Table analyzer through surveillance system - the end of AP?
For APers that would mean no more contending with dealers and floorpeople when it comes to hiding your advantage, but with a computer. Which would mean the bells might go off in the very first big hand; high count + above average bet size = red flag. That though, would require the system to also read bet sizes. Alternatively, the count might be transmitted to the floorperson, and they might pay special attention to tables with high counts. Opens the door for collusion though.
How would this affect AP in you opinion?
Side note: It also might mean a lot less dealer mistakes to exploit, incompetent ones would be spotted much more quickly. (During my last trip to Vegas, a "party pit" dealer was allowing 4x raises in UTH until the river, the floor noticed about 20 minutes in but thought it was a one time mistake by the player.)
Source in German:
http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/it-medien/waechter-ueber-den-zufall-der-casino-geheimdienst/9481916.html
What I would be worried about is the advent of the angel eye shoe and the ability to link the shoe to software created by either angel eye or e-connect.
This is already in casinos all around Asia......
The problem is that the shoes are expensive and the cards are custom made. It may mean that the US casinos will hold off because, well, they don't like to spend money :)
Seems to me that, if this is a true story, Aria is trying to solve a problem that doesn't need to be solved.
The question of whether you should be worried about card counters is a different matter altogether. It's likely that in all but the rarest circumstances, either hiring people or buying technology costs more than you save in game protection losses.
Quote: MathExtremistIt's all in the balance. If a once-in-a-generation guy shows up and can beat you for more than his share of ploppies, your bottom line takes a hit. Under the assumption that you're worried about that, you can either hire people or buy technology to deal with it. At some point, the technology is the cheaper solution.
The question of whether you should be worried about card counters is a different matter altogether. It's likely that in all but the rarest circumstances, either hiring people or buying technology costs more than you save in game protection losses.
I went to a seminar at G2E where the Wiz, teliot, and 2 other guys, along with Henry Tamborlin in the audience, all talked some about this. The audience was DTG's, game protection guys, and other industry people. They were pretty universal in saying the casinos are throwing away huge amounts of money with most of these systems, as well as procedures like 50% penetration and other things, because of the time and money lost, as opposed to simply dealing the game to the vast majority of unskilled people (including those who "think" they're AP) and taking the AP losses. I'm paraphrasing, and they're welcome to get into detail, but it was a pretty strong recommendation.
...here's what I say: Where there's a will there's a way. Nothing will stop Advantage Play. Blackjack will continue to be beaten until the game is no longer played.
Quote: aruzinWhy don't they just use CSM, does that mean no-one would play BJ any more - I don't think so, it just negates card counting....
Mostly because people don't like the CSM. A lot of people see it as ruining the flow of cards and that it is unlucky. It's why you see them on low minimum tables where people don't have much of a choice, but the 15+ tables are almost always hand dealt.
Quote: RorryJG's book gives many ways to work with these arising issues. MindPlay was a flop anyways though...
...here's what I say: Where there's a will there's a way. Nothing will stop Advantage Play. Blackjack and many other casino games will continue to be beaten until the game is no longer played.
FTFY
With the software in place, the casino can go back to full penetration, and stop worrying about the counters. As with everything else tech wise, the affordable price point will be reached, it's just a matter of time.
Quote: RaleighCraps...it's just a matter of time.
I just have to disagree... Even CSMs have ways of being beaten. And as someone did point out it's not just Blackjack the "casino" needs to watch It's every game.
Quote: beachbumbabsas opposed to simply dealing the game to the vast majority of unskilled people (including those who "think" they're AP) and taking the AP losses.
This goes to what I always say. It's personal to
the casino when you beat them. They feel
every dime in your pocket and accounts is theirs
when you walk thru the door, and they'll get
it if they cut their noses off to spite their faces
doing it. It galls them no end that somebody
can beat them at their own game.
Quote: SonuvabishIt just seems like another opportunity for the casino to shuffle when the count gets high, at which point the tech will be banned since that would be cheating.
Could the casinos do that? Shuffle when the count is high and increase penetration when the count is low. Or is there regulation in place pertaining to that?
Come to think of it, I have seen mid-shoe reshuffles countless times because of operational reasons, so it seems casinos are allowed to do that.
Quote: RaleighCrapsJust because the first generation of software overlord was fraught with errors doesn't mean it can't be done right, and done cheaply.
With the software in place, the casino can go back to full penetration, and stop worrying about the counters. As with everything else tech wise, the affordable price point will be reached, it's just a matter of time.
