Someone please explain - even if card counting were actually illegal,

is there any way a casino could actually prove it and prosecute you? Even if you were a 'by-the-book' counter, using 0 cover, and spreading, say, 1-20, that's not proof. Non-counters vary their bets all the time.

Sure, I get that casinos are within their rights to kick you out and not take your action anymore, but if counting were against the law, short of being caught with an electronic counting device or something, how could you be convicted?

Or is this why counting isn't illegal to begin with? Because it's difficult to prove?

Quote: malgorium

is there any way a casino could actually prove it and prosecute you? Even if you were a 'by-the-book' counter, using 0 cover, and spreading, say, 1-20, that's not proof. Non-counters vary their bets all the time.

Sure, I get that casinos are within their rights to kick you out and not take your action anymore, but if counting were against the law, short of being caught with an electronic counting device or something, how could you be convicted?

All circumstantial evidence coupled with a "battle of the experts"

Quote: malgorium

is there any way a casino could actually prove it and prosecute you? Even if you were a 'by-the-book' counter, using 0 cover, and spreading, say, 1-20, that's not proof. Non-counters vary their bets all the time.

Sure, I get that casinos are within their rights to kick you out and not take your action anymore, but if counting were against the law, short of being caught with an electronic counting device or something, how could you be convicted?

Or is this why counting isn't illegal to begin with? Because it's difficult to prove?

Counting is not illegal because there is no crime being committed -- as consistent with hundreds of years of western jurisprudence. No one is taking advantage of anyone by deception.

i.e., it's not fraud because you are playing the game by its stated rules. Reasonable people wouldn't find it immoral to play a game within the rules to the best of your ability.

You're right, if it were illegal, it would be difficult to prove. But that's not the reason it's not illegal.

It's also not illegal to think about unicorns while you're playing blackjack -- not because it would be impossible to prove, but because there is no reasonable definition of a crime taking place.

1. The OP didn't ask if it were illegal per se, he asked how it is discernable if it is "just thinking." I think (actually know) that truly random or innocent bet raising would not follow the count with any sort of remarkable statistical synchronicity (unless of course, the player was actually counting down the shoe), and that the real-world actions could reflect - with statistically valid probability - whether or not the actions were truly random, or based on the count, which is easy to statistically prove. Indeed, during a winning streak when most people "play the streak," the card counter may drop his bet as the tens are depleted from these wins to match the count. So the issue here really wasn't "I was thinking...and it is not a crime to think!", as the issue is not whether or not you "thought about it," but whether or not you took action on it, with real hands sliding out real chips to grab some real money based on the real count. Obviously, if it were just thinking, with no real world action taken on these thoughts, then no real world action would result or be so visible to floormen and surveillance crews and the like, as no one can clearly see "thinking;" no one can. They can, however, see action being taken based on what people were thinking, and so they may have some issues with these players' actions. And while it is legal to count, it is also legal to be flat-betted, or asked to leave the premises as a result of getting caught counting.

Look at it this way: Adultery is also legal, and so is "thinking about it," - but thinking about shagging your secretary, your neighbor, or the head check-out lady at the Walmart is one thing, but actually sliding you chip-holding hand out to her caboose and finding a motel room to shag her is a real-world action (- also with remarkable statistical synchronicity to your thoughts and intentions), - detectable by surveillance, - which is also typically followed by requests to "please leave the premises." So arguments that "It was just THINKING, I did nothing wrong by thinking, right, honey, I was just randomly moving my hands and my car...Other people vary their time by going to the motel, too, this all could possibly happen randomly, therefore my intentions must be pure!" (Just as others may vary their bets randomly, but really, not the counter. Indeed, the counter's actions are not authentically random at all, that's the issue). All this will be followed by "Er, you took real world actions on your thinking, and THAT is the issue. Please Leave." Adultery, like card counting, may not be illegal, but it may be against the house rules, with expulsion from the house.

2. House rules are known rules, as all counters know that it is not particularly condoned (hence the use of cover plays and disguises). I can say that a card counter gets flat-betted or 86-ed precisely because he broke the rules, and darn well knew it, and will still often argue it or resent it. Anything that involves as part of its practice any use of cover plays, disguises, refusal to identify yourself in good faith, must on some level involve deceit and concealment. Clearly these actions beg the question "does it break some rules, or else why would it be necessary?"

Quote: Paigowdan

or 86-ed precisely because he broke the rules, and darn well knew it,

But why is it against the rules, Dan.
What did the counter do that was
wrong? The casino took his bet,
it was a fair hand. Why is the casino
upset?

I'd let them play. No restrictions. And I'm not saying this because I was a counter. I'm saying it because it's not a big deal nor is it not worth the time and effort to watch for it. And on top of that, it's a natural occurrence of the game that I've accepted as a business to deal out.

Quote: Paigowdan

I think (actually know) that truly random or innocent bet raising would not follow the count with any sort of remarkable statistical synchronicity (unless of course, the player was actually counting down the shoe), and that the real-world actions could reflect - with statistically valid probability - whether or not the actions were truly random, or based on the count, which is easy to statistically prove.

Yeah, if the player sits there for hours showing their spread time and time again and showing the biggest 'tell' of all, reverting back to a small wager after the shuffle. I show my spread once in a shoe game, and exit immediately after doing so, thus avoiding that biggest 'tell'. In a double deck game where the count moves more frequently and quickly, I may show it twice, with a little added cover of not reverting all the way back to a minimum wager after the first showing.

My average times at a shoe game are about 30 minutes, but can be as short as 15 minutes if the count goes positive right away. At double deck, my average is more like 15 minutes, maybe 20 minutes tops if the count has remained fairly neutral. Good luck with your "statistically valid probability", let alone "proving" anything with such limited, inconclusive, data. :)

Meanwhile casinos are happy to violate the rules of a game and take advantage of a mentally challenged customer. Good example witnessed today, while playing FreeBet BJ. Customer using his own money to double. When I explained to the man that the house would pay for it he was totally confused. He had been sitting at the table playing for half an hour with the dealer taking advantage of his ignorance. I pretty much chastised the dealer for about 2 minutes. Floorman did absolutely nothing for the man who was down a hundred and change since he sat. Dude left dejected when he realized what had happened.
Personally I think it is the casino's responsibility to inform customers how to play the game according to the rules.

