[cmeacham98]

Given that they mention 'penetration' I can practically guarantee they're talking about card counting, I can't think of any other reason it would ever matter.

Semi-offtopic: It seems like it would be very easy for casinos to completely prevent card counting at blackjack.

I wonder if the fact a lot of games are beatable is intentional bait for novice counters that will screw up and lose. Maybe casinos have done the math on this and figure they win more from the novices than they lose from the experts (before they kick them out).

[umanwizard]

> I wonder if the fact a lot of games are beatable is intentional bait for novice counters that will screw up and lose.

This is surely part of it. The other factors are that many non-advantageous players dislike continuous shuffle machines for superstitious reasons, and using a traditional shoe (not continuously shuffled) but massively decreasing penetration leads to less hands per hour (and therefore less profit) due to time wasted shuffling. So neither of the most obvious countermeasures is free for the casino.

But honestly, even though it’s still beatable, the modern shoe game is way less profitable than old-school single-deck games (and casinos that still offer single-deck, like El Cortez in Vegas, are famous for watching them like a hawk and kicking out players they have the slightest suspicion are counting). So it’s not like casinos have done nothing to protect themselves from advantage players.

[lotsofpulp]

I assume card counting is already pretty impossible due to automated shuffling machines with a ton of decks in them.

[umanwizard]

Card counting is indeed impossible on games with a continuous shuffling machine that shuffles after every hand (or every few hands). But many games don’t use those, because they’re expensive, and even non-advantage-players dislike them for superstitious reasons.

Indeed, plenty of games do use CSMs which is one of the many reasons card counting is harder and less profitable than it was in the past. But it’s not impossible.

[lotsofpulp]

Interesting, thanks for the additional info.