I understand why casinos back off advantage players. If a casino were to allow a competent advantage player to sit at its tables 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year, that AP would literally drain money from the casino's coffers to a material extent.
But, what about the AP who travels frequently, so that he's hitting, say, 250 stores each year, at an average of four hours per location? Should a casino really sweat that action?
I think not. Over the course of 4 hours, an AP with a healthy $250/hour EV would have a long-term expectation of winning $1,000 from that casino in that given year. The actual result will likely be materially more or less - but is the casino really risking that much in exchange for giving up, say, a 1% edge for that four hours?
Of course not. As anyone who does this knows, the casino actually stands to win a great deal over those four hours in the very feasible event that variance happens to run against the AP in that limited timeframe. And isn't that the spirit of the battle? Two opponents slugging it out in what amounts to sudden death overtime - either has a nearly equal chance of coming out on top in that limited timeframe, and they'll leave shaking hands as worthy adversaries regardless of the outcome?
I sense that there are at least some casinos that recognize this. I'm in a region at the moment where I've played (as a stranger passing through) in at least a couple of spots where it would have been obvious to anyone with a pulse what I was up to - and while I received some interest from the pit in terms of observation over the course of a few hours, it certainly wasn't anything along the lines of what I'd consider heat.
Here's hoping that's more than just my imagination, or wishful thinking in terms of intent.