Quote: MaxPen

Meanwhile casinos are happy to violate the rules of a game and take advantage of a mentally challenged customer. Good example witnessed today, while playing FreeBet BJ. Customer using his own money to double. When I explained to the man that the house would pay for it he was totally confused. He had been sitting at the table playing for half an hour with the dealer taking advantage of his ignorance. I pretty much chastised the dealer for about 2 minutes. Floorman did absolutely nothing for the man who was down a hundred and change since he sat. Dude left dejected when he realized what had happened.
Personally I think it is the casino's responsibility to inform customers how to play the game according to the rules.

I don't deny this happened either. It is the casino's responsibility to provide fair play. And most casinos, especially dealers, would indeed, yet some won't.

Pointing out that there are low people on both sides doesn't absolve any one side. Crap doing down at casinos is bad in all its forms.

Quote: EvenBob

But why is it against the rules, Dan.
What did the counter do that was
wrong? The casino took his bet,
it was a fair hand. Why is the casino
upset?

1. ()
2. Casino isn't upset, it's a routine cakewalk. A tap on the shoulder, a few words, all it takes typically.
3. You know why it's against the rules. A fair hand doesn't mean a fair bet.

Quote: Paigowdan

1. ()
2. Casino isn't upset, it's a routine cakewalk. A tap on the shoulder, a few words, all it takes typically.
3. You know why it's against the rules. A fair hand doesn't mean a fair bet.

Thanks for answering none of my
questions. Like, why is it against
the rules, Dan. The answer is
embarrassing, that's why you
won't say.

Quote: Paigowdan

I don't deny this happened either. It is the casino's responsibility to provide fair play. And most casinos, especially dealers, would indeed, yet some won't.

Pointing out that there are low people on both sides doesn't absolve any one side. It's bad in all its forms.

I've been playing most every day for the past 9 months and I can attest that finding a moral fiber inside of the four walls of a casino is like finding your lost kid without help at Disneyland. Defend all you want but you're not pulling the wool over my eyes. You have to be a wolf to survive in a casino disguised as a sheep. Answering Bob's questions should be highly entertaining.

duplicate

Quote: MaxPen

I've been playing most every day for the past 9 months and I can attest that finding a moral fiber inside of the four walls of a casino is like finding your lost kid without help at Disneyland. Defend all you want but you're not pulling the wool over my eyes. You have to be a wolf to survive in a casino disguised as a sheep. Answering Bob's questions should be highly entertaining.

All right then:

1. In a nutshell, Card Counting and AP play are against the rules because it affects the House Edge of a game, which is the source of revenue that allow offering the game to "people" like us in the first place. Defeating the house edge through unauthorized game play is not genuinely paying your entrance fee or meal ticket for the action offered, and is grounds for a back-off. This means that it is like fare-beating on public transportation, or like walking into another movie audience room at a cinemaplex after seeing the film you paid for and that you haven't paid for, or sneaking out extra from a buffet using Tupperware; it's breaking the rules to take what isn't yours, to abscond with a free lunch, so to speak, and for the **** and giggles that come with that action. For some people, a minority generally, the action isn't in how the cards fall or the dice roll, it is what you can get away with to get a free lunch.

2. Not every rule needs to be posted; there are no "Thou shalt not fare-beat" signs on the bus, "No Tupperware" signs at the Buffet, no "No Extra Movies" at the Cinemaplex, and there are also no "No card-counting, collusion, or pinching and Capping" signs at a casino or card room. Yet they are disallowed behaviors, but it is expected that most people have enough home training not to need them, and most generally don't, as a non-issue if not posted. That simple.

The simple fact of the matter is that in the general public for any business, shot-takers of all forms are to be expected.

I've read waiters' forums for stories on the restaurant-patron general population; forget about dealers' forums discussing the general population of gamblers and their extended sense of entitlement. Yet, if there were:
1. A Sorcerer-of-Farebeating.com, we'd hear of the nerve and utter absence of moral fiber on bus drivers, train conductors, etc., as well as the justification to fare-beat and how righteous we are as practitioners of the craft.
2. Sorcerer-of-Tupperware.com - for Buffets.
3. Sorcerer-of-Free-Movies.com - same thing.

I've dealt for years, and I can attest that the ratio is 1) way different, and 2) All such moral fiber issues are bad in all of its forms. Trust me, deal for a few years, and you'll be singing a different tune. I will also say that there are some gracious players also.

One can go a Dealer's forum and get stories, and one can see the opposite here.

Bob's questions were rhetorical .

Is it difficult being a minority here against card counting? You've dealt with a lot of criticism over the years, and I commend you for staying despite that fact. It's nice hearing someone on the other side.

As far as catching counters goes, that seems difficult to do without falsely throwing out people who don't do it (which has happened.) Yes, you could look at bet spread, but ordinary players do that plenty and sometimes it looks a lot like a counter's spread. The whole process of catching counters is spending dollars in most cases to save pennies and it's without guaranteed, or long term results.

Quote: Paigowdan

All right then:

1. In a nutshell, Card Counting and AP play are against the rules because it affects the House Edge of a game, which is the source of revenue that allow offering the game to "people" like us in the first place. Defeating the house edge through unauthorized game play is not genuinely paying your entrance fee or meal ticket for the action offered, and is grounds for a back-off. This means that it is like fare-beating on public transportation, or like walking into another movie audience room at a cinemaplex after seeing the film you paid for and that you haven't paid for, or sneaking out extra from a buffet using Tupperware; it's breaking the rules to take what isn't yours, to abscond with a free lunch, so to speak, and for the **** and giggles that come with that action. For some people, a minority generally, the action isn't in how the cards fall or the dice roll, it is what you can get away with to get a free lunch.

2. Not every rule needs to be posted; there are no "Thou shalt not fare-beat" signs on the bus, "No Tupperware" signs at the Buffet, no "No Extra Movies" at the Cinemaplex, and there are also no "No card-counting, collusion, or pinching and Capping" signs at a casino or card room. Yet they are disallowed behaviors, but it is expected that most people have enough home training not to need them, and most generally don't, as a non-issue if not posted. That simple.

The simple fact of the matter is that in the general public for any business, shot-takers of all forms are to be expected.

I've read waiters' forums for stories on the restaurant-patron general population; forget about dealers' forums discussing the general population of gamblers and their extended sense of entitlement. Yet, if there were:
1. A Sorcerer-of-Farebeating.com, we'd hear of the nerve and utter absence of moral fiber on bus drivers, train conductors, etc., as well as the justification to fare-beat and how righteous we are as practitioners of the craft.
2. Sorcerer-of-Tupperware.com - for Buffets.
3. Sorcerer-of-Free-Movies.com - same thing.

