Eye Feedback

Scott, I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to throw some light on the surveillance function. Although I hope that floor staff will now have a better understanding of that area, I feel that it is important that they realize that my opinions are ONLY my opinions. As with all casino areas, there's more than one way to run a surveillance department successfully. It would serve no useful purpose for floor employees to suggest to their own surveillance people that "they're doing it wrong", based on my comments. I'd like to take this opportunity to wish you good luck with this groundbreaking website and all your future endeavors.

Q: I'm curious about how you track game speeds on different games and what is considered acceptable for industry standards? Also what happens to dealers who don't deal to these levels?

A: It's as simple as counting how many hands (individual player box hands and dealer hands) are dealt during a shoe and dividing that figure by the number of minutes it took to complete the shoe. That is, if it takes 12 minutes to complete a shoe that yields 72 hands then we get a figure of 6 hands per minute. The shuffle time is taken apart as a separate statistic.

Many such samples are taken and an average is calculated from them. Similar calculations are used for the other games using spins, rolls or hands per minute. The averages then form a base from which profit forecasts may be made and budgets constructed. The exercise should not really be used as a means of evaluating individual dealers.

It should be noted that there are many factors which the dealer cannot control and which affect the game speed or the outcome of the samples. These include player decision speed and game interruptions like drink spills, etc. These factors are noted on the game pace audit worksheet and should be taken into consideration if significant.

Although industry standards may exist, too many different situations arise to allow such standards to serve as more than a rough guide. Instead of measuring game pace audit results against other casinos' results, an individual casino would be better served by measuring its present results against those of its own past studies in order to ensure that accepted standards are being maintained. Those individual standards should be decided by senior management based on local conditions and budget considerations.

It should also be noted that "fast" is not always synonymous with "good" or "profitable". Take the example of the craps stickman who overruns the bases, ending with losses through dealer error and unsatisfied customers. Every dollar paid or pushed in error is a direct hit to the casino's bottom line. Consider that, mathematically speaking, around fifty individual $5 player hands must be dealt in order to retrieve the revenue lost on a $5 blackjack error.

Numbers never tell the whole story and dealers should not be "rated" or "appraised" via a surveillance monitor. Neither should it take a game pace audit or a bunch of industry standards to identify a slow dealer. Instead, that responsibility falls to the games supervisors who should routinely recommend retraining for any dealer who consistently fails to adequately pace his game. A dealer who has the correct attitude need not give game pace audits a second thought.

Q: It seems that every time we call surveillance to help us with a matter, the dealer or the supervisor gets written up or suspended. We feel that your not there to "help" us. Knowing this, most of us only call when it's a serious problem. To me this is bullshit.

At times it might not seem like it, but the casino owners trust you guys. As openness is the foundation of any trusting relationship, it's important that you call attention to anything that could possibly be misconstrued as a breach of that trust. Dealing and supervisory procedures are, for the most part, easy to adhere to and go a long way in protecting employees from being placed under unfair suspicion. Any deviation from those procedures could conceivably cost the casino big time so it's important that the employee is given a little reminder of that. The important thing to remember is that if you usually do your job well and don't take your work home with you, you will be considered a valuable asset to any casino operation. A couple of warning letters a year is nothing beside your good reputation. Call it in!

Q: I can understand the frustration that you as leader in your field must feel when a floor supervisor chooses not to call you because he believes it will only get someone in trouble. I too believe that surveillance is the last bastion between job security and hitting the pavement. How do we create the relationship that does not invite collusion and yet makes a professional connection that allows the supervisor to feel he has made the right decision by "making the call?"

A: Easy! We have to convince casino management that to err is human. Contrary to what is normally stated, surveillance doesn't "get anyone in trouble"; people manage that on their own. Surveillance operators don't make any judgments or decide punishments; they just report the facts. It's up to casino management to engender confidence in their supervisors in order that they feel secure in reporting their own errors. "Making the call" is always the right decision, even if you suffer by it. Reputation is the view others hold of you. Character is what you are when nobody's looking.

Q: I've been in this business for 15 years. First off I would like to commend the both of you for making this interview a very interesting informative page on this website. Truly unprecedented. When I heard that Dicedealer.com was going to interview someone in surveillance, I expected a disaster. You both kept your ass on the fence. Wise decision. Then I started thinking.

Brian, are you or any casino surveillance organization trying to recruit table games supervisors to contemplate a career change? In my opinion that seems to be the theme here. Your answers are very articulate and

A: Thanks for your comments, Jeff. Individual casinos normally do their own surveillance hiring, either internally or with the help of the various casino employment agencies. The idea of the interview was to let floor staff know a little more about what surveillance is all about. It's a difficult job that is made a lot easier when full cooperation is received from the floor. Many casinos are hiring surveillance operators at the moment, so if someone were considering the move, now you at least have some extra information to go on.

Q: Personally, I would never make it as a surveillance guy. I would be fired within a week. I would be looking for suspicious activity alright. That suspicious looking blond or that redhead. I wanted to ask about the babes and those cameras of yours up there. But in light of what's happening in Atlantic City recently, would I be correct in assuming this is not a good time to ask? .....LOL (State claims casino fired two unjustly)

A: You mean "blonde", right, or....? Part of the surveillance operator's job is to monitor the actions of ALL employees, guests and vendors while they are on or around the casino floor. For the surveillance department to be effective it is necessary that each operator remain independent in the selection of subjects for monitoring. That said, the operator should have a professional objective in mind with each and every camera selection/move he makes. Sexual harassment laws and policies apply inside a surveillance monitor room as elsewhere. By the way, I consider female surveillance employees to be as competent as their male counterparts. I have used male pronouns exclusively throughout the course of this interview for reasons of convenience only.

Q: In your opinion, does a casino surveillance operator make a better income than other jobs in non-gaming related surveillance?

A: I believe that all games positions' pay rates are based on what the top dealer takes home in wages and tokes. In order to make a floor promotion attractive the supervisor pay scale must exceed that amount. The same applies when you are trying to attract experienced dealers into surveillance. I imagine that casino surveillance personnel generally earn more than non-gaming related surveillance workers unless the casino's policy is to hire non game-experienced surveillance operators also.

Q: The best dealers have the mentality of a gambler. The best cops have the mentality of a crook. The best surveillance operators have the mentality of a spy or voyeur?

A: I don't agree entirely with your theories. When I was a dealer I found that I developed the capacity to relate to a gambler's mentality, although I never had that mentality myself. The best dealer, in my opinion, has and always will have the mentality of an entertainer. The gambler dealer places his focus on the game, the result and the chip tricks. The entertainer dealer focuses on the customers; the people who built the casinos. The entertainer makes more money for all concerned, except the satisfied customer of course, and probably lasts longer in the business. Spies and voyeurs both function best when nobody knows they're there. They are illegitimate and unauthorized observers. Surveillance, on the other hand, operates overtly in the positive role of asset protector. I would say that the best surveillance operator has the mentality of an accountant. Everything has to add up or be investigated until it does.

Mike, TGS from Las Vegas wrote:

Q: We as a casino introduced a new training program for the surveillance crew. We certainly were not the first, but I was surprised by the results. The surveillance crew were to come onto the floor and follow many of the transactions that they watch and are called upon to make decisions on (ie. table game fills, slot jackpots, game closing, etc.). Am I simply naive, or is this a basic training tool for surveillance? The reason I ask this question is that hostility that exists because of surveillance write ups may be avoided if the person doing the writing has working knowledge of the incident. Do you agree or disagree?

A: I agree that an untrained surveillance operator is going to cause a lot of problems. First though, let's get the "surveillance decisions" out of the way. Surveillance personnel should not be called upon to make any decisions regarding floor transactions. The operator's job is to monitor and record the transactions and report upon any variance from established WRITTEN procedures. It's the casino managers who must act on those reports. Obviously, if the operator doesn't know what he watching he won't be able to report a variance. During the interview I stated my preference for ex-table workers as surveillance trainees due to the fact that they had knowledge of the games and some idea of floor procedures. I've found that it's a lot easier to train someone on the complete paper trail of a fill, etc. when his first question isn't "What's a fill?" Whatever the case is with your casino's surveillance operators, be they ex-dealers or ex-street, there is no excuse for their being trained by floor staff. I think you have more problems in your surveillance operation than just a lack of procedural knowledge.

Steve, Craps dealer from Laughlin, Nevada wrote:

Q: We called surveillance the other day because of a dispute on the call. They called back and said they couldn't see dice either. What's up with that?

A: I see that you're a dealer Steve so I would hazard a guess that you didn't personally make the telephone call. I can assure you that if surveillance is using the latest equipment they can read the identifiers on the dice, never mind the spots. One thing they can't do is control what a pit boss or supervisor tells the staff or guests. As a general rule (in the casinos I've worked in anyway), surveillance doesn't get involved in dice call disputes. The stickman calls the dice before knocking them over, if necessary the boxman overrules that call. That's the end of it.

M.T TGS from Las Vegas wrote:

Q: I once asked a surveillance operator if he switched four hundred cameras in an hour, was it a possibility that he switched to the wrong area and therefore a picture was not taken because of his error. He told me that yes it had happened before to him. I asked him if he was written up for this terrible transgression. He said that he had not been. He became curious about the questions and asked what the purpose was for the inquiry. I simply said that a dealer deals an average of four hundred hands an hour and that a mistake should not be posted on the marquee. Who monitors the surveillance crew and documents their mistakes and human indiscretions (44ds)? It is a battle out there and I believe that to be humbled makes understanding and creates the atmosphere to receive maximum benefits from both parties. Would you agree?

A: An average of 400 hands an hour!? You must have your players well trained! You ask who's monitoring the surveillance operators. Surveillance operators are supervised by up to three levels; supervisor, room manager and director. They are also, as a department, externally scrutinized by gaming commission agents and a senior casino management who usually want to see a good quality video tape recording and report for everything that they consider important. Although surveillance operators may be written up, suspended and fired for misconduct like anyone else, the job is not like any other gaming related job. A dealer's performance, good or bad, is rewarded "table for table". In contrast, the surveillance operator functions as part of a team where no one member receives individual external recognition for his successes or failures. It's not unheard of for an entire surveillance department to be fired for the mistakes or indiscretions of a few. Try walking a mile in THOSE shoes.

Feedback:

Although the interview is over please feel free to respond to this subject

M.P. Casino Shift Manager- from Las Vegas wrote:

When you said: " I can state with confidence is that dealers who are not involved in the cheating activity are at least partly to blame for any losses, 100% of the time. The dealer's primary responsibility is to protect his game." That sir is the bottom line here. (you should have included the TGS) I consistently try to convey such a message, as all managers should. It breaks my heart to terminate people who have the ability to read that statement but don't seem to understand it.

Brian, craps dealer, from Las Vegas wrote:

Scott, you got your ass kicked around there a bit. That guy was out of your league. The first lesson in interviewing people is for the person asking the questions to control the interview. He had you in the palm of his hand.

Charlie, craps dealer from Reno, Nevada wrote:

Scott, your interview is very informative. But what does it have to do with craps? This should be a craps website, not a tool for management!

Bill, TGS from Biloxi, Miss. wrote:

Nice educational section on surveillance Scott. It has put a different light on the subject, that's for sure. I would like to respond to the interview by saying; when I lived in Las Vegas I was fired once because I wasn't watching my game. So be it. In hindsight I was told by my shift manager

" According to surveillance............."

He "implied" that the eye in the sky decided upon a termination.

Cathy, Blackjack dealer, Indiana writes:

When replying to a dealers question about surveillance at a meeting our shift manager gave an adequate answer then advised anyone with a computer to check this interview out.

Just thought you would like to know.

James, TGS from Las Vegas writes:

I enjoyed your interview with Brian about surveillance. So much in fact I enrolled in a class at UNLV. To my surprise, the class instructor is George Lewis who you gave reference too in the beginning of the presentation. You know something? I just may investigate a transfer to the EYE.