He was convinced that the rare players who have the bankroll and the brain power to stay for the whole shoe, accurately count, and use it to their advantage will not waste a lot of time at the $5 and $10 tables -- not because they can't make money, but because the other players' unpredictable (and sometimes insane) play can really mess them up.
Then he's not that savvy on card counting.
Counting an 8-deck shoe is no harder than a single deck. And counters don't give a rat's ass what the other players do - it makes no difference at all to them.
Nobody is going to make money at BJ counting cards and making unusual plays like splitting 10s... to make money, they need a good bet spread. That is, betting low (or leaving) when the count says they're getting the worst of it, and betting high when the count says they have an advantage. It's almost all about the bet spread.
As a floor (and, starting my second year, I spent as much time flooring as dealing), you're always watching the bets, for two reasons:
1. You're rating the players, and what matters for their rating is average bet size. Except in the case of whales who are betting thousands per hand, the casinos don't care in the least how much is won or lost by an individual; they care about average bet, time at table, and the house edge at that game. We look to see if they play properly, sure, but it's critical to differentiate between someone whose average bet is $10 vs someone whose average bet is $50. I saw lots of people who tried to be $50 bettors when the floor is looking, and $10 bettors when the floor's back is turned, and then try to talk their way into free rooms and steak dinners.
2. You're watching bet size spreads to spot card-counters.
Number two is, by far, the lesser. The amount of money spent on comps to people that might be playing the system is likely much higher than that lost to card counters who might otherwise have been easily caught at the table. And they also want to make sure to offer enough comps to players who are betting more than they might realize - if a person enjoys gambling and is willing to lose money, the house wants to keep their business, not lose them to another casino that comps them better. We're much more focused on the gaming revenue from the 99.9% of players than the small loss from the tiny fraction of card counters who, if they played larger, would be spotted and stopped, anyway.
Yes. All the tables have 6-deck shoes.
If there's one counter with a low spread and five other players... They'll probably just let them play, unless he's being an ass to the players. If he's entertaining, they'll likely let him slide.
On the other hand, if there's one other player and a counter playing a 5:1 spread? Different story. They'll probably tell the dealer to start inserting the cut card at 3 decks, so only 50% gets dealt. Counter gets the hint and leaves.
Side note: a good card-counter playing against a 6-deck shoe that deals 5 decks out of 6, and who has a good bet spread, will have an EV (expected value of winning) of about 1%, maybe 1.25%. Meanwhile, the house edge against the typical BJ player is more like 2.5%. (Someone playing perfect strategy is losing maybe .5%, someone doing awful plays is more like 5%.)
So if you have a couple of players paying you 2% or 3%, and one player taking away 1% but entertaining the others... do you bust up the game?