I've dealt for years, and I can attest that the ratio is 1) way different, and 2) All such moral fiber issues are bad in all of its forms. Trust me, deal for a few years, and you'll be singing a different tune. I will also say that there are some gracious players also.

One can go a Dealer's forum and get stories, and one can see the opposite here.

Bob's questions were rhetorical .

Do you really believe this shit that you post?

Just to make one obvious point:

Comparing card counting to "fare-beating" public transportation? That is beyond ridiculous. If the rules of public transportation require a fare, then paying the fare is operating within the rules. Not paying the fare would be violating the rules.

Playing blackjack to the best of your mental ability by betting, hitting, splitting, doubling, standing, or surrendering, is operating within the rules of the game.

A better comparison would be getting out early in a taxi in heavy traffic to walk a few blocks. Perfectly legal, perfectly within the rules, but the taxi driver sure would prefer you pay to ride in traffic instead.

Quote: Minty

Is it difficult being a minority here against card counting? You've dealt with a lot of criticism over the years, and I commend you for staying despite that fact. It's nice hearing someone on the other side.

Thank you; and yes, a little bit. But then, I have this belief that gambling should be clean and honorable on both sides, and that people should be exposed to that, particularly if they appear not to having been exposed to such a concept. I enjoy the discussions, and it is good practice in explaining the why's and how's to players on protocol, and why their flat-betted, or have to play craps instead, or even leave. It also helps me to work with game designers (which I very frequently do) on game protection, as in "your design needs game protection work, and yes, players may try crap the way your game is designed..." putting it simply. More seriously, I've also seen it wreck gambling for gamblers, in the sense that legions enjoy "straight" gambling, which is hard to do once you get the AP blood infection. I know a lot of ex-AP players who don't do it anymore, and are now even on the "White Hat" side (depending on your POV); either they got burnt out [of casinos], or burnt out [from doing it.] A few have some longevity and will love it as long as it runs for them. On a Moral Fiber basis, I kind of view AP play a basically scamming a card room or a casino business for money, (which is not a classy pastime), but driving up the costs of game play for regular recreational players who are trying to play straight up, through higher costs in offering the games: higher house edges, less comps, etc. The costs of AP are paid by the regular recreational players, as the casino has to tighten games affected by AP play. This is neither never considered, or justified to the end of the world ("the casinos are evil," "We're really Robin Hoods," "They can afford to be eased of some cash," etc.) I have seen as a dealer people getting their juice not from the honest play of the cards or dice, but by what crap they can get away with at the tables. That isn't gambling.

Quote: Minty

As far as catching counters goes, that seems difficult to do without falsely throwing out people who don't do it (which has happened.) Yes, you could look at bet spread, but ordinary players do that plenty and sometimes it looks a lot like a counter's spread. The whole process of catching counters is spending dollars in most cases to save pennies and it's without guaranteed, or long term results.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but you are right in the sense that it all costs. Effective game protection is accurate and cost effective, but knuckle-headed game protection is wasteful, and that depends on casino management competency.

Quote: sodawater

Do you really believe this shit that you post?

Just to make one obvious point:

Comparing card counting to "fare-beating" public transportation? That is beyond ridiculous. If the rules of public transportation require a fare, then paying the fare is operating within the rules. Not paying the fare would be violating the rules.

100%. Getting caught counting, and backed off for it is all because it is in violation of the rules. That's why you get disallowed to play.

Quote: sodawater

Playing blackjack to the best of your mental ability by betting, hitting, splitting, doubling, standing, or surrendering, is operating within the rules of the game.

If you're operating within the rules you don't get backed off. The back off is a very clear indication that you're doing something wrong or unacceptable, otherwise you'd be allowed to continue.

Quote: sodawater

A better comparison would be getting out early in a taxi in heavy traffic to walk a few blocks. Perfectly legal, perfectly within the rules, but the taxi driver sure would prefer you pay to ride in traffic instead.

No it isn't. Declaring your destination and getting out of the cab is within the rules, especially if you're stuck in traffic. No cab driver should care, and it's just like leaving the table when you want to, also. You pay your fare, (and you tip), and you walk instead of being stuck in traffic. WTH.

Quote: Paigowdan

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but you are right in the sense that it all costs. Effective game protection is cost effective, but knuckle-headed game protection is wasteful, and that depends on casino management competency.

I appreciate that. I personally think asking counters to play other games it flat betting them is reasonable, but policies like no midshoe entry and cutting off 2 or more decks are bad decisions on the part of the casino. Many policies can benefit counter and casino alike, like dealing more hands per hour. I prefer the Vegas approach to table games to AC.

If counting was made illegal, it seems like that would just be banning skilled casino play, which seems bad for everyone. Bad publicity and bad for counters. I wonder if the support for skilled-based games in casinos as mentioned in the other thread will spread to counting?

Quote: Minty

I appreciate that. I personally think asking counters to play other games it flat betting them is reasonable, but policies like no midshoe entry and cutting off 2 or more decks are bad decisions on the part of the casino. Many policies can benefit counter and casino alike, like dealing more hands per hour. I prefer the Vegas approach to table games to AC.

Atlantic City got that tight because they were slammed by card counters. AC had to either not offer Blackjack, or offer only ridiculously tight games.

Quote: Minty

If counting was made illegal, it seems like that would just be banning skilled casino play, which seems bad for everyone. Bad publicity and bad for counters. I wonder if the support for skilled-based games in casinos as mentioned in the other thread will spread to counting?

While there generally isn't a fine line between skilled play by the rules, versus AP play over the game rules and House edge, like on some single deck poker games (Three Card poker where the dealer's hand is not taken out until all players fold or Play), there is an issue on Blackjack.

This is because Blackjack is an old game that was believed to be, up until 1960, to be AP-safe aside from marked cards, and pinching and capping bets. Around 1960, Ed Thorpe, a mathematician, figured out how to implement card counting methodology for player Blackjack advantage on an IBM mainframe computer. He wrote a book called Beat the Dealer. Things got particularly crazy in the 90's when University math teams (MIT et al) decided to set up small investment corporations with super-AP player training schools to slam major casinos with killer AP teams. For a while, Casinos were hemorrhaging cash, then to a greater degree got their game protection act together. House rules were implemented with written game protection protocols for surveillance and pit crews with AP player photographs. Casinos did not pull out blackjack tables, but kept the tables for recreational ("non-professional") players who are determined to be innocent and not counting. And no, a player cannot walk in off the street and see internal corporate game protection documents, and no, it is not their right either. Card counting Players get a tap on the shoulder, and are told that they're flatted-betted, or must play craps/Roulette, or told to leave.
And no, players cannot demand the right to stay to play-and-count (except in A.C., which have such crappy game rules it isn't worth it.)
Keep in mind that outside New Jersey, most states have a mutual-acceptability basis on wagering, where both parties must elect to enter into a wager, or else no action, which means the casino is not obligated to accept any action it deems questionable, hence no action for caught AP players. Sometimes they get this wrong and a non-counter is flagged, particularly if he were mimicking the betting of a successful card counter at the same table.

Now, one thing about "Skill" based play, is the skill within the rules or outside the rules of play for a casino house? You can have skill in poker or Pai Gow, learning strategy, proper hand settings, counting outs in terms of play and never exceed the mathematical house edge of a game or break the rules of the game's offering, - and be allowed to play UTH, Pai Gow Poker, etc., forever to your heart's content. Other skills may be considered unacceptable for play regardless of legality on the state law books like card counting, and be barred from play for it but not incarcerated for it. Others can be skilled in marking cards or pinching bets, and be way outside the gaming rules. So "Skill" is an all encompassing word: you can be skilled in accounting or in embezzling; you can be skilled in locksmithing or in burglary, etc.

As for AP play, if it's unacceptable to the house, you're barred, and if you're fine, you get to play all day long with your real name for comps, etc. It's not skill or "thinking," it's playing by the house rules.

I'm feeling nauseous after reading Dans post.

Quote: Paigowdan

there are also no "No card-counting, collusion, or pinching and Capping" signs at a casino or card room. Yet they are disallowed behaviors

The local places here do have signs implying no collusion (players may not expose or discuss their hands with other players or non-players on a face-down game).

Pinching and capping would be altering the wager between when it is accepted (the deal begins) and when it is settled (the pay/take). That's cheating.


Saying that one player may not wager and play as they like (within posted table limits and game rules), while others can, simply because they seem to have better instincts about how to play is preferential treatment and inherently unfair.

Yeah, preferential treatment isn't right and I get that. I think casinos can bar people because if there were no restrictions at all it might get out of hand. AC is the way it is not because of counters, but across taken against counters. The environment is hostile, unfriendly and there is an atmosphere of suspicion. People don't like playing in conditions like that.

Dan, the issue I have with your position is this: you state that skilled play is fine, but once the house doesn't have the advantage it isn't. It seems silly to draw that line when the house offers the game in the first place, doesn't explicitly state rules against it and will even say to players it's not disallowed when asked. It's deceptive. The casino has the advantage on virtually everything and players have to be quite knowledgeable to change that, so it's deserved. Casinos profited immensely following Thorpe's work because of all the players who tried to count and failed. Today, many counters fail from being inadequately financed. There are so many reasons why it should remain legal, and usually there are two arguments against it. The first one is ad hominem attacks, we're cheaters, frauds or crooks. The second is the casino stating "we want even more money."

The story about the Corporation wanting MORE; what's new. Back-offs and other preventive measures are I believe reasonable for any business to pursue but hypocrisy is at its fundamental core. "You can play but you MUST LOSE because it's just business. However, don't mind these signs that let everyone know that they can be winners." I refuse to be willfully ignorant. I'd rather stay home and watch T.V.

Quote: Paigowdan

All right then:

2. Not every rule needs to be posted; there are no "Thou shalt not fare-beat" signs on the bus, "No Tupperware" signs at the Buffet, no "No Extra Movies" at the Cinemaplex, and there are also no "No card-counting, collusion, or pinching and Capping" signs at a casino or card room. Yet they are disallowed behaviors, but it is expected that most people have enough home training not to need them, and most generally don't, as a non-issue if not posted. That simple.

Home training?

I remember very well my mom and my friends moms instilling in me that you should pay your fare on the bus, not sneak out extra food at the buffet and not sneak into an unpaid movie on the other screen in the multiplex.

I don't remember any teachers or parents mentioning card counting when I was a youth!

EDIT: And for that matter, how can you lump pinching and capping in with card counting? Aren't pinching and capping explicitly illegal?

EDIT EDIT: For that matter, aren't fare-beating and sneaking into movies illegal? (Not sure bout the sneaking food out the buffet) Card counting is not in the same league with any of the other things because IT ISN"T ILLEGAL!

Quote: aceofspades

All circumstantial evidence coupled with a "battle of the experts"

Nope, casinos are dumb!

BTW, counting does NOT affect the house edge. Dealing the cards is what affects the house edge!

Quote: Paigowdan

If you're operating within the rules you don't get backed off. The back off is a very clear indication that you're doing something wrong or unacceptable, otherwise you'd be allowed to continue.

This is just not true. I witnessed many players backed off that were no more counting than jumping over the moon. I have seen many players who were just parlaying wagers or even worse chasing losses, tossed just because they made bigger bets, often times in negative counts. Check out some of the sweatier places, El Cortez, South Point, Valley Forge in Pa are a few that come to mind. Their paranoia has them tossing anyone that raises their bet, regardless if it's a positive count or not. Lol.

Along the same lines of stupidity, I have seen counters tossed that shouldn't be. Players spreading $5-$20 on an eight deck, poor penetration game, that are still playing a significantly losing game. I also see players tossed all the time, that may be playing a winning game, but are severely underfunded, so they most likely would succumb to the high risk of ruin, they are playing. If casinos stopped spending dollars to chase pennies, and only worried about the very few who were REALLY a threat, their bottom line would increase. In other words...."The Bill Zender model".

Someone earlier gave credit to PGDan for being persistent and sticking to his guns. I Don't! Making the same erroneous argument over and over is the definition of insanity.

All of Dan's posts head down the same road. He can't make his case, so he eventually compares a completely legal activity like card counting to things that are crimes. In this case, "pinching" and "capping" are crimes. When caught the perpetrator can go to jail. Even fare-beating, stealing from the buffet and movies is a crime. It's an illegal activity that one could (unlikely) be arrested for. Card counting is not a crime. There is not a judge anywhere in the US that has rules that it is, in thousands of opportunities to do so.

Upon failing to connect card counting to criminality, Dan then goes to his backup argument, "against house rules", but has never, not once, been able to produce where such rules are posted.

