Casino game protection
(Note. This article appeared in Casino Enterprise Management Magazine in September, 2010. It is re-posted here with permission. To find out more about Bill Zender, please visit his website: .)
The topic of critical thinking is something that is stressed in Business College. When I went back to school and received my Masters in Business, the process of “critical thinking” as used in the business environment was considered one of the important steps in achieving a competitive business or personal advantage. It’s important that we learn to look at things from different angles before we render an opinion or make a crucial decision. Some situations aren’t always the same as they first appear. This is true even in casino game protection. Sometimes failing to look at the “big picture” will prevent us from seeing the real problem. Sometime we focus on the symptom of the problem and not the problem itself. And sometimes we try to force the proverbial “round peg into a square hole”, because we are certain that our first impression of a situation is the true problem. Let’s examine several real life situations involving gaming and game protection, and see how the lack of critical thinking affects our ability to solve the true problem.
What are the difference between floor operations and surveillance’s perception of the threat of card counting?
Operations perspective: The player is beating us for $100, 000 in blackjack. He must be a card counter?
Situation: A blackjack player who is not counting, and has virtually no bet spread continues to win. Surveillance has checked the customer’s play, confirmed there is no card counting issues, and based on the casino procedures, can’t find any indication of marked card play, or hole-card play. They give their finding to operations, but operations still backs off the player.