Are they really watching us all the time?
Quote: anonimussTo answer the op, I walked through the high roller pit at Harrahs in AC before leaving. I saw a chip on the floor, picked it up and put it in my pocket. I thought it was a pink $2.50 chip. On the way to the cage I stuck my hand in my pocket and noticed one chip was larger than the others. I took it out and looked at it. It was an orange $1K chip. I went to the cage, cashed my chips out, went back to my hotel. I went back there the next day and hammered them. Damn those surveillance guys.
This doesn't make sense to me at all. What does your story have to do with surveillance?
Also, a player told me his smartphone was stolen from the BJ table about a month ago, surveillance had him look at the video which showed some Filipina stealing it. She had played with a players card so they know who she is, which leads to my question:
Will it ever become mandatory for players to have a players card in order to enter or play casino games?
It just seems to me that that those who do not want a players card seem to have something to hide (at least here in SK anyway), whether it be for AP reasons or other.
Quote: EdgeLookerKudos to the surveillance and security guys at 7Luck in Seoul who recovered a friends backpack. Some Russian dude tried to take off stealing 2 backpacks.
Also, a player told me his smartphone was stolen from the BJ table about a month ago, surveillance had him look at the video which showed some Filipina stealing it. She had played with a players card so they know who she is, which leads to my question:
Will it ever become mandatory for players to have a players card in order to enter or play casino games?
It just seems to me that that those who do not want a players card seem to have something to hide (at least here in SK anyway), whether it be for AP reasons or other.
KC casinos require this. They won't deal to you, and the slots won't work, without a card. Don't know how many other jurisdictions force this.
Quote: beachbumbabsKC casinos require this. They won't deal to you, and the slots won't work, without a card. Don't know how many other jurisdictions force this.
So there is a State that treats the casino customers worse than New Jersey. Good to know !
Quote: beachbumbabsThis doesn't make sense to me at all. What does your story have to do with surveillance?
Seriously?
Quote: BuzzardSo there is a State that treats the casino customers worse than New Jersey. Good to know !
Any state where security doesn't smack your wife and kid around because you asked for an extra towel qualifies as better than NJ
Quote: anonimussTo answer the op, I walked through the high roller pit at Harrahs in AC before leaving. I saw a chip on the floor, picked it up and put it in my pocket. I thought it was a pink $2.50 chip. On the way to the cage I stuck my hand in my pocket and noticed one chip was larger than the others. I took it out and looked at it. It was an orange $1K chip. I went to the cage, cashed my chips out, went back to my hotel. I went back there the next day and hammered them. Damn those surveillance guys.
Ok, after reading this 6 times, I guess the last sentence is sarcasm in that surveillance missed you finding and pocketing the 1K chip. That's the best I can do with what you wrote; you're saying they're not always watching or you would've had the money confiscated, I guess.
Quote: beachbumbabsKC casinos require this. They won't deal to you, and the slots won't work, without a card. Don't know how many other jurisdictions force this.
KC? As in Kansas City? You didn't have to constantly keep the card in, just needed it to input funds in a machine. But obv should just keep it in after that point.
And this rule doesn't exist anymore. Missouri voters, who voted for McCain in the same election by a razor thin margin, 56% of them voted to repeal the $500 per 2 hour loss limit in 2008. This was a similar margin who approved riverboat gambling in Nov. 1994 (54%). I disagree with their choice just like their inability to raise the state's cigarette tax (now the cheapest in the nation). With the exception of no-limit texas hold'em in the poker room, I thought it was a great law. If you were a high roller in the St. Louis area, there was always Illinois...lol
Even if I was rich and could afford to lose $500 within 2 hours like it was nothing, I still would prefer the law there. It helped protect "problem gamblers", imo, which like it or not, casinos depend on.
Quote: tringlomaneKC? As in Kansas City? You didn't have to constantly keep the card in, just needed it to input funds in a machine. But obv should just keep it in after that point.
And this rule doesn't exist anymore. Missouri voters, who voted for McCain in the same election by a razor thin margin, 56% of them voted to repeal the $500 per 2 hour loss limit in 2008. I disagree with their choice just like their inability to raise the state's cigarette tax (now the cheapest in the nation). With the exception of no-limit texas hold'em in the poker room, I thought it was a great law. If you were a high roller in the St. Louis area, there was always Illinois...lol
Even if I was rich and could afford to lose $500 within 2 hours like it was nothing, I still would prefer the law there. It helped protect "problem gamblers", imo, which like it or not, casinos depend on.
Thanks for the update, trin. Didn't know they had changed it like that. I ran up against the limits/card req. last time I played there, but didn't realize it had been that long.
Quote: beachbumbabsThanks for the update, trin. Didn't know they had changed it like that. I ran up against the limits/card req. last time I played there, but didn't realize it had been that long.
Yep. But when I heard my mom telling me stories about people losing $500 in the 2 hour limit and driving to another riverboat to play (riverboats were never connected as a network to monitor the loss limit), I thought Missouri had a decent idea, although that obviously didn't stop everyone.
I played $15/$30 HE in K.C. all the time...everyone in the game was always aware of who at the table could go buy chips, and yes, we would go buy chips for everyone in the game.
It is true you don't have to have a "real players club" card, instead now days the security guards at eh entrance have a bunch of "fake" cards for "visitors".
I have been in many different rooms, they are all similar and different.
I appreciate the fact that the "new" generation of surveillance people have the ability to see all kinds of different info.
I t has helped my Pit and casino many times. (sorry, can't give details)
Quote: tringlomaneKC? As in Kansas City? You didn't have to constantly keep the card in, just needed it to input funds in a machine. But obv should just keep it in after that point.
And this rule doesn't exist anymore. Missouri voters, who voted for McCain in the same election by a razor thin margin, 56% of them voted to repeal the $500 per 2 hour loss limit in 2008. This was a similar margin who approved riverboat gambling in Nov. 1994 (54%). I disagree with their choice just like their inability to raise the state's cigarette tax (now the cheapest in the nation). With the exception of no-limit texas hold'em in the poker room, I thought it was a great law. If you were a high roller in the St. Louis area, there was always Illinois...lol
Even if I was rich and could afford to lose $500 within 2 hours like it was nothing, I still would prefer the law there. It helped protect "problem gamblers", imo, which like it or not, casinos depend on.
I agree with the idea behind this law. I would have much less of a problem with getting booted from a casino if they also booted degenerates for gambling away more than they could afford. But no casino voluntarily does this. The most remarkable place I have seen will cut people off from drinking, and sternly warn them, BEFORE they become belligerent. Although this is actually not remarkable at all from a certain point of view, the first time I played there I was absolutely shocked that they didn't allow people to become black-out drunk to the point they would put down table max bets and attack other patrons if they lost. Other casinos were happy to let me and their employees put up with that.
Point is, if I am making $1/hour, the casino will eventually kick me out. May take awhile if my game is that weak, but they still won't let it last forever. If a guy making $15K a year is losing $100/hr, they will comp him a room until he has nothing left. Heck, if the casino thought that perhaps this guy had stolen the money, they'd just take an I don't wanna know approach. I find this unacceptable and the law should address it. That practice has a negative impact on our economy, believe it or not.
If you go to an expensive restaurant and order a $300 meal and a $2000 bottle of wine they don't ask for your W2s from last year. If you can pay and choose to spend your money that way, they will bring it to you. I don't see why gambling should be any different.
I don't need some nanny state jackasses telling me what to do with my money. I earned it and I can spend it however I please, and every adult has that same right whether they earn $15k per year or $15M.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI strongly disagree with this. It is none of the casino's business how much I make or whether I can afford to gamble at the stakes that I'm gambling.
If you go to an expensive restaurant and order a $300 meal and a $2000 bottle of wine they don't ask for your W2s from last year. If you can pay and choose to spend your money that way, they will bring it to you. I don't see why gambling should be any different.
I don't need some nanny state jackasses telling me what to do with my money. I earned it and I can spend it however I please, and every adult has that same right whether they earn $15k per year or $15M.
I respect your point of view, and I understand it. But you don't form a recognizable addiction to fine dining. I loathe degenerate ploppies, which definitely helped shape my point of view. I do not necessarily agree with the law itself, $500 loss limit in 2 hours. I do not agree with the law itself because you can't quantify a boundary for every person, and doing so is unfair and invasive as you suggest. However, I strongly believe casinos should be required to boot degenerates, or at least turn their flow of money into a trickle. This requires a more qualitative analysis that the government cannot realistically impose through a statute at this time, at least not in a way that I can imagine. So until casinos start voluntarily acting like they are in the "entertainment business" as they say, rather than in the gambling-addiction reinforcement business like they really are, I think strict sanctions against them are in order. I do not see this as a restriction on you. I see this as a sanction against casinos.
I was at a casino the other day. An older guy was at my table. He began bragging about how he lifted up a kid by the neck at the table for mouthing off to him, last time he was there. Got some more details about it from the dealer when he left. Police were involved. The kid made a basic strategy error, the guy got mad, the kid told him to go f himself. Guy attacked him. Guy is a regular. For criminal assault and battery, he was banned for 1 month. Not forever. 1 month. This is the kind of thing that makes me angry. They want degenerates in there.
Quote: SonuvabishI respect your point of view, and I understand it. But you don't form a recognizable addiction to fine dining. I loathe degenerate ploppies, which definitely helped shape my point of view. I do not necessarily agree with the law itself, $500 loss limit in 2 hours. I do not agree with the law itself because you can't quantify a boundary for every person, and doing so is unfair and invasive as you suggest. However, I strongly believe casinos should be required to boot degenerates, or at least turn their flow of money into a trickle. This requires a more qualitative analysis that the government cannot realistically impose through a statute at this time, at least not in a way that I can imagine. So until casinos start voluntarily acting like they are in the "entertainment business" as they say, rather than in the gambling-addiction reinforcement business like they really are, I think strict sanctions against them are in order. I do not see this as a restriction on you. I see this as a sanction against casinos.
Maybe fine dining is a bad example, but I definitely know people who spend more than they can afford on partying, clubbing, etc. They want to look like a big shot so they buy expensive clothes and expensive jewelry and get bottle service and invite everyone to drink with them and by the end of the night they might have blown through what they make in a few months. If people want to spend their money irresponsibly, there are many opportunities to do so; I don't think casinos are special in this regard.
Also, how do you know if someone is a degenerate? If somebody comes in, gets drunk, and loses $500, does that make them a degenerate? What if they make several hundred thousand a year? It could be a cheap night out for them.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceMaybe fine dining is a bad example, but I definitely know people who spend more than they can afford on partying, clubbing, etc. They want to look like a big shot so they buy expensive clothes and expensive jewelry and get bottle service and invite everyone to drink with them and by the end of the night they might have blown through what they make in a few months. If people want to spend their money irresponsibly, there are many opportunities to do so; I don't think casinos are special in this regard.
Also, how do you know if someone is a degenerate? If somebody comes in, gets drunk, and loses $500, does that make them a degenerate? What if they make several hundred thousand a year? It could be a cheap night out for them.
Again, you do not form a recognizable addiction to partying, or otherwise being the center of attention. You spend money at a club to be entertained. You spend money in a casino to win money. On the macro level, you are giving them money for nothing in return.
I categorize people as degenerates with prejudice. I am not 100% accurate. If the drunk is not paying much attention to the game, then he's not a degenerate, unless he stopped paying attention to harass random people only after suffering unacceptable losses. Someone making $100,000 will not get seriously emotional when they lose $1000; they will not chastise others for the way they play, then proceed to split 10s in negative counts; they will not close their eyes and pray, then demand the floor back up the cards to prove the house won after noticing the bet had vanished. The badges of degeneracy are clear enough to make reasonable suspects.
Quote: SonuvabishAgain, you do not form a recognizable addiction to partying, or otherwise being the center of attention.
I don't necessarily know that that's true.
Quote:You spend money at a club to be entertained. You spend money in a casino to win money.
Nonsense. Many people spend money in a casino for entertainment.
I play to win money but I still enjoy playing the games. I wouldn't play if I didn't -- I make a hell of a lot more money at my job than I will ever realistically make gambling. If it's not enjoyable, it's not worthwhile for me.
Quote:On the macro level, you are giving them money for nothing in return.
I categorize people as degenerates with prejudice. I am not 100% accurate. If the drunk is not paying much attention to the game, then he's not a degenerate, unless he stopped paying attention to harass random people only after suffering unacceptable losses. Someone making $100,000 will not get seriously emotional when they lose $1000;
That is absolutely not true. I know people who make a hell of a lot more than that and get seriously upset when they lose. It's not really about the money; I think that they just don't like losing. I have one friend in particular (who has a lot more money than I ever will) who will fly his own plane to Vegas, pay for a penthouse suite while he is there, and bet black chips (which is clearly a level that he can easily afford) But... if he is down a few hundred at craps he is not happy about it. I honestly don't understand where his emotional response comes from but I can assure you that the $300 has no effect on his life.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI don't necessarily know that that's true.
Nonsense. Many people spend money in a casino for entertainment.
I play to win money but I still enjoy playing the games. I wouldn't play if I didn't -- I make a hell of a lot more money at my job than I will ever realistically make gambling. If it's not enjoyable, it's not worthwhile for me.
That is absolutely not true. I know people who make a hell of a lot more than that and get seriously upset when they lose. It's not really about the money; I think that they just don't like losing. I have one friend in particular (who has a lot more money than I ever will) who will fly his own plane to Vegas, pay for a penthouse suite while he is there, and bet black chips (which is clearly a level that he can easily afford) But... if he is down a few hundred at craps he is not happy about it. I honestly don't understand where his emotional response comes from but I can assure you that the $300 has no effect on his life.
I don't know what basis you have to disagree with the first part. The DSM would agree with me.
Winning money is the entertainment. Losing is not entertaining or satisfying in any way. People go out and do things spending money, and they have fun. No one has fun losing. If you want to take the position that it's a social gathering like a bar, then I would say it's free to enter and there are a lot of chairs and empty slots--why not just loiter around there? I would say you pay to get drunk at a bar, and you pay to win money at a casino. The bar will give you what you want, the casino will not. My argument is certainly not nonsense; it is nonsense to take an absolutist position against it. I realize there are positions contrary to my own, and they are not necessarily wrong. My problem is that the casino takes the position that it is in the entertainment business, my problem has nothing to do with the player deciding that he actually enjoyed himself.
Your friend loses two bets in a row and wigs out? I'd probably assume he was mentally ill as opposed to the run-of-the-mill degenerate, unless there was something indicating otherwise. Like I said I am not 100% accurate. Someone exhibiting abnormal psychology related to their gambling might get wrongly classified as a degenerate because degenerates exhibit similar abnormalities related to their gambling; yes it's possible I can be wrong.
If I were to try and introduce legislation I would simply make it more difficult access more money in casinos with ATMs and such. I think most people come into casinos with good intentions of only gambling what they brought with them, but then they lose it all and start making some terrible decisions at the ATM. I'm not sure if I'd be against legislation banning ATMs in casinos or requiring like a 10 minute wait before money is dispensed. I'd like to think it would help but I do share some personal freedom beliefs like Axiom and people would probably get around it anyways.
BULLSHIT Jerks come at all wage levels.
Quote: ComplexEnigma
If I were to try and introduce legislation I would simply make it more difficult access more money in casinos with ATMs and such. I think most people come into casinos with good intentions of only gambling what they brought with them, but then they lose it all and start making some terrible decisions at the ATM. I'm not sure if I'd be against legislation banning ATMs in casinos or requiring like a 10 minute wait before money is dispensed. I'd like to think it would help but I do share some personal freedom beliefs like Axiom and people would probably get around it anyways.
What's the saddest part, many casino ATM withdrawals are $100 and less. Unless they get fees refunded from their bank, they are paying a hell of a percentage for a relatively small amount of gambling money. The two times I've used an ATM in Vegas because I feel weird to carry $1000 on me at one time for my trip, I pulled out $400 each time to get my "money's worth".
Quote: BuzzardLet's make people show last years tax return before being allowed into a casino. Make Social Security recipients prove that last month's utility bills have been paid. Please help protect people from themselves.
Quote: ComplexEnigmaIf I were to try and introduce legislation I would simply make it more difficult access more money in casinos with ATMs and such. I think most people come into casinos with good intentions of only gambling what they brought with them, but then they lose it all and start making some terrible decisions at the ATM. I'm not sure if I'd be against legislation banning ATMs in casinos or requiring like a 10 minute wait before money is dispensed. I'd like to think it would help but I do share some personal freedom beliefs like Axiom and people would probably get around it anyways.
The $7 fee (plus my bank's fee!) was always enough deterrent for me. On my first trip to Vegas in which I gambled (2010), I used an ATM waaaay too many times, probably 4-6 times. From that point on I always brought my roll with me.
Quote: SonuvabishAgain, you do not form a recognizable addiction to partying, or otherwise being the center of attention. You spend money at a club to be entertained. You spend money in a casino to win money. On the macro level, you are giving them money for nothing in return.
I categorize people as degenerates with prejudice. I am not 100% accurate. If the drunk is not paying much attention to the game, then he's not a degenerate, unless he stopped paying attention to harass random people only after suffering unacceptable losses. Someone making $100,000 will not get seriously emotional when they lose $1000; they will not chastise others for the way they play, then proceed to split 10s in negative counts; they will not close their eyes and pray, then demand the floor back up the cards to prove the house won after noticing the bet had vanished. The badges of degeneracy are clear enough to make reasonable suspects.
addictions come in all forms. There are people who are addicted to gambling, eating, exercising, eating their toe nails, and just about anything else that you can think of.
Quote: SonuvabishIt appears I am outnumbered in this argument. However, as an AP, I don't have fun losing. That's why I make it a habit to win. And what I notice about the loathesome ploppies, they aren't having any fun either. And they aren't winning. So I guess your collective experiences have differed from mine.
It might depend on the scenery. I gamble mostly in Vegas, in big strip casinos. Almost all the gamblers are tourists, there to have a good time for a weekend. You don't really see the people who are there every day with a few hundred that they can't really afford to lose. For most of them, gambling is just part of their vacation, no different than their show tickets or their hotel room or their airfare or their drinks at the pool or at the nightclub. They are not really gamblers; they are people on vacation who will spend a small portion of their vacation budget on gambling. They are there to have fun, and, win or lose, they will have fun.
Personally, I enjoy gambling, and I don't care one bit about short term results. It's not like I'm playing with money that I can't afford to lose, so whether I win this weekend or lose this weekend is immaterial. Leave that for the "quit while you are ahead" and "negative progression" degenerates.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIt might depend on the scenery. I gamble mostly in Vegas, in big strip casinos. Almost all the gamblers are tourists, there to have a good time for a weekend. You don't really see the people who are there every day with a few hundred that they can't really afford to lose. For most of them, gambling is just part of their vacation, no different than their show tickets or their hotel room or their airfare or their drinks at the pool or at the nightclub. They are not really gamblers; they are people on vacation who will spend a small portion of their vacation budget on gambling. They are there to have fun, and, win or lose, they will have fun.
Personally, I enjoy gambling, and I don't care one bit about short term results. It's not like I'm playing with money that I can't afford to lose, so whether I win this weekend or lose this weekend is immaterial. Leave that for the "quit while you are ahead" and "negative progression" degenerates.
This makes sense to me. I don't play with tourists. It would make sense that tourists were a little bit more open to the entertainment aspect, and thinking of myself in Vegas, even as an AP, I would enjoy being in the giant pyramid and the other sites.
See I don't gamble. I count cards :). I enjoyed blackjack, which is why I started. I wanted to play it, but knew gambling all the time is not something I could afford to do. So I kinda thought, well I know there has to be an optimum way to play all these hands that everyone has a differing opinion about. If I play that way, I can afford to gamble a lot more often. Maybe even knock the game down to even with with some sort of card counting technique (figured it was way too advanced to ever be good at it). Now that I think of it, I agree with your point of view more than before because my motivation to become an AP was free entertainment, not to actually win (but still, to avoid losing). Then I got a little obsessed. Now it's supplementing my income, and I do care about short term gains and losses, although I have learned to deal with the fluctuation without much emotion. Reducing standard deviation with an advanced count has helped, psychologically, since it helps reassure variance is variance and not error. I do quit when I'm ahead. I still have a habit of fighting to get even, and sometimes refusing to quit significantly below my high point. I don't think that's degeneracy (although I'm a bit of a junkie), I'm playing with an edge...the casino is open 24/7 for a reason. But yes, it's not the greatest habit--I'm not welcome to play blackjack in some places for a reason.
Your decision to leave or stay should be based on game conditions and your ability to continue playing well (we all make more mistakes when tired, hungry, etc). Up or down for the day is a fallacious concept. As you said, casinos are open 24/7, and it is really just one long sessions. You are not really quitting while you are ahead if you are planning to come back.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI think that playing to get even is an extremely bad habit, and it can be expensive if it causes you to make bad decisions. If you are playing within your bankroll, you need to get over it and accept that there will be swings in the short term. You should really not care (so long as you know that you really are playing with an edge, and within your bankroll)
Your decision to leave or stay should be based on game conditions and your ability to continue playing well (we all make more mistakes when tired, hungry, etc). Up or down for the day is a fallacious concept. As you said, casinos are open 24/7, and it is really just one long sessions. You are not really quitting while you are ahead if you are planning to come back.
The playing conditions are usually best when I leave. I am justified to stay. When I am still fighting and conditions are as bad as they will get, I do give up. I don't play everyday, only once a week. It's a marathon. I can count over 16 hours proficiently. I do not get tired and make mistakes. I get headaches, that's the sign I need to quit, not fatigue. I like having two paychecks rather than one. Having zero paychecks that week sux. I don't mean to imply I am living paycheck to paycheck, or that my job funds my bankroll. I put it in the bank and all my funds are commingled. I just like having two paychecks.
Quote: SonuvabishThe playing conditions are usually best when I leave. I am justified to stay. When I am still fighting and conditions are as bad as they will get, I do give up. I don't play everyday, only once a week. It's a marathon. I can count over 16 hours proficiently. I do not get tired and make mistakes. I get headaches, that's the sign I need to quit, not fatigue. I like having two paychecks rather than one. Having zero paychecks that week sux. I don't mean to imply I am living paycheck to paycheck, or that my job funds my bankroll. I put it in the bank and all my funds are commingled. I just like having two paychecks.
16 hours is a lot. Have you actually done this? It might be a bad idea for other reasons :)
Maybe you should consider moving to something that requires more concentration but has a higher edge? Maybe if you can count for 16 hours, you can sequence cards for 2 hours.
I can count drunk, but I'm pretty sure I can't do it for 16 hours even while sober.
Quote: AxiomOfChoice16 hours is a lot. Have you actually done this? It might be a bad idea for other reasons :)
Maybe you should consider moving to something that requires more concentration but has a higher edge? Maybe if you can count for 16 hours, you can sequence cards for 2 hours.
I can count drunk, but I'm pretty sure I can't do it for 16 hours even while sober.
Yes I've done it. I know it exposes me, but that hasn't become a gigantic concern for me yet. It's starting to, but still not a big enough deal to take serious measures. I am blasting away at the moment to build BR.
I can't sequence. Wouldn't even know where to begin. I don't have much aptitude for it I don't think. I also don't think it's something u can learn through reading. Card counting is mostly memorization and child's math, u can learn it thru reading.