Dan, you just continue to look silly. There was a thread on this very site in the last 48 hours, "new documentary about AP", where in the card counting segment which featured casino personnel backing off Josh Axelrad, the casino security consultant expert, Jim Hartley specifically said, card counting isn't illegal....That it is completely within the rules of the game. Here's a guy, who, while he is on the other side of my battle, I can respect. Dan, you should stop the insanity (repeating same incorrect thing) and take a page out of Mr Hartley's book. :)

Quote: Paigowdan

The back off is a very clear indication that you're doing something wrong or unacceptable, otherwise you'd be allowed to continue.

You should have written:

"The back off is a very clear indication that you're doing something wrong or unacceptable in the eyes of the casino."

You always infer a moral component, which is not inherent to rules. Something is not morally right just because it is a rule.

Or would you defend these Saudi Arabian rules (laws even) also, if rules are always right?:

Rule: Women must not drive.
Rule: You draw Mohammed, you die.
Rule: You get raped, you die.


Or how about this:

Racist Store Owner to Black Customer: "Get out, n_____, we don't serve your kind here."
Customer complains to the police.
Police officer: "The back off is a very clear indication that you're doing something wrong or unacceptable. Good day, Sir."

We may have gotten off track because the question begins in the thread title and finishes as the first sentence of the original post.

We are being asked to assume, for the sake of this discussion, that card counting is illegal. The OP is asking, after making that assumption, if a casino could prove it and if they could prosecute. Well certainly they could prosecute but I think the real question is could they get a conviction. Stranger things have happened.

Given enough time to observe an individual I could prove it but could I convince a jury or a judge? I would say sometimes yes and sometimes no. If I were an attorney I would probably go for a jury trial, big bad casino and all.

How about it attorneys? Jump right in.

Quote: Paigowdan

2. Not every rule needs to be posted; there are no "Thou shalt not fare-beat" signs on the bus, "No Tupperware" signs at the Buffet, no "No Extra Movies" at the Cinemaplex, and there are also no "No card-counting, collusion, or pinching and Capping" signs at a casino or card room. Yet they are disallowed behaviors, but it is expected that most people have enough home training not to need them, and most generally don't, as a non-issue if not posted. That simple.

Actually, I have seen signs that you have to pay your fare in buses and signs in buffets that you are not allow to take food with you out of the buffet.

With regard to casinos in game where collusion is not allowed, say in Carribean Stud, if someone does not know this and tries to see the other players hand and the dealer sees him, he will explain this no collusion rule to him. And often there is a sign of no collusion (not allowed to see other players hands).
In roulette the dealer will say no more bets and if someone tries to put a bet after this is said (say 1 second later) the dealer will remove the bet and ask not put a bet after 'no more bets' is said.

In BJ when someone is thinking, I have never heard the dealer say . Excuse me sir it is not allowed to think in the game of BJ. Or excuse me sir, if your thinking includes analysing the relative proportion of low to high cards remaining that you saw, this is not allowed.
Or if a player actually says. Can you believe these cards that the dealer has given us. There are all these cards on the table and not a single 10. A clear 'counting' statement even if the person that says it does not how to count. Because counting can be considered any statement or thought on a players mind relating to the relative proportion of low to high cards remaining even if this is of miniscule value and even if such player does not use that information. Like obsreving a table full of low cards in the current hand and increasing the bet the next hand even if you are not actually using the information you just observed but just incerased your bet in a hunch.

Paigowdan will say that it is not illegal to think (ie count cards), but only to act upon such bets. If you count but do not use that information but just play on hunches it is not illegal.
So suupose that someone counts but does not use that information but play on hunches but it just happens that they coinicide with the count, then I assume the Paigowdan will say that this is legal BUT he will also say that you are lying that this is just a coincidence and you are actualy using the information.

And the bottom line is that no-one can actually know what you are thinking (=counting), and that raising your bets is counting and not just hunches. At least not yet (maybe casinos will introduce mind reading technology as soon as it is available). The casino when it observes bet raising will do statistical analysis to see how often it coincides with the count. If the casino observes a player for a short period of time the statisics might say that there is 70% probability that he is counting. The longer the observation the higher the statistical confidence level approaches 100% that this person is counting. It NEVER though becomes 100%. The casino can never be 100% sure that the bet raising is Counting. And the casino puts a confidence level (I have no idea what) but say 95% in its procedure of confirming counting. And of the 95 people he bans for counting he bans 5 non-counters as well. Ther are plenty of threads here of people been banned without counting which confirms this.

And also to compare Counting with Pinching cards.
It is not allowed to Pinch cards period. If you pinch the card a little or a lot has no difference of it being illegal. Or if you just pinch 1 card of many cards. Or if you only ever did it once. It is just illegal period.
With counting, it apperas that Paigowdan says it is illegal if you do it a lot. If you do it a little is not illegal. Otherwise every single observation that players do about the cards that have passed (for example a player noticing that the last 4 cards wre small and he decides to stand on a 16 because a 10 is due) is actually counting and the player should be immediately thrown out of the casino. And if a player just plays BS and just does this strategy (ie standing on 16 when the last 4 cards were small), he will effect the House Edge on his favour (albeit by a very small amount). And under Paigowdan definition effecting the House Edge is illegal.

Because actually most BJ players count occasionaly (under the definition of altering a decision based on cards seen). Is just that most of this 'counting' has very little effect.

Most counters are allowed to play until their heart's content because they're just not that good. If you raise your bets and use index play, it's a dead giveaway. Your sessions had better be short.

Quote: Canyonero

You should have written:

"The back off is a very clear indication that you're doing something wrong or unacceptable in the eyes of the casino."

Canyonero, you Nailed it, this is very good. This is exactly the point: if it unacceptable in the eyes of the casino, (i.e., their rules clearly), it is reason enough to stop or bar the player from action. For areas where gambling is based on mutual acceptability of entering into a wager (everywhere aside from NJ), a casino may reject your action, effectively barring you. Neither the player nor casino is compelled to enter into a gambling session with one another: the casino may stop play or action with the player - just as much as the player may color up and walk away whenever he wants.

Quote: Canyonero

You always infer a moral component, which is not inherent to rules. Something is not morally right just because it is a rule.

Or would you defend these Saudi Arabian rules (laws even) also, if rules are always right?:

Rule: Women must not drive.
Rule: You draw Mohammed, you die.
Rule: You get raped, you die.

I'd never defend that, but that's quite different. This is true, - just because it is a rule or law doesn't make it morally right or justifiable, clearly. The oppressive laws of Islamic countries are well known, and are not justifiable on moral grounds, although they are justified on religious grounds.
But while the oppressive laws of Islam are unescapable to citizens, unreasonable in nature, and violate human rights, casino house rules on table game play do not fall into this extreme category, (and such a reference approaches Godwin's Law because:
1. You are not held captive to a casino and are forced to play or not play; you don't have to go to a casino, nor are you required to stay and play any specific table - such as Blackjack. It is not against human rights to say to a player "You must bet the same amount bet each hand," or "You can't play at this table," or "You must leave this gambling establishment."
2. And this is because no one is compelled to enter into a gambling session agreement if one party has reason to believe that the other party would be acting in bad faith during game play.

Quote: Canyonero

Or how about this:

Racist Store Owner to Black Customer: "Get out, n_____, we don't serve your kind here."
Customer complains to the police.
Police officer: "The back off is a very clear indication that you're doing something wrong or unacceptable. Good day, Sir."

Another Godwinian example.
If a casino backed off a table game player because of race, that would be 100% unacceptable and despicable, and I don't see that happening; it would be in every newspaper. But a casino may back off a player if they find the player's play unacceptable.
A store owner may not reject service to a person because of race, but may have issues if that person's store behavior were previously known to be unacceptable or disruptive to the business.

At casinos and card rooms, the back offs that do occur are not based on race or ethnicity, but are based on what the casino considers to be unacceptable game play behavior by the player from the establishment, in which case the back off is indeed based on doing something that is wrong or unacceptable to the business establishment for business reasons, and not for racial reasons.

As for "thinking:" you may think about card counting or anything else all you want; that's fine and moral. It is when you act on it, and by raising and lowering your bet in Remarkable Statistical Synchronicity with the actual count of the shoe, that you are taking actions that may often be deemed unacceptable. Thinking about shagging your neighbor's wife is a lot different than taking action on it and actually shagging your neighbor's wife, even if it is legal. At that point, it is no longer just thinking.

Here's a rule of thumb: if surveillance can "see your thinking" through your actual bet size rising and falling in parallel with the count, you have gone past "just thinking," and have taken real action, - an action that may be deemed unacceptable to the house, hence a back off.

Quote: Canyonero

"The back off is a very clear indication that you're doing something wrong or unacceptable in the eyes of the casino."

And there is the caveat, 'in the eyes of
the casino'. Which under the law, is
meaningless. We don't care what the
casino wants, we care what the law
says.

In Deadwood, Al Swearengen spoke
for all casino owners when he said:
"If it was up to me, I would just kill
all the hoopleheads, take their money,
and drag their bodies down to the
creek. But that would be wrong.."

The 'rule' that Dan never posts is,
'hey, that guy is beating us, get rid
of him.' Or 'We THINK that guy is
beating us, get rid of him too.'

There's no deep morality to it, as
Dan tries to imply. If they think
you're beating them at their game,
you're toast. Simple as that.

Quote: AceTwo

Actually, I have seen signs that you have to pay your fare in buses and signs in buffets that you are not allow to take food with you out of the buffet.

We can also see no such signs, also. I think casinos should post signs that say "We reserve the right to evaluate your play, and if it is not in accordance with our protocols, we reserve the right to deny you action." But this won't happen, nor do I think it is necessary. But this rule is assumed, and is in effect.

Quote: AceTwo

With regard to casinos in game where collusion is not allowed, say in Carribean Stud, if someone does not know this and tries to see the other players hand and the dealer sees him, he will explain this no collusion rule to him. And often there is a sign of no collusion (not allowed to see other players hands).
In roulette the dealer will say no more bets and if someone tries to put a bet after this is said (say 1 second later) the dealer will remove the bet and ask not put a bet after 'no more bets' is said.

And the same thing is done when someone is flat betted on Blackjack. It is also saying "No, you may not do that."

Quote: Acetwo

In BJ when someone is thinking, I have never heard the dealer say . Excuse me sir it is not allowed to think in the game of BJ. Or excuse me sir, if your thinking includes analysing the relative proportion of low to high cards remaining that you saw, this is not allowed.

No dealer would say that because thinking is not the issue. Acting on something is the issue. When purposely you raise and lower bets with the count, - and this is detectable - it is taking an action - actually raising and lowering bets with the count - and not just thinking about it that is the issue.

Quote: Acetwo

Or if a player actually says. Can you believe these cards that the dealer has given us. There are all these cards on the table and not a single 10. A clear 'counting' statement even if the person that says it does not how to count. Because counting can be considered any statement or thought on a players mind relating to the relative proportion of low to high cards remaining even if this is of miniscule value and even if such player does not use that information. Like obsreving a table full of low cards in the current hand and increasing the bet the next hand even if you are not actually using the information you just observed but just incerased your bet in a hunch.

Again, Players may think and speak what they want (so as long as it is not foul language). It is the actual game play actions that are visible to surveillance that gets the call-down.

Quote: Acetwo

Paigowdan will say that it is not illegal to think (ie count cards), but only to act upon such bets. If you count but do not use that information but just play on hunches it is not illegal.

Right, but not illegal to count. If you know the count information, but do not act on it, that is okay. If you bet sizing seems random to surveillance and does not follow the count, surveillance will have no issue with you, no matter what you know or think. It is not illegal even if you did take action. But the actions produced from card counting will be visible (making it "beyond just thinking about it") - and may be grounds for flat-betting or a back off.

Quote: Acetwo

So suupose that someone counts but does not use that information but play on hunches but it just happens that they coinicide with the count, then I assume the Paigowdan will say that this is legal BUT he will also say that you are lying that this is just a coincidence and you are actualy using the information.

If you bet sizing rises and falls with the count, and is following the count, it would not be considered a coincidence, and you may be backed off. But then of course, if it weren't following the count, it statistically wouldn't match the count. Keep in mind that playing the streaks often is in the opposite direction of the count's direction. Now, Bet sizing that does follow the count would be detected as card counting, and a call would come down from surveillance, you may be backed off, and you can tell them "it was just an innocent coincidence, I was just playing hunches, you see." See if they believe you.

Quote: Acetwo

And the bottom line is that no-one can actually know what you are thinking (=counting), and that raising your bets is counting and not just hunches.

Yeah - if it is suspiciously following the count. No, if it seems random.

Quote: Acetwo

At least not yet (maybe casinos will introduce mind reading technology as soon as it is available).

No. Few people would care what's inside a gambler's head. They look at game play behavior instead.

Quote: Acetwo

The casino when it observes bet raising will do statistical analysis to see how often it coincides with the count. If the casino observes a player for a short period of time the statisics might say that there is 70% probability that he is counting. The longer the observation the higher the statistical confidence level approaches 100% that this person is counting. It NEVER though becomes 100%. The casino can never be 100% sure that the bet raising is Counting. And the casino puts a confidence level (I have no idea what) but say 95% in its procedure of confirming counting. And of the 95 people he bans for counting he bans 5 non-counters as well. Ther are plenty of threads here of people been banned without counting which confirms this.

True. Courtroom DNA results are never 100% either. If they believe with confidence that you're an AP player, they don't let you play. Some innocents may be barred, too.

Quote: Acetwo

With counting, it apperas that Paigowdan says it is illegal if you do it a lot. If you do it a little is not illegal.

No, card counting is not illegal. And neither does it not appear that I take that position, that's your quote on me, and it's wrong. Card counting can get you flat-betted or backed off, not incarcerated.

Quote: Acetwo

Otherwise every single observation that players do about the cards that have passed (for example a player noticing that the last 4 cards wre small and he decides to stand on a 16 because a 10 is due) is actually counting and the player should be immediately thrown out of the casino. And if a player just plays BS and just does this strategy (ie standing on 16 when the last 4 cards were small), he will effect the House Edge on his favour (albeit by a very small amount). And under Paigowdan definition effecting the House Edge is illegal.

No. Again, I never said that, you did about me. What's illegal totally depends on what you do. If it's fine with the house, then it's fine. It it's not fine with the house, then you don't get to play, and if it's illegal, then get a lawyer.

Quote: Acetwo

Because actually most BJ players count occasionaly (under the definition of altering a decision based on cards seen). Is just that most of this 'counting' has very little effect.

True. The vast majority of counting is of little concern. If it's fine with the house, then it's fine. If you get backed off, then you don't get to play. It's like Fox news: you play, they decide. Doesn't matter how you feel about it.

Quote: Paigowdan

All right then:

1. In a nutshell, Card Counting and AP play are against the rules because it affects the House Edge of a game,

So does playing basic strategy - should that be against the rules ("All players must make incorrect basic strategy decisions" LOLOL)

Quote: Paigowdan

As for "thinking:" you may think about card counting or anything else all you want; that's fine and moral. It is when you act on it, and by raising and lowering your bet in Remarkable Statistical Synchronicity with the actual count of the shoe, that you are taking actions that may often be deemed unacceptable.

Your implication is that acting on knowledge of the count by varying one's bet is immoral. That's nonsense. Invoking morality in the relationship between a casino operator and a gambler opens the floodgates to discuss casino marketing, casino design, and room comps. Is it moral to offer a gambler a free meal and a room for the night if player marketing analytics has determined he is 80% more likely to play craps in the morning at a theoretical loss of $700? Or is that just good business? What's the moral difference between a casino acting on information about a player and a blackjack player acting on the count?

It's also capricious for a casino to act to mitigate certain types of advantage plays but not others or, indeed, openly encourage them, such as by moving the line in a sportsbook away from the correct odds of a given bet because you have information about how much action is on each side. Morality would dictate neither type of play is acceptable.

Bottom line: the last thing a casino is thinking about is a player's morality when they back off a BJ player for counting. It's a business decision, pure and simple. Smart casino operators let the smaller-stakes BJ counters play (and even some of the larger ones) because they know that the overall EV from a good vibe in the pit is a net positive (as opposed to a sweat joint which everyone can feel). It's the same reasoning that leads casinos to spend money on new games, free drinks, and bounceback mailers to player's club members -- because they think it'll be better for the bottom line.

Let's not pretend it's about morality.

Quote: aceofspades

So does playing basic strategy - should that be against the rules ("All players must make incorrect basic strategy decisions" LOLOL)

No, not at all.

The house edge for table games are derived assuming 100% optimal player play by mathematicians and certified Gaming laboratories (such as GLI Labs), and this is fine. In fact, players should play a game's legit strategy very well, if not perfectly. In other words, the house edge is unassailable even with perfect strategy play, and the house still makes its house edge and so can still offer the game. If you play perfect basic strategy and do not take AP actions, you're fine.

Quote: 1BB

We may have gotten off track because the question begins in the thread title and finishes as the first sentence of the original post.

We are being asked to assume, for the sake of this discussion, that card counting is illegal. The OP is asking, after making that assumption, if a casino could prove it and if they could prosecute. Well certainly they could prosecute but I think the real question is could they get a conviction. Stranger things have happened.

Given enough time to observe an individual I could prove it but could I convince a jury or a judge? I would say sometimes yes and sometimes no. If I were an attorney I would probably go for a jury trial, big bad casino and all.

How about it attorneys? Jump right in.

I did jump right in and then the conversation veered away from the OP's excellent hypothetical

Really good points, guys! Glad we can argue without name calling once in awhile. Haha.

Quote: 1BB

We may have gotten off track because the question begins in the thread title and finishes as the first sentence of the original post.

We are being asked to assume, for the sake of this discussion, that card counting is illegal. The OP is asking, after making that assumption, if a casino could prove it and if they could prosecute. Well certainly they could prosecute but I think the real question is could they get a conviction. Stranger things have happened.

Given enough time to observe an individual I could prove it but could I convince a jury or a judge? I would say sometimes yes and sometimes no. If I were an attorney I would probably go for a jury trial, big bad casino and all.

How about it attorneys? Jump right in.

I work with the sort of attorneys who would be defending and/or prosecuting this hypothetical case, and the clincher would likely be a mathematical argument. What are the chances that the specific betting pattern used by the alleged card-counter resulted from some factor other than knowledge of the count?

I think the answer is probably more subtle and depends on how the law making card counting illegal was written. If it's a specific intent crime, the prosecution needs to prove intent. If it's a general intent crime, then the law could simply be written such that anyone varying their bets above a 90% correlation to the count was guilty, intent or otherwise. But that'd be a pretty ridiculous law.

Quote: MathExtremist

Quote: Paigowdan

As for "thinking:" you may think about card counting or anything else all you want; that's fine and moral. It is when you act on it, and by raising and lowering your bet in Remarkable Statistical Synchronicity with the actual count of the shoe, that you are taking actions that may often be deemed unacceptable.

Your implication is that acting on knowledge of the count by varying one's bet is immoral. That's nonsense. Invoking morality in the relationship between a casino operator and a gambler opens the floodgates to discuss casino marketing, casino design, and room comps.

Yes and No -
1. It is not illegal, but it is valid reason for flat betting or a back off.
2. The casino or card room has a right to NOT enter into action if they deem that the game play action would be in bad faith, - that the house rule or supposition is that you play Basic strategy only or be backed off. Nothing unknown or to complain about here, comes with the territory.
3. That this is not only known but expected to be followed. Obviously, the honor system stinks in operational form at a gambling hall.
4. bad faith play is simply that: bad faith play; we simply know it is not sanctioned by the house, hence cover play and disguises to conceal and deceive our intentions. For something that is in such clear bad faith action to be reason enough to be denied play may be immoral, though that is questionable. It's personal POV. Besides, "so what" concerning what I think or feel, and please excuse me discussing good faith/bad faith points on it all.

I think I made a very salient point: Obviously, the honor system stinks in operational form at a gambling hall.

This you have to agree with.

Quote: ME

Is it moral to offer a gambler a free meal and a room for the night if player marketing analytics has determined he is 80% more likely to play craps in the morning at a theoretical loss of $700? Or is that just good business? What's the moral difference between a casino acting on information about a player and a blackjack player acting on the count?

When offered a comp, whether for appreciation or to generate business or both, - the casino decides to reward a player within their business rules. When a player decides to use a methodology to breach a game's expected and needed performance parameters to run that business, then THAT might be against the casino house's business rules. And that player action might also be deemed immoral.

Quote: ME

It's also capricious for a casino to act to mitigate certain types of advantage plays but not others or, indeed, openly encourage them, such as by moving the line in a sportsbook away from the correct odds of a given bet because you have information about how much action is on each side. Morality would dictate neither type of play is acceptable.

No: this is because the known odds are declared going into the wager in that case; either accept or reject participating in that bet. But when an AP action occurs, this house edge requirement for a gambling offering is breached.

Quote: ME

Bottom line: the last thing a casino is thinking about is a player's morality when they back off a BJ player for counting. It's a business decision, pure and simple. Smart casino operators let the smaller-stakes BJ counters play (and even some of the larger ones) because they know that the overall EV from a good vibe in the pit is a net positive (as opposed to a sweat joint which everyone can feel). It's the same reasoning that leads casinos to spend money on new games, free drinks, and bounceback mailers to player's club members -- because they think it'll be better for the bottom line.

Let's not pretend it's about morality.

Why not? How I or anyone behaves when a guest in a business establishment, and in accordance of good faith game play and behavior, is the issue at hand. Some people in the business feel that AP play is, at least in some way, - when it breaches needed game performance parameters that the business expects or relies on - is an attempt to scam and skim card rooms of operating revenue for their own personal benefit, and this is usually paid for by the "innocent" recreational players through poorer game rules and lesser comps. Doesn't sound too moral to me, but really, it is a business issue. Again, like I said: Obviously, the honor system stinks in operational form at a gambling hall.
Granted, this view is far rarer at this site, and way more common at dealer and casino employee sites.

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.

Dan states it so eloquently. But at the end of the day you are wasting your time debating him. People like him (not saying Dan in particular) are just not intelligent enough to see that people can and will beat the numbers they spend millions on "experts" to tell them the games can't be beat. And then then they complain you are "cheating" when you don't play by their rules. Face it, if people like Dan (again, not saying Dan) were so smart they would open casinos with just slots with 85% payback. How does that work out??

But they know there are plenty of people who would lose on a 105% game so they want it both ways. Give them free drinks, understanding they will lose and believe they will consider it cost of vacation, and people like Dan (again not Dan) smile all day. But act smarter than them, playing by the rules they made, you are a cheater.

I could type all day, but face it, there is no easy answer. Dan and people like him will defend casinos right to ban those smarter than him all day and night. Hell they might even try to invent games with odds that show casinos can't be beat to prove their gambling knowledge.

The only way to change these laws changed are to get petitions signed and have the voters vote on things like this. Won't happen anytime soon though.

Quote: Boz

Dan states it so eloquently. But at the end of the day you are wasting your time debating him. People like him (not saying Dan in particular) are just not intelligent enough to see that people can and will beat the numbers they spend millions on "experts" to tell them the games can't be beat. And then then they complain you are "cheating" when you don't play by their rules. Face it, if people like Dan (again, not saying Dan) were so smart they would open casinos with just slots with 85% payback. How does that work out??

No. I'd have slots up to 99.9%, and tables with low house edges. The thing is, whatever the bona fide House edge is, house edge would be manipulation-resistant. I know there would be shot takers whose game is not really gambling per se, but the game of Free Lunch/beat the system whenever the honor system is used. In fact, games with solid game protection CAN offer lower house edges for the players, precisely because that house edge would be less likely to be breached. In that way you're protecting the sheep players from paying the wolf players.

Quote: Boz

But they know there are plenty of people who would lose on a 105% game so they want it both ways. Give them free drinks, understanding they will lose and believe they will consider it cost of vacation, and people like Dan (again not Dan) smile all day. But act smarter than them, playing by the rules they made, you are a cheater.

No. Quite clearly, if you play by the rules you're 100% fine. That's always been the case.

Quote: Boz

I could type all day, but face it, there is no easy answer. Dan and people like him will defend casinos right to ban those smarter than him all day and night. Hell they might even try to invent games with odds that show casinos can't be beat to prove their gambling knowledge.

A solution is to offer games that aren't broken, game-protection wise, so that reliance on the honor system wouldn't be necessary. If there's any design flaw, a crack or a hole in a game, game protection-wise, plenty of gamblers will try to stuff themselves through it.

Got this by following a link from teliot's thread:


"Is card counting illegal" magicians luck blog

Quote: Paigowdan

When offered a comp, whether for appreciation or to generate business or both, - the casino decides to reward a player within their business rules. When a player decides to use a methodology to breach a game's expected and needed performance parameters to run that business, then THAT might be against the casino house's business rules. And that player action might also be deemed immoral.

But the value of a comp is variable based on how (or whether) the player uses it. The value of slot free play, for example, changes based on how the player plays it. It is never the intention of the casino for a player to maximize the EV of the free play and then not play any more, but some players do. The value that those players extract from that transaction is far in excess of the value that the casinos intend for the player to extract.

What's the difference, moral or otherwise, between taking full advantage of a complimentary offered by a casino and taking full advantage of a game offered by a casino?

Quote: Paigowdan

bad faith play is simply that: bad faith play; we simply know it is not sanctioned by the house, hence cover play and disguises to conceal and deceive our intentions. For something that is in such clear bad faith action to be reason enough to be denied play may be immoral, though that is questionable.

When offered a comp, whether for appreciation or to generate business or both, - the casino decides to reward a player within their business rules. When a player decides to use a methodology to breach a game's expected and needed performance parameters to run that business, then THAT might be against the casino house's business