chrisjs87
chrisjs87
Joined: Mar 24, 2011
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 32
December 24th, 2016 at 11:58:50 AM permalink
So I was passing by a Mississippi Stud table the other day and was blown away by what I saw. Player seated at third base, sitting in front of thousands of dollars in black and purple, is betting the following: An ante bet of $30, followed by a 3rd street bet of $10, followed by a 4th street bet of $10, and finally, he makes his hand on 5th street and proceeds to bet $90. I sat there and watched him repeat this simple process for about 20 minutes to make sure I wasn't imagining it, or if it was some kind of fluke, but sure enough, this is how the game was being dealt to this guy.

I'm not in interested in plays that could be construed as outright cheating, but that "dark" side of me really wanted to walk up behind this guy and whisper "give me a stack of those purple right now, or it's game-fucking-over."

Instead I just laughed and walked away.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
December 24th, 2016 at 12:13:51 PM permalink
I'm wondering why most gamblers don't have a problem sitting there and getting overpaid in a situation like this, but then they'll go shopping and correct the grocery store clerk who undercharged them for bananas. Morally, what's the difference between a casino dealer and a grocery clerk?

Each transaction in a casino has a cost associated with it. Normally it's a percentage point or two above the fair value of the wager. In this Mississippi Stud case, based on the flawed dealer behavior, the price was wrong, it was far too low. How is that any different than the built-in profit a grocery store expects to charge on their goods? If bananas cost 99c/lb, the store maybe bought them for 89c/lb and expects to make 10c/lb. That's the way retail works. But if the clerk only charges you 19c/lb, obviously you're getting a great deal but, just as obviously, the store is losing money due to the employee error. But most people will say "no, that price is wrong" in the grocery scenario but not in the gambling scenario. Why?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
chrisjs87
chrisjs87
Joined: Mar 24, 2011
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 32
Thanks for this post from:
AxelWolf
December 24th, 2016 at 12:37:56 PM permalink
I would have to say because of the competitive nature of gambling, and the fact that the casino has a looming advantage over its competition. From the players point of view: it's a dirty game to begin with, so why not make it a little dirtier?

Were not buying fruit here....
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 275
  • Posts: 7296
December 24th, 2016 at 1:44:33 PM permalink
I would be ethically challenged enough to not be sure what I would do depending

*if I sat down and the dealer noticed my raised eyebrows and then he or especially the pit said "we allow betting less than the ante here" - well I think my conscience would be clear

* if no one said anything while I imitated that move, I'd probably start questioning the ethics only after some money piled up - then i still am not sure what I would do

* if I determined that the dealer was so dumb it hurt [by other things being done no doubt] then I think I would color up and go away early. I think.
"Baccarat is a game whereby the croupier gathers in money with a flexible sculling oar, then rakes it home. If I could have borrowed his oar I would have stayed." .......... Mark Twain
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 5350
Thanks for this post from:
DeMango
December 24th, 2016 at 6:35:44 PM permalink
Re, MathExtremist -- We're in a casino to try to win, just like the casino is. IMO, the casino's tend to be very unethical (or immoral?). I've never heard of a case where a grocery store was getting people drunk so the patron would clean out their wallet to the store. Never heard of a grocery store cheating people, offering promotions then rescinding on them. Have you ever heard of an "extreme couponer" getting back roomed, arrested, and jailed for taking advantage of Vons or Ralph's?

I'm not suggesting anyone to break the law. But if the casino is trying to take advantage of you (and they are), I see no problem in trying to take advantage of the casino.
"should of played 'Go Fish' today ya peasant" -typoontrav
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
December 24th, 2016 at 11:32:45 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

I'm wondering why most gamblers don't have a problem sitting there and getting overpaid in a situation like this, but then they'll go shopping and correct the grocery store clerk who undercharged them for bananas. Morally, what's the difference between a casino dealer and a grocery clerk?


To some, it is the same wrong, to others, a lot different.
By embodying an 'us versus them fair game" mentality against the evil casino and only for casino businesses, then anything goes is okay. This view is NOT transferred over to any other type of business establishment except the IRS, because the others are not evil in the mind of a gambler. It is very hard to view a casino game as beating luck, as much as beating the "enemy" dealer and especially the house.

Quote: ME

Each transaction in a casino has a cost associated with it. Normally it's a percentage point or two above the fair value of the wager. In this Mississippi Stud case, based on the flawed dealer behavior, the price was wrong, it was far too low. How is that any different than the built-in profit a grocery store expects to charge on their goods? If bananas cost 99c/lb, the store maybe bought them for 89c/lb and expects to make 10c/lb. That's the way retail works. But if the clerk only charges you 19c/lb, obviously you're getting a great deal but, just as obviously, the store is losing money due to the employee error. But most people will say "no, that price is wrong" in the grocery scenario but not in the gambling scenario. Why?


See above; many here will not say that the goal is to play by the rules or accept the results of the cards to its proper take-and-pay actions, but to take as much as you can if possible in the case of casino play (or IRS reporting, for that matter)..
I think this is similar to the suspension of disbelief in viewing film stories, where you accept it "as the way for it to be for me," for it to work for you, and by the standards you have. In a movie house, when you see Batman or spider man walking on the side of the building, you say "of course, - he's going to stop the Riddler, he's got to...." If you walk down 47th and Park Avenue in New York City, and someone tells you that Batman is coming down the side of the building, you hail a cop to take him to the nut house.

If you're at a Walmart and get clearly undercharged for your groceries, you usually point it out and pay the right price as the decent thing to do, especially because the checkers or Walmart are not viewed as the bad ones. To a gambler in a casino, the dealer and house are viewed as the enemy, and instead of it all being against variance or on the true result of the cards, it becomes what cash you can get away with, and you see this all the time. Books on shopping have titles like 'How to be a smart shopper;" book on casino play have titles such as 'BEAT the dealer," and 'Burning Down the House' (to the ground, baby!)

If a game is stopped because a floorman says the player was overpaid $30 on the last hand and has to toss it back in, all hell breaks loose over the injustice, and it has to be clawed out of his cold, dead hands like Charlton Heston. At Walmart, once that occurs, it is now, 'Oh - sorry - my mistake, here it is."

Certain mindsets of protocol and acceptability drop into us the various mental models or paradigms or protocols, based on where we are, and what we think is all right there; in the movies it is Spider Man walking up the side of a building to save the day; at 47th & Park Avenue, while hailing a cab but seeing Spider Man walk up the side of a building, it's now a trip to the Psychiatrist's office; at Walmart it is to return any ill-gotten gains; at a casino it is grab as much ill-gotten gain as you can get without getting caught; at Shul, it is 'don't mention the Shrimp you had for lunch to the Rabbi'; but on a date, it is a Chinese restaurant for that lunch. Etc. We all rationalize Malarkey to ourselves as we see fit, and will fight to defend our often-wrong POV to the death.

The mind rationalizes and justifies our POV no matter how irrational in reality it is, - at varying times. We don't have to be rational or even honest, we just have to justify it to ourselves and then accept it as 'our fact' - for the situation.

,
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
  • Threads: 128
  • Posts: 4842
December 24th, 2016 at 11:56:17 PM permalink
Bananas $.99, in the year 2036 maybe. I think mathextremist has never bought a banana in his life.

I'll just say I dont think casinos have a reputation treating people fairly and dont have a reputation of admitting fault and liability. They would get more sympathy if they weren't guilty of being difficult when owing money.
Looks like sh!t just got imaginary!
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
December 25th, 2016 at 12:06:38 AM permalink
Quote: onenickelmiracle

Bananas $.99, in the year 2036 maybe. I think mathextremist has never bought a banana in his life.

I'll just say I dont think casinos have a reputation treating people fairly and dont have a reputation of admitting fault and liability.



Often this may be the case, often it is not. Often the players are shot takers themselves, and just don't see this or can admit it; this is very, very, very common also, as an ex-dealer.

But it is how we rationalize our own suspect maneuvers; we either say or think:
a] Well, it is THEY who are the evil ones, you see, - so what I did was righteous, of course, (the Robin Hood argument: "I busted a move - but it was against people I hereby declare to be thieves themselves...

so of course MY action was justified, as they were declared thieves by me, while my actions were declared righteous against these thieves.), or

b] Little Johnny down the street did a smash-and-grab, why can't I? (This is the "other people do it/are thieves also/cheat on their taxes/everybody does it" rationalization.)

Casino generally call surveillance and pay what the cards and bets say to pay out in good faith. I also believe that many gamblers do take shots, or who get caught taking shots don't have a reputation of admitting fault and liability here. Dealers and casinos referee the games, and really just care what the cards or dice say, - and to the bet amount made.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
Rigondeaux
Rigondeaux
Joined: Aug 18, 2014
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 972
Thanks for this post from:
onenickelmiracle
December 25th, 2016 at 3:31:55 AM permalink
It's not necessarily that casinos are evil, though that case can certainly be made. Many people think cigarette companies are evil.

I'd say, it's more like the nature of the interaction is different. Buying fruit is like the ballet. Gambling is like MMA.

The casinos throw punches and kicks. That's the game they wanna play. But their ideal is, they throw punches and kicks and you do pirouettes.

There are no foreclosed houses, empty college funds and divorces from banana purchases. Super markets don't get you drunk to make you buy more bananas than you can afford. In fact, bananas are healthy. They sell you nourishment and stuff that tastes good. They might want you to overpay for the banana, but that's about it.

Casinos are enterprises meant to extract as much money as possible from you by luring you into playing games with where you are at a disadvantage. The goal of the casino is for the customer to be materially worse off, and as much so as possible. So, the response of trying to play with an advantage and take money from them is reasonable.
Hunterhill
Hunterhill
Joined: Aug 1, 2011
  • Threads: 38
  • Posts: 1407
December 25th, 2016 at 3:49:43 AM permalink
I would be more interested in what the players edge would have been with the strategy he was using.
Anyone?
What we've got here is failure to communicate

  • Jump to: