Language
Sample Data • Demonstration Only

KPI Snapshot

Period: 1 May – 18 May 2026
TOTAL DROP
$428,500
↑ 8.2% vs prior period
TOTAL WIN
$74,250
↑ 4.1% vs prior period
ACTUAL HOLD
17.3%
Within expected range
EXPECTED HOLD
14% – 18%
Overall game mix target
FILLS
$96,000
Highest: Baccarat
CREDITS
$84,500
Net movement +$11,500
AVG GAME PACE
52 /hr
Roulette slightly below target
RATING CONSISTENCY
Needs Review
14 late starts • 9 incomplete

KPI Review Overview

Metadata for this operational explanation

Plain-English KPI Definitions

KPI Plain-English Meaning Why Managers Watch It Common Operational Questions
Drop Total money exchanged into chips at the table Shows table activity and customer buy-in volume Did traffic, limits, or player mix change?
Win Money won by the casino after play Shows actual table result Was win movement caused by play volume, luck, or game mix?
Hold % Win divided by drop Shows how much of the drop became casino win Is hold inside expected range for the game mix?
Fills Chips sent from cage to table Shows table chip demand Did tables need more chips because of buy-ins, wins, or limit changes?
Credits Chips removed from table back to cage Shows excess chip movement back from table Were tables overstocked or did play slow down?
Game Pace Hands, spins, or decisions completed per hour Shows productivity and table flow Did slow procedures, disputes, or staffing affect pace?
Rating Consistency How accurately player time, average bet, and play are recorded Supports player value review Are ratings complete and consistent across supervisors?
Dealer Issues Logged errors, procedure corrections, or coaching points Helps identify training needs Are issues isolated or repeated patterns?

Game Performance Comparison

Game Drop Win Actual Hold Expected Range Fills Credits Pace Manager Note
Blackjack $156,000 $24,300 15.6% 12%–16% $32,000 $28,500 61 /hr Hold inside expected range; pace stable
Baccarat $142,500 $31,900 22.4% 14%–20% $38,000 $31,000 48 /hr Hold above normal range; review large-player results
Roulette $82,000 $11,700 14.3% 13%–19% $14,000 $13,500 42 /hr Normal result; pace affected by peak crowding
Three Card Poker $48,000 $6,350 13.2% 18%–24% $12,000 $11,500 57 /hr Hold below expected; review sample size and side bet activity

Hold Percentage Explanation

ACTUAL HOLD
17.3%
EXPECTED RANGE
14% – 18%
Within expected overall range
Highest Hold Game Baccarat 22.4%
Lowest Hold Game Three Card Poker 13.2%
Main Operational Explanation

Overall hold is normal for the period. Individual game movement should be reviewed against volume, player mix, large wins/losses, and game pace. Baccarat performed above range while Three Card Poker was below.

Important Note

Hold is not the same as house edge. Hold shows what the casino actually won from the drop during this review period. It can move because of player luck, buy-in patterns, game mix, table limits, large wins or losses, and how much play occurred.

Caution: Hold can move sharply over short periods and should not be explained by one factor without review.

Drop and Win Review

Area Current Result What It May Mean Follow-Up Question Review Owner
Drop increased on Baccarat $142,500 More buy-in volume or higher-value play Was activity from regular players or one large session? Pit Manager
Blackjack win stable $24,300 Normal performance for current drop Did game pace and table occupancy remain stable? Table Games Manager
Roulette drop moderate $82,000 Healthy but not exceptional activity Did peak crowding slow spins per hour? Shift Manager
Three Card Poker win below expectation $6,350 Could be short-term variance or side bet result Was side bet exposure higher than usual? Pit Manager

Fills and Credits Review

TOTAL FILLS
$96,000
TOTAL CREDITS
$84,500
NET CHIP MOVEMENT
+$11,500
Fills exceeded credits
HIGHEST FILL AREA
Baccarat
+ Blackjack during peaks
Chip Movement by Game
Game / Area Fills Credits Net Movement Possible Explanation Follow-Up Needed
Blackjack $32,000 $28,500 +$3,500 Normal chip demand during steady play No urgent action
Baccarat $38,000 $31,000 +$7,000 Higher buy-ins and several larger player sessions Review large session notes
Roulette $14,000 $13,500 +$500 Balanced chip movement No urgent action
Three Card Poker $12,000 $11,500 +$500 Normal movement Review hold only
Operational Note: Fills and credits should be reviewed with table limits, buy-ins, large wins, and chip inventory procedures.

Dealer Issues and Procedure Notes

Issue Type Count Game Shift / Area Status Training Follow-Up
Payout correction 4 Blackjack Evening Reviewed Include in dealer refresher
Late call to supervisor 2 Roulette Weekend Open Remind dealers of escalation timing
Side bet explanation issue 3 Three Card Poker Mixed Reviewed Add side bet explanation briefing
Card handling reminder 1 Baccarat Evening Closed No repeated pattern
Rating start-time missed 5 Multiple games Evening Needs review Supervisor rating refresher needed
Note: Dealer issue counts should be used for training and process review, not automatic blame. Repeated patterns should be reviewed by management before any action.

Game Pace Review

Game Current Pace Expected Pace Pace Status Possible Operational Factor Action Needed
Blackjack 61 hands/hr 58–65 /hr Normal Stable staffing and table flow Continue monitoring
Baccarat 48 decisions/hr 45–55 /hr Normal Higher-value players slowed some decisions No urgent action
Roulette 42 spins/hr 45–55 /hr Slightly low Crowding and buy-ins during peak periods Review chip buy-in handling
Three Card Poker 57 hands/hr 55–65 /hr Normal Stable pace No urgent action
Game pace affects how many decisions happen per hour. Faster pace can increase earning opportunity, but only if procedures, guest service, and game protection remain correct.

Rating Consistency Review

RATED PLAYERS REVIEWED
186
MISSING START / END TIMES
14
AVERAGE BET ADJUSTMENTS
22
INCOMPLETE RATINGS
9
RATING CONSISTENCY STATUS
Needs supervisor refresher
Rating Issue Count Area Possible Impact Follow-Up Action
Late rating start 8 Blackjack / Baccarat Player value may be understated Supervisor reminder
Missing end time 6 Multiple games Visit length may be inaccurate Review closing procedure
Average bet not updated 22 Baccarat / Roulette Player value may be inaccurate Refresher on average bet updates
Incomplete player ID 3 Three Card Poker Rating may not connect correctly Rewards desk / supervisor follow-up
Manual correction needed 5 Multiple games Extra review workload Add shift-end rating check
Main Issue: Some ratings were started late during peak periods.

KPI Explanation Cards

Hold
WHAT CHANGED
Overall hold is 17.3% (within expected 14–18%). Baccarat at 22.4% (high), Three Card Poker at 13.2% (low).
PLAIN EXPLANATION
The casino result is within the expected overall range, but individual games show movement that should be reviewed.
Review next: Large player sessions, game mix, and short-term variance.
Drop
WHAT CHANGED
Total drop $428,500. Strongest activity in Blackjack and Baccarat.
PLAIN EXPLANATION
Player buy-in activity was strongest in Blackjack and Baccarat during the review period.
Review next: Table occupancy, limits, and large sessions.
Fills & Credits
WHAT CHANGED
Fills exceeded credits by $11,500. Highest movement in Baccarat and Blackjack.
PLAIN EXPLANATION
Tables needed slightly more chips than they returned during the period, mainly driven by Baccarat activity.
Review next: Baccarat and Blackjack chip movement and large sessions.
Game Pace
WHAT CHANGED
Roulette pace was slightly below expected (42 vs 45–55 spins/hr). Other games normal.
PLAIN EXPLANATION
Crowding and buy-ins during peak periods may have slowed decisions on Roulette.
Review next: Peak-hour staffing and buy-in handling procedures.
Rating Consistency
WHAT CHANGED
Several ratings had late starts (14) or missing end times (9). 22 average bet adjustments needed.
PLAIN EXPLANATION
Player tracking may be less accurate during busy periods. Supervisor refresher recommended.
Review next: Supervisor rating refresher and shift-end rating checks.

Management Questions

Is overall hold inside the expected range?
Which game moved most strongly against expectation?
Did drop increase because of more players, higher limits, or a few large buy-ins?
Were fills and credits normal for the game mix?
Did any large win or loss affect the period?
Did game pace change because of staffing, crowding, disputes, or procedure?
Are dealer issues isolated or repeated?
Are player ratings complete and consistent?
What follow-up is needed before the next management review?
Which items require finance, surveillance, compliance, or training review?

Department Follow-Up Tracker

Follow-Up Action Department Priority Owner Due Date Status Notes
Review Baccarat large sessions Table Games High Pit Manager 21 May 2026 Open Explain high hold movement
Check Three Card Poker side bet performance Table Games Medium Table Games Manager 22 May 2026 Open Review below-range hold
Review roulette pace during peak hours Table Games Medium Shift Manager 22 May 2026 In progress Check buy-in and crowding effect
Complete rating consistency refresher Table Games / Player Development High Pit Manager 23 May 2026 Open Focus on start/end time and average bet
Review payout correction pattern Training Medium Table Games Trainer 24 May 2026 Open Use dealer refresher notes
Confirm fills and credits reconciliation Cage / Table Games Medium Cage Manager 22 May 2026 Open Match chip movement records

Review and Escalation 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 player sessions
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 value records may be inaccurate High Conduct supervisor refresher
Dealer issue pattern Training / Table Games Repeated payout corrections noted Medium Review coaching records
Fills and credits reconciliation Cage / Table Games Chip movement should match records Medium Confirm reconciliation
Any unusual dispute or incident Surveillance / Compliance if needed Only if issue is identified Conditional Escalate through official procedure
Human Review & Important Disclaimer

This tool explains table games KPIs for management review only. It does not replace official accounting, finance reports, surveillance review, compliance review, audit procedures, or approved table games controls.

KPI movement should not be explained by one factor without review. Do not blame dealers, players, supervisors, or departments without confirmed evidence and official review.

Hold, win, drop, fills, credits, pace, and ratings should be reviewed together. Final explanations must be reviewed by authorized management.

This is an operational support tool only — not a substitute for official reporting or decision-making processes.
All data is sample. Changes to the form above will be reflected in the generated explanation.