As I mentioned earlier, they can go to full penetration now. All they really need is one full-time human to peruse the games, or in the alternative, better trained and more vigilant game protection. They choose instead to just put things on auto-pilot and take action when things become apparent
To answer Canyero, no they cannot shuffle up when the count is high as a result of the output of their software. That is cheating under the device law since they are altering the probabilities of the game using a computer (the house edge would certainly increase as a result of the software, and proper basic strategy would slightly change). Preferential shuffling, where the dealer or casino counts the cards manually then shuffles the cards is a grey area, possibly illegal but never been challenged in court because it is relatively rare. Using a device to tell the dealer when to shuffle is certainly illegal, it would be no different than using a phone app to count the cards for you in full view of the pit (notice it is also completely unnecessary and inefficient to use the software).
Quote: SonuvabishTo answer Canyero, no they cannot shuffle up when the count is high as a result of the output of their software. That is cheating under the device law since they are altering the probabilities of the game using a computer (the house edge would certainly increase as a result of the software, and proper basic strategy would slightly change). Preferential shuffling, where the dealer or casino counts the cards manually then shuffles the cards is a grey area, possibly illegal but never been challenged in court because it is relatively rare. Using a device to tell the dealer when to shuffle is certainly illegal, it would be no different than using a phone app to count the cards for you in full view of the pit (notice it is also completely unnecessary and inefficient to use the software).
I'm not sure a casino's use of a device to track cards and signal an early shuffle would be cheating in Nevada. There is a blanket exemption for anything that is "permitted by the Commission":
Quote: NRS 465.075Use or possession of device, software or hardware to obtain advantage at playing game prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to use, possess with the intent to use or assist another person in using or possessing with the intent to use any computerized, electronic, electrical or mechanical device, or any software or hardware, or any combination thereof, which is designed, constructed, altered or programmed to obtain an advantage at playing any game in a licensed gaming establishment or any game that is offered by a licensee or affiliate, including, without limitation, a device that:
1. Projects the outcome of the game;
2. Keeps track of cards played or cards prepared for play in the game;
3. Analyzes the probability of the occurrence of an event relating to the game; or
4. Analyzes the strategy for playing or betting to be used in the game,
except as may be made available as part of an approved game or otherwise permitted by the Commission.
So if automated software to do any of that is approved, it's approved. I also think the phrasing "designed to obtain an advantage" could be construed to only apply to players, not licensees. The licensees already have an advantage.
The question of whether early shuffling is cheating under the NRS is, I believe, a separate issue. To the extent preferential shuffling changes the odds, it does so regardless of whether a device is used to track it or not. Preferential shuffling would certainly seem to fall under the definition, however:
Quote: NRS 465.015Definitions. As used in this chapter:
1. “Cheat” means to alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine:
(a) The result of a game;
(b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game;
(c) The value of a wagering instrument; or
(d) The value of a wagering credit.
Aggressive preferential shuffling would, at a minimum, decrease the overall probability of player wins compared to either (a) a CSM machine or (b) any game with a cut card. But I don't know that the question has ever been directly addressed by any Nevada court. If anyone knows otherwise, I'd appreciate a cite.
A blackjack variant which would have a monitor displaying the current running count and true count for all players to see.
Call it "True Count Blackjack".
Rules would have to be very bad with terrible pen, no splitting, no doubling down, no surrender, even money on BJs
Of course nobody would play when the monitor shows a negative count, lol. But then maybe adding an incentive like blackjack pays 2-1 when the count is at a TC of Negative 5 or worse.
A buy in, say $100.00 per shoe, no house play and players play each other.Quote: EdgeLookerThis thread has me thinking of a new game, lol.
A blackjack variant which would have a monitor displaying the current running count and true count for all players to see.
Call it "True Count Blackjack".
Rules would have to be very bad with terrible pen, no splitting, no doubling down, no surrender, even money on BJs
Of course nobody would play when the monitor shows a negative count, lol. But then maybe adding an incentive like blackjack pays 2-1 when the count is at a TC of Negative 5 or worse.
Quote: MathExtremistI'm not sure a casino's use of a device to track cards and signal an early shuffle would be cheating in Nevada. There is a blanket exemption for anything that is "permitted by the Commission":
Quote: NRS 465.075Use or possession of device, software or hardware to obtain advantage at playing game prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to use, possess with the intent to use or assist another person in using or possessing with the intent to use any computerized, electronic, electrical or mechanical device, or any software or hardware, or any combination thereof, which is designed, constructed, altered or programmed to obtain an advantage at playing any game in a licensed gaming establishment or any game that is offered by a licensee or affiliate, including, without limitation, a device that:
1. Projects the outcome of the game;
2. Keeps track of cards played or cards prepared for play in the game;
3. Analyzes the probability of the occurrence of an event relating to the game; or
4. Analyzes the strategy for playing or betting to be used in the game,
except as may be made available as part of an approved game or otherwise permitted by the Commission.
So if automated software to do any of that is approved, it's approved. I also think the phrasing "designed to obtain an advantage" could be construed to only apply to players, not licensees. The licensees already have an advantage.
The question of whether early shuffling is cheating under the NRS is, I believe, a separate issue. To the extent preferential shuffling changes the odds, it does so regardless of whether a device is used to track it or not. Preferential shuffling would certainly seem to fall under the definition, however:Quote: NRS 465.015Definitions. As used in this chapter:
1. “Cheat” means to alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine:
(a) The result of a game;
(b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game;
(c) The value of a wagering instrument; or
(d) The value of a wagering credit.
Aggressive preferential shuffling would, at a minimum, decrease the overall probability of player wins compared to either (a) a CSM machine or (b) any game with a cut card. But I don't know that the question has ever been directly addressed by any Nevada court. If anyone knows otherwise, I'd appreciate a cite.
The exemption is to keep the regulation from being too vague, to prevent abuse, and to prevent issues with other games. For example, someone could say using your chips is a device or a pencil in baccarat is a device. If there was no way to exempt things that are obviously not devices, the rule could lead to serious issues. Exempting a computer for the casino would be no different than exempting a computer for players. The real difference is the lobbying power of the casinos versus the players. Can the casinos carve out an exemption for their software? Probably not, but more likely than the players succeeding. When you say the phrasing only applies to players, not licensees, I think this is wrong. Players have the advantage in blackjack when they are counters--it is the casino that is at the disadvantage. If a counter used a device, it would only be to increase his pre-existing advantage--or to maintain the same advantage without using his brain.
Quote: EdgeLookerThis thread has me thinking of a new game, lol.
A blackjack variant which would have a monitor displaying the current running count and true count for all players to see.
Call it "True Count Blackjack".
Rules would have to be very bad with terrible pen, no splitting, no doubling down, no surrender, even money on BJs
Of course nobody would play when the monitor shows a negative count, lol. But then maybe adding an incentive like blackjack pays 2-1 when the count is at a TC of Negative 5 or worse.
This sounds worse than just blindly betting whatever like most non-counters do.
Quote: SonuvabishWhen you say the phrasing only applies to players, not licensees, I think this is wrong. Players have the advantage in blackjack when they are counters--it is the casino that is at the disadvantage.
That's actually not true. The advantage swings in blackjack are there all the time, regardless of whether the player knows about them or not. Card counting is the act of betting more or less as a result of recognizing those swings, but the act of counting itself does not *change* the overall probability of winning a hand because the casino deals the game the same way whether you're counting or not.
On the other hand, preferential shuffling would actually change the probability of winning. The question is really whether preferential shuffling is cheating, or whether it's just another method to operate a blackjack game -- just like the decision to use a cut card, deal to a fixed number of hands, or use a continuous shuffle machine. The overall probability of winning a blackjack hand is slightly different in all of those scenarios. Which one(s) are cheating, or is it none of them?
Casinos are trying to mine more data which is no doubt what this will, in part, be used for. Also it will give Surveillance a betetr idea of who does what.
Remember, if we see a counter, we don't automatically show him the door. There are many things to consider when watching and consequently deciding to 86 a counter. In fact I wish most properties would stop being so knit picky about counters......
That is part of the reason why I believe this software is a waste of time and money, unless the casinos put a large amount of value in the information they can gather. As I have said, all they have to do is install some Angel Eye shoes. They protect the game and collect the info. No mess, no fuss.
Quote: MathExtremistThat's actually not true. The advantage swings in blackjack are there all the time, regardless of whether the player knows about them or not. Card counting is the act of betting more or less as a result of recognizing those swings, but the act of counting itself does not *change* the overall probability of winning a hand because the casino deals the game the same way whether you're counting or not.
On the other hand, preferential shuffling would actually change the probability of winning. The question is really whether preferential shuffling is cheating, or whether it's just another method to operate a blackjack game -- just like the decision to use a cut card, deal to a fixed number of hands, or use a continuous shuffle machine. The overall probability of winning a blackjack hand is slightly different in all of those scenarios. Which one(s) are cheating, or is it none of them?
I appreciate your grasp on the concepts, as they are not incorrect. But I have quite a bit of experience that you may lack. Maybe you don't, but you did just explain to me how card counting works as if I might be confused. :)
The advantage swings you mention are for the house and for the non-counters as well. Every non-counter has an advantage against the house at some point. That 0.5% edge is an average. it is dynamic not static, which is why counters can exist at all. My advantage boils down to a per hand advantage, as does the houses' advantage against regular players. On some hands, I have a 10% advantage. I don't ever say I have a 10% advantage. I just say I always have a 1% advantage. You could try saying, well the house always has an edge on the first hand, you have to wait for a count to develop. That argument would not have much merit as I could just wait for the count before playing, or even shuffle track and bet big at the beginning. Thru backcounting, the advantage swings you talk about would never go in the houses' favor if I didn't let them--it would always be, do I have a big advantage or a small advantage? When table minimums are too high, I take an approach close to that. There's no dispute--I am the one with the advantage, not the licensee. I wish I could dispute it, then they wouldn't bar me. The amount of hands you win slightly increases with better counts, but essentially you are correct, you don't win more hands. But that's completely irrelevant. That has nothing to do with advantage. I can stand on my stiffs, I get paid 50% more on blackjacks, I can double and split, I can take insurance. That's where my money comes from...it says nothing in the rules about obtaining an advantage by winning more hands. Maybe you are conflating that with determining the outcome? Obtaining a statistical advantage, determining the outcome of a particular hand, and altering outcomes are what the rules prohibit.
Preferential might be illegal because it is obtaining an advantage by actively seeking it; any house edge advertised would be wrong because there is no consistent procedure. However, there is no device used so maybe it is OK to do. But as another poster mentions, no casino will do that. People will figure it out, and they won't play...and enough use of it would certainly lead to gaming complaints and a lawsuit. Using a device to preferentially shuffle would be illegal in the same fashion as it would be to count cards. A CSM or a cut-card isn't illegal...cards are always shuffled at a set point, it's the same procedure over and over.
Quote: SonuvabishThat's where my money comes from...it says nothing in the rules about obtaining an advantage by winning more hands. Maybe you are conflating that with determining the outcome? Obtaining a statistical advantage, determining the outcome of a particular hand, and altering outcomes are what the rules prohibit.
Preferential might be illegal because it is obtaining an advantage by actively seeking it; any house edge advertised would be wrong because there is no consistent procedure. However, there is no device used so maybe it is OK to do. But as another poster mentions, no casino will do that. People will figure it out, and they won't play...and enough use of it would certainly lead to gaming complaints and a lawsuit. Using a device to preferentially shuffle would be illegal in the same fashion as it would be to count cards. A CSM or a cut-card isn't illegal...cards are always shuffled at a set point, it's the same procedure over and over.
I think you're looking at the wrong section of the statute. There is no doubt in my mind that using software to track cards in a casino, by the casino, is acceptable. Those systems have already been approved for use by the GCB, so it's not a question of whether they fall under the "unlawful device" statute. They don't, and that's the only place the language regarding "advantage" is found.
The issue is whether those systems can be fairly construed as cheating if they are used to trigger early shuffles.
On further reflection, I think the answer is no, and here's why. First, back to the statute:
Quote: NRS 465.015Definitions. As used in this chapter:
1. “Cheat” means to alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine:
(a) The result of a game;
(b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game;
(c) The value of a wagering instrument; or
(d) The value of a wagering credit.
It is indisputable that preferential shuffling would change the frequency of payment in blackjack. However, it is also indisputable that using a cut card, CSM, or (more basically) multiple decks changes the frequency of payment in blackjack as well. Further, there are blackjack variants like Spanish 21 that, based on their rules, have different probability distributions and frequency of payments. Finally, it goes without saying that even in a game that uses the same dealer procedure, such as a single deck game shuffling after every round, the frequency of payment depends on the rules of the game (e.g. H17 vs. S17).
Given all that, I think it would be fair to say that when a casino uses a different combination of rules and dealer procedures, it is not cheating simply because those rules and procedures lead to a different frequency of payment for blackjack. Rather, those different combinations of rules and procedures actually form (slightly) different games, each with its own probability distribution. But if a rule or procedure change means it's a different game, then it can't be violating NRS 465.015 because no aspect of any specific "game" is being altered. In other words, 6D blackjack with DOA,DAS,RSA,H17 using a cut card would be a different game than 6D blackjack with DOA,DAS,RSA,H17 using software to trigger an early shuffle whenever the count got to +5, so neither would be cheating. The latter might be distasteful, but how is it really different than switching a JoB VP game from 9/6 to 6/5 with respect to NRS 465.015.1(b)?
Quote: MathExtremistOn further reflection, I think the answer is no, and here's why. First, back to the statute:
Quote: NRS 465.015Definitions. As used in this chapter:
1. “Cheat” means to alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine:
(a) The result of a game;
(b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game;
(c) The value of a wagering instrument; or
(d) The value of a wagering credit.
It is indisputable that preferential shuffling would change the frequency of payment in blackjack. However, it is also indisputable that using a cut card, CSM, or (more basically) multiple decks changes the frequency of payment in blackjack as well. Further, there are blackjack variants like Spanish 21 that, based on their rules, have different probability distributions and frequency of payments. Finally, it goes without saying that even in a game that uses the same dealer procedure, such as a single deck game shuffling after every round, the frequency of payment depends on the rules of the game (e.g. H17 vs. S17).
Given all that, I think it would be fair to say that when a casino uses a different combination of rules and dealer procedures, it is not cheating simply because those rules and procedures lead to a different frequency of payment for blackjack. Rather, those different combinations of rules and procedures actually form (slightly) different games, each with its own probability distribution. But if a rule or procedure change means it's a different game, then it can't be violating NRS 465.015 because no aspect of any specific "game" is being altered. In other words, 6D blackjack with DOA,DAS,RSA,H17 using a cut card would be a different game than 6D blackjack with DOA,DAS,RSA,H17 using software to trigger an early shuffle whenever the count got to +5, so neither would be cheating. The latter might be distasteful, but how is it really different than switching a JoB VP game from 9/6 to 6/5 with respect to NRS 465.015.1(b)?
By this argument, nothing that the casinos do could be considered cheating. Dealer peeking and dealing you a 2nd if the top card helps him? That's just a different game with a different probability distribution. No problem as long as the dealer does it every time.
Short-shoeing? Just a different game with a different probability distribution. From a previous discussion about pai gow (on a different thread) we've already established that the house does not need to tell you the rules of the game (in that case, their "house way" for setting the hands) so by the same argument they should be able to remove half of the face cards and aces from the shoe, not tell you about it, and call it a different game with a different probability distribution.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceQuote: MathExtremistGiven all that, I think it would be fair to say that when a casino uses a different combination of rules and dealer procedures, it is not cheating simply because those rules and procedures lead to a different frequency of payment for blackjack. Rather, those different combinations of rules and procedures actually form (slightly) different games, each with its own probability distribution. But if a rule or procedure change means it's a different game, then it can't be violating NRS 465.015 because no aspect of any specific "game" is being altered. In other words, 6D blackjack with DOA,DAS,RSA,H17 using a cut card would be a different game than 6D blackjack with DOA,DAS,RSA,H17 using software to trigger an early shuffle whenever the count got to +5, so neither would be cheating. The latter might be distasteful, but how is it really different than switching a JoB VP game from 9/6 to 6/5 with respect to NRS 465.015.1(b)?
By this argument, nothing that the casinos do could be considered cheating. Dealer peeking and dealing you a 2nd if the top card helps him? That's just a different game with a different probability distribution. No problem as long as the dealer does it every time.
Short-shoeing? Just a different game with a different probability distribution. From a previous discussion about pai gow (on a different thread) we've already established that the house does not need to tell you the rules of the game (in that case, their "house way" for setting the hands) so by the same argument they should be able to remove half of the face cards and aces from the shoe, not tell you about it, and call it a different game with a different probability distribution.
Under the caveat that they *do* tell you about it, why would it be cheating? Spanish 21 does exactly what you say -- it removes 10s from the deck. It's not cheating, it's a different game.
Taking it to the extreme, if a casino switched in dice with no 3s or 4s on them into a craps game, the edge on both the passline *and* don't pass more than double to 3.33% and 2.92%, respectively. Place 5/9 bets have 100% house edge because it's impossible to roll either a 5 or 9. If you didn't know that was happening, and you expected the odds to be the typical distribution based on having {1,2,3,4,5,6} on each die, then that switch would clearly and obviously be cheating. But if the casino says "okay, now we're going to play with 3-less, 4-less dice, and the only bets available are pass or don't. Who wants to bet?" then that's not cheating, it's just a different game. That game would even be approvable because none of the available bets are worse than 25% edge. Why would that game be cheating?
Cheating, colloquially, means to break the rules. It's not cheating if you've changed the rules and everyone agrees to play by them. If a casino offers a blackjack game that uses software to trigger an early shuffle, and they tell you how that works, and you agree (by betting) to play that game, there's no cheating going on. It's a worse game, but it's not cheating any more than paying 6-to-5 on blackjack is cheating.
So, by this argument, nothing that the casino does can be considered cheating.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceBut it's already been established that they don't have to tell you the rules if they don't want to.
So, by this argument, nothing that the casino does can be considered cheating.
I don't think that's been established in the slightest, and I don't think that theory would come close to passing the sniff test in a legal dispute. If a casino was secretly and intentionally using loaded dice, they're cheating. But there's no way to secretly pay 6-to-5 on blackjack, or secretly use 6 decks in blackjack instead of 2. There's also no way to secretly early-shuffle. The casino could slip in a few extra 3s in place of a few 10s, but that would be cheating unless they told you so.
I really think it comes down to expectations. In blackjack, you don't expect the house to swap 10s for 3s, so changing the composition of the deck and the resulting random distribution would be cheating. But that's exactly what happens with slot machines because there is no baseline expectation for what a slot machine has to do. Two slot machines sitting side-by-side with the exact same paytable can be set to different RTPs because the reel weights are different. I don't think anyone would call that cheating.
Furthermore, the NRS does not allow anyone -- including a casino -- to determine the course of play based on secret knowledge.
Quote: NRS 465.070 Fraudulent acts.It is unlawful for any person:
2. To place, increase or decrease a bet or to determine the course of play after acquiring knowledge, not available to all players, of the outcome of the game or any event that affects the outcome of the game or which is the subject of the bet or to aid anyone in acquiring such knowledge for the purpose of placing, increasing or decreasing a bet or determining the course of play contingent upon that event or outcome.
Card counting is legal despite this definition because the count is available to all players. Most people ignore the knowledge but it's not hidden. Implementing a policy of shuffling whenever the count got to +5 would, I think, also fall under this umbrella. I'm not sure it would be kosher if an operator early-shuffled differently based on who was playing, but I don't see why it would be a problem (legally) if they always did it.
However, this language would seem to make hole-carding and edge-sorting illegal in Nevada. I'm not sure about that, but if you're sitting at the only seat where you can see a flashing dealer's hole card and you make a bet or play based on that, the knowledge of that hole card is "not available to all players."
Quote: MathExtremistI don't think that's been established in the slightest,
I think that this makes it pretty clear that the house does not need to tell you the rules of the game.
So, if they can change the rules without telling you, then what constitutes cheating?
Quote: MathExtremistI don't think that's been established in the slightest, and I don't think that theory would come close to passing the sniff test in a legal dispute. If a casino was secretly and intentionally using loaded dice, they're cheating. But there's no way to secretly pay 6-to-5 on blackjack, or secretly use 6 decks in blackjack instead of 2. There's also no way to secretly early-shuffle. The casino could slip in a few extra 3s in place of a few 10s, but that would be cheating unless they told you so.
I really think it comes down to expectations. In blackjack, you don't expect the house to swap 10s for 3s, so changing the composition of the deck and the resulting random distribution would be cheating. But that's exactly what happens with slot machines because there is no baseline expectation for what a slot machine has to do. Two slot machines sitting side-by-side with the exact same paytable can be set to different RTPs because the reel weights are different. I don't think anyone would call that cheating.
Furthermore, the NRS does not allow anyone -- including a casino -- to determine the course of play based on secret knowledge.
Card counting is legal despite this definition because the count is available to all players. Most people ignore the knowledge but it's not hidden. Implementing a policy of shuffling whenever the count got to +5 would, I think, also fall under this umbrella. I'm not sure it would be kosher if an operator early-shuffled differently based on who was playing, but I don't see why it would be a problem (legally) if they always did it.
However, this language would seem to make hole-carding and edge-sorting illegal in Nevada. I'm not sure about that, but if you're sitting at the only seat where you can see a flashing dealer's hole card and you make a bet or play based on that, the knowledge of that hole card is "not available to all players."
Some of your argument is irrelevant. Yes a casino could make up a game where you automatically lose on blackjack, and any other hand that you won on...and not even tell you that was the rule. Your arguing that it is OK for the casino to use a device, so long as it used the same way every time. They are still using a device to obtain an advantage. It makes more sense to take your reasoning and argue that the cut card should be illegal, since the only arguments for having it are that the effect is minor, it is impractical not to have a cut-card, and the purpose of the cut-card is not to obtain an advantage.. None of those counterarguments hold true for using software to shuffle early...clearly the casino would be using a device for the sole purpose of obtaining an advantage. I don't see how you can argue that is acceptable.
You highlighted frequency of wins in another post. That was just one method of cheating, it doesn't require all of those elements to be cheating, it requires one. I am starting to lose you on the preferential shuffling. It is almost like you are saying preferential shuffling is illegal because it alters the frequency of wins and losses, but using a device to shuffle early is not preferential shuffling because you could set a computer to do it in a more scientific and consistent way. If that is along the lines of what you are saying, it is incorrect. Under that definition, I would only bet big when my blackjack laptop told me the count was +3, and just flat bet the rest of the shoe at the table maximum without punching more data into my computer until the next shuffle.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI think that this makes it pretty clear that the house does not need to tell you the rules of the game.
So, if they can change the rules without telling you, then what constitutes cheating?
I appreciate the reference, but I don't think one example of not having a firm grasp of an admittedly arcane dealer strategy proves the general rule that the casino can do whatever they want to game rules whenever they want. I don't think you'd argue that a casino could legitimately deal a hand of Caribbean Stud or 3 Card Poker and change the dealer's qualifying hand at their leisure. Nor could they refuse to pay a natural come-out winner 11 in craps because, before the roll, they secretly decided that craps was 3 and 11 for that roll and naturals were 7, 2, and 12 (even though the odds are the same).
It's all shades of gray. I understand that there's a mathematical distinction between playing PGP with one house way vs. another, but I believe a court would find it so miniscule as to not matter. That's empirically quantifiable, too; people like Wiz and JB have already done it. I realize none of this is explicitly baked into the regulations, but I don't think it needs to be in order for a court or the NGC to determine what's allowable and what's not.
Quote: MathExtremistIt's all shades of gray. I understand that there's a mathematical distinction between playing PGP with one house way vs. another, but I believe a court would find it so miniscule as to not matter. That's empirically quantifiable, too; people like Wiz and JB have already done it. I realize none of this is explicitly baked into the regulations, but I don't think it needs to be in order for a court or the NGC to determine what's allowable and what's not.
This is kind of my point. The rule is incredibly vague, to the point that nothing that the house does can absolutely be defined as cheating. It's all up to the courts. I would hope that the courts would agree that a preferential shuffle is cheating.
Quote: MathExtremistQuote: AxiomOfChoiceI think that this makes it pretty clear that the house does not need to tell you the rules of the game.
So, if they can change the rules without telling you, then what constitutes cheating?
I appreciate the reference, but I don't think one example of not having a firm grasp of an admittedly arcane dealer strategy proves the general rule that the casino can do whatever they want to game rules whenever they want. I don't think you'd argue that a casino could legitimately deal a hand of Caribbean Stud or 3 Card Poker and change the dealer's qualifying hand at their leisure. Nor could they refuse to pay a natural come-out winner 11 in craps because, before the roll, they secretly decided that craps was 3 and 11 for that roll and naturals were 7, 2, and 12 (even though the odds are the same).
It's all shades of gray. I understand that there's a mathematical distinction between playing PGP with one house way vs. another, but I believe a court would find it so miniscule as to not matter. That's empirically quantifiable, too; people like Wiz and JB have already done it. I realize none of this is explicitly baked into the regulations, but I don't think it needs to be in order for a court or the NGC to determine what's allowable and what's not.
He was trying to point out that the casino does not have to tell you the rules, not that they can change them. It was your position they have to make you aware of the rules, based on the premise that they can change the rules whenever they want.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThis is kind of my point. The rule is incredibly vague, to the point that nothing that the house does can absolutely be defined as cheating. It's all up to the courts. I would hope that the courts would agree that a preferential shuffle is cheating.
Like I said earlier, I'm not aware that this issue has ever been tested in court. It would be an interesting case. Of course, someone here could always intentionally play so as to get early-shuffled on and force the issue. The suit wouldn't come from the counter, though, it should come from a flat bettor at the same table. That's where the damage lies: a flat bettor at a table where a the house employs a preferential shuffle has a greater house edge than a flat bettor under the same rules without the early shuffle. The question for the court is whether that is an acceptable method of operating a game.
There is no way to use a preferential shuffle without impacting all players at the table, and I don't think the court would have any problem about letting a casino shuffle early on a card counter playing heads up.
Quote: SonuvabishHe was trying to point out that the casino does not have to tell you the rules, not that they can change them. It was your position they have to make you aware of the rules, based on the premise that they can change the rules whenever they want.
The house definitely has to tell you the payoffs. There's a reg on that somewhere. As to the rest of the rules, I couldn't find any requirement that all procedures or exceptional cases be listed, at least not in NV (they are in NJ). But I don't think that's the same thing as suggesting that the casino can change the rules of a game mid-game. What I said was that the casino can clearly change the rules of a game, under the same name (e.g. blackjack in its myriad permutations), and that's not cheating. If using a cut-card is legal, why wouldn't consistent early-shuffling be legal?
Quote: MathExtremistThe house definitely has to tell you the payoffs. There's a reg on that somewhere. As to the rest of the rules, I couldn't find any requirement that all procedures or exceptional cases be listed, at least not in NV (they are in NJ). But I don't think that's the same thing as suggesting that the casino can change the rules of a game mid-game. What I said was that the casino can clearly change the rules of a game, under the same name (e.g. blackjack in its myriad permutations), and that's not cheating. If using a cut-card is legal, why wouldn't consistent early-shuffling be legal?
Because it is using a device! And when you say consistently shuffle at +5, and you really mean the dealer will sporadically shuffle early every few shoes, then I guess it really depends on your definition of consistent.
Quote: MathExtremistAs to the rest of the rules, I couldn't find any requirement that all procedures or exceptional cases be listed, at least not in NV (they are in NJ).
According to the link that I posted, this is not the case in NJ. The Wizard asked for a copy of the house way and was told that he couldn't have it. Not only was it not posted; it was not available upon request. This was in AC.
Quote: SonuvabishBecause it is using a device! And when you say consistently shuffle at +5, and you really mean the dealer will sporadically shuffle early every few shoes, then I guess it really depends on your definition of consistent.
The software is already approved so that can't be it. Or do you contend that, approval notwithstanding, using the software specifically to indicate when to shuffle would be unlawful?
Quote: MathExtremistThe software is already approved so that can't be it. Or do you contend that, approval notwithstanding, using the software specifically to indicate when to shuffle would be unlawful?
It's not illegal to have the software, it is illegal to use it to manipulate the edge. Mindplay was legal, until it was abused, then someone got sued and Mindplay has been discontinued.
Quote: SonuvabishIt's not illegal to have the software, it is illegal to use it to manipulate the edge. Mindplay was legal, until it was abused, then someone got sued and Mindplay has been discontinued.
Bally did get sued for MindPlay but the judge tossed the case. In looking it up, look at what I just found on the Internet:
http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=glj
Some reading is in order before further comment...
I don't think a reshuffle would be random and degrades the expectation cards come as they will, luck matters and the casino doesn't rig games directly or indirectly.
The question would be can the casino get away with it and is gaming monitoring and checking for this? I would think the casino can do it because they have little chance of being caught and will only be liable for what can be proven.
Quote: onenickelmiracleReshuffling when the count is positive I would think would be damaging to the integrity of the game, which historically gaming has always been firm on. It would be difficult to prove as a player though. First the player would have to make the accusation and reveal his ability, then the player would also not benefit directly even if a casino was fined.
I don't think a reshuffle would be random and degrades the expectation cards come as they will, luck matters and the casino doesn't rig games directly or indirectly.
The question would be can the casino get away with it and is gaming monitoring and checking for this? I would think the casino can do it because they have little chance of being caught and will only be liable for what can be proven.
In my experience playing blackjack (which is quite a bit less than the average pro AP, but quite a bit more than the average person), I have never seen a casino shuffle a shoe game or a DD game before getting to the cut card (I've only played single deck once in my life). It would definitely look weird, and the casino would need a good excuse. If they started using software to keep the count, and shuffle early on some arbitrary positive count, they would have to start making up a lot of excuses. Obviously there are legitimate procedural issues for discarding the shoe and shuffling early, but I wouldn't say they are common.
I'm not saying some casinos wouldn't try it, but it would stand out. As a counter, I'm not too worried about it. I know what the count is, and if they are "mysteriously" shuffling away positive counts, I will definitely stop playing at that house.
