Table Games Performance Analytics • Aurora Crown Casino

1

Analytics Overview

Casino Name

Prepared By

Analytics Date

Reporting Period

Department Owner

Review Type

Games Reviewed

Main Purpose

Information Source

Review Status

Final Management Review Required

All fields are editable. Changes update the generated brief.

Validate Fields

2

Performance Snapshot

Total Drop

$428,500

+4.8% vs prior period

Total Win

$74,250

+9.1% vs prior period

Actual Hold

17.3%

Within expected range

Expected Hold Range

14% – 18%

Target range

Average Occupancy

68%

Peak: 85%

Rated Sessions

186

153 complete (82%)

Total Fills

$186,500

Net movement +$24,500

Open Floor Issues

7

3 medium risk

3

Drop, Win, and Hold Summary

By Game • Sample Period

Game	Open Tables	Drop	Win	Hold %	Expected Range	Movement vs Prior	Manager Note
Blackjack	6	$156,000	$24,300	15.6%	12%–16%	+4.8% drop	Stable result and normal hold
Baccarat	3	$142,500	$31,900	22.4%	14%–20%	+9.5% drop	Hold above range; review large-player sessions
Roulette	2	$82,000	$11,700	14.3%	13%–19%	+2.1% drop	Normal result; pace affected by buy-ins
Three Card Poker	2	$48,000	$6,350	13.2%	18%–24%	-3.7% drop	Hold below expected; review side bet activity

Hold % by Game vs Expected Range

Visual comparison for quick review

4

Hold Movement Explanation

Actual Hold

17.3%

Expected Hold Range

14% – 18%

Hold Status

Within expected overall range

Highest Hold Game: Baccarat at 22.4%
Lowest Hold Game: Three Card Poker at 13.2%

Overall hold is normal, but individual game movement needs review by game mix, large sessions, table limits, and sample size.

Important: Hold is actual casino win divided by drop. It is not the same as house edge. Short-term hold can move because of player luck, large wins or losses, game mix, table limits, buy-in behavior, and amount of play.

Hold movement should not be explained by one factor without checking supporting operational information.

5

Game Mix and Limit Review

Game	Share of Drop	Share of Win	Main Limits	Limit Change	Occupancy	Game Mix Comment
Blackjack	36%	33%	$25 – $100	No major change	72%	Strong base game with steady activity
Baccarat	33%	43%	$50 – $500	Higher evening limits tested	64%	Smaller table count but strong win contribution
Roulette	19%	16%	$5 – $100 (inside/outside)	No change	61%	Stable, but slower during buy-in periods
Three Card Poker	12%	8%	$10 – $100	No change	58%	Lower hold and lower contribution need review

6

Occupancy and Table Utilization

Time Block	Open Tables	Occupied	Occupancy	Main Pressure Point	Management Note
12 PM – 4 PM	8	4	50%	Low afternoon activity	Consider staggered openings
4 PM – 8 PM	10	7	70%	Evening build-up	Normal demand
8 PM – 12 AM	13	11	85%	Peak baccarat and blackjack	Review staffing and table limits
12 AM – 4 AM	7	4	57%	Late-night slowdown	Normal reduction

Peak Occupancy

85%

8 PM – 12 AM

Lowest Occupancy

50%

12 PM – 4 PM

Best Utilized Game

Blackjack

72% average

Underused Area

Three Card Poker

58% average

Peak Pressure Period

8 PM – 12 AM

Highest demand — review table limits & staffing

7

Dealer Productivity Review

Average Game Pace

52 decisions/hr

Highest Pace Game

Blackjack • 61 hands/hr

Lowest Pace Game

Roulette • 42 spins/hr

Dealer Rotation

Stable

Game pace was mostly normal, with Roulette slightly slower during buy-ins and crowding.

Game	Current Pace	Expected Pace	Status	Possible Operational Factor	Follow-Up Action
Blackjack	61 hands/hr	58–65	Normal	Stable staffing and flow	Continue monitoring
Baccarat	48 decisions/hr	45–55	Normal	Higher-value decisions slowed some hands	No urgent action
Roulette	42 spins/hr	45–55	Slightly low	Buy-ins and crowding during peak	Review chip handling
Three Card Poker	57 hands/hr	55–65	Normal	Stable pace	Monitor side bet explanations

8

Fills and Credits Review

Total Fills: $186,500

Total Credits: $162,000

Net Chip Movement: +$24,500

Highest Fill Table: Baccarat Table B-02

Highest Credit Table: Blackjack Table BJ-04

Baccarat created the strongest chip demand during the evening peak period.

Game / Area	Fills	Credits	Net Movement	Possible Explanation	Follow-Up
Blackjack	$62,000	$58,500	+$3,500	Normal movement across several tables	No urgent action
Baccarat	$78,000	$54,000	+$24,000	Larger buy-ins and player swings	Review B-02 activity
Roulette	$24,500	$27,000	-$2,500	Credits linked to table balancing	Monitor timing
Three Card Poker	$22,000	$22,500	-$500	Normal movement	No action

9

Ratings Quality Review

Rated Sessions

186

Complete Ratings

153

Needs Review

33

Missing Times

14

Bet Adjustments

22

Unclear Notes

9

Status

Needs supervisor refresher

Rating Issue	Count	Main Game / Area	Possible Impact	Follow-Up Action
Late rating start	8	Blackjack / Baccarat	Time played may be understated	Supervisor reminder
Missing end time	6	Multiple games	Session length may be inaccurate	Shift-end rating check
Average bet not updated	22	Baccarat / Roulette	Player value review may be affected	Refresher on average bet updates
Unclear adjustment note	9	Multiple games	Management review is harder	Use clearer note format

This app does not approve comps, change player value, change player tier, or adjust official player records. Rating quality items are for process review only.

10

Disputes and Floor Issues

Issue	Game / Area	Time / Shift	Status	Risk	Owner	Follow-Up Needed
Blackjack hand settlement dispute	BJ-04	Evening	Pending surveillance	Medium	Pit Manager / Surveillance	Complete factual review
Baccarat large buy-in sequence review	B-02	Evening	Open	Medium	Pit Manager	Compare table notes and fills
Roulette pace slowed during buy-ins	R-01	Evening	Monitoring	Low	Shift Manager	Review chip handling
Three Card Poker side bet explanation issue	TCP-03	Mixed	Open	Low	Table Games Trainer	Add refresher
Dealer payout correction pattern	Blackjack	Evening	Reviewed	Low	Table Games Manager	Include in coaching notes
Rating start-time gaps	Multiple games	Evening	Open	Medium	Pit Manager	Supervisor refresher

11

Shift-Level Performance Review

Shift	Drop	Win	Hold %	Occupancy	Rated Sessions	Main Issue	Shift Explanation
Day Shift	$96,500	$14,200	14.7%	52%	42	Lower occupancy	Lower demand, normal result
Evening Shift	$238,000	$45,600	19.2%	82%	104	Peak pressure and rating consistency	Strong baccarat and blackjack activity with rating follow-up needed
Night Shift	$94,000	$14,450	15.4%	59%	40	Handover notes incomplete	Stable late play but closing notes need improvement

12

Dealer Issues and Training Notes

Issue Type	Count	Game	Shift	Status	Training Follow-Up
Payout correction	4	Blackjack	Evening	Reviewed	Include in dealer refresher
Side bet explanation issue	3	Three Card Poker	Mixed	Open	Add side bet explanation briefing
Late supervisor call	2	Roulette	Weekend	Open	Remind dealers of escalation timing
Card handling reminder	1	Baccarat	Evening	Closed	No repeated pattern
Rating start-time issue	5	Multiple games	Evening	Needs review	Supervisor rating refresher

Dealer issue notes should be used for coaching and process improvement, not automatic blame or discipline.

13

Game Protection and Review Flags

Flagged Item	Review Type Needed	Reason	Priority	Recommended Next Step
Baccarat hold above range	Table Games / Finance	High hold may need large-session explanation	Medium	Review large sessions and table notes
Three Card Poker hold below range	Table Games	Below expected range for period	Medium	Review side bet activity and sample size
Rating inconsistencies	Table Games / Player Development	Player rating records may be incomplete	High	Conduct supervisor refresher
Blackjack dispute	Surveillance / Table Games	Factual review still pending	High	Complete surveillance review
Fills and credits reconciliation	Cage / Table Games	Chip movement should match records	Medium	Confirm reconciliation

14

Management Questions

Is overall hold within expected range?

Which game requires deeper review?

Did drop movement come from more players, higher limits, or larger buy-ins?

Are table limits aligned with demand and occupancy?

Are open tables matched to actual traffic?

Are fills and credits normal for current player activity?

Are player ratings complete and consistent?

Are disputes isolated or repeated?

Are dealer issues training opportunities or procedure gaps?

Which items need finance, surveillance, compliance, cage, training, or senior management review?

15

Follow-Up Action Tracker

Follow-Up Action	Department	Priority	Owner	Due Date	Status	Notes

16

Safe Performance Language Guide

Avoid This Wording	Why It Is Risky	Better Analytics Wording
"Dealer caused low hold"	Incorrect and accusatory	"Hold movement requires operational review"
"Player manipulated the result"	Accuses intent	"Large session requires factual review"
"Supervisor rated badly"	Blame language	"Rating note requires supervisor review"
"Cage caused chip issue"	Blames department	"Chip movement requires pit and cage reconciliation"
"Game protection problem confirmed"	Premature conclusion	"Game protection review is pending"
"The shift failed"	Too broad and accusatory	"Shift-level follow-up items remain open"

17

Human Review and Analytics Disclaimer

Professional Reminder

• This app supports table games performance analytics only.
• It does not replace official finance reports, accounting close, surveillance review, compliance review, audit procedures, player tracking systems, game protection procedures, or management approval.
• It does not approve comps, change player value, or adjust official records.
• It does not assign blame, fault, intent, or discipline.
• Hold, drop, win, occupancy, chip movement, ratings, disputes, and shift notes should be reviewed together.
• Final explanations and actions require authorized human review.