotiated - min and max bets etc. In the case of blackjack at these stakes those ground rules would effectively neuter conventional counting through a small gap between min and max bet. - the house expects to see some play in exchange for the RFB comp - during that play, the house evaluates the whale's play using both computer software and their own blackjack expert/card counter. The result of this is an estimation of the house edge. - the whale requests a rebate comp (20% or whatever) - based on knowledge of the size of the house edge against athis player, the house can compute how long a run the rebate has to be over to avoid a positive expectation for the player. There are pre-computed tables for this that the high stakes boss should have handy (or have memorized, more likely). Based on that the rebate comp is offered, valid only if the player plays for some number of hours/days of play (or possibly if the player hits some very large loss limit before that). - the house computer and blackjack guy continue observing play to ensure the player hasn't suddenly improved and to keep and eye open for cheating. While high stakes table game sophistication is not super-common in the casino industry, no casino that lacks it will offer those stakes.
You're confusing whale blackjack play with counting play at posted table stakes. It's basically impossible to count in an environment like he was playing in because the high stakes ensure the casino gives you maximum scrutiny. Under those circumstances the casinos are willing to risk FAR more than they are at a conventional table where players can bet a much wider spread. In other words, the amount a skilled player can win at blackjack is severely limited, but a whale playing basic strategy can potentially win FAR more by means of luck.
What typically happens with a player that has a rebate is the guy/gal losses his entire credit line. So a million dollar credit line player that losses it pays back 800k. Now if he tries and pocket money and say he lost his million the casino usually won't honor the rebate. So although the math of the 100k player betting 1 dollar is correct it does not happen in the real world. Now the other thing is people have this impression that they are being watched. There are usually at most 2 people in the surveillance room. So counting cards happens all the time. You pick them out on how they bet. Unless you are greedy you will fly under the radar. Pretty much anyone can get away with it if you limit your bets to a 5 unit or a 10 unit spread. Ex 10-50 or 10-100. Playing 10 and then 3000 will get you stopped pretty fast. I dealt to this asian lady for a months. She was allowed to play 25 a hand to up to 3 hands at 40k each. HUGE spread. She was so obvious on her counting but she also played the martingale when the count was good. 25 to 50 to 100 etc all the way up to 3 hands of 40k each. Thing was when the count went back to normal she was back down to 25. She made a few hundred a day for months. Then came the ass kick. She lost all the bets from 25 - 3 hands at 40k. She then played 2 more hands of 3 hands of 40k. She lost her entire credit line of 500k in a matter of 20 or so hands trying to make a few hundred a day.
I posted before on how Kerry Packer won and lost tens of millions. He was not the only billionaire who had done this. As for the the winning 3 in a row in a short period of time argument, it doesn't really mean anything but in any case, the guy says he also lost money, but refuses to disclose where and when and how much. So he may well not have won 3x in a row!!!
Again, is this something you made up or is it something you have real inside or first hand knowledge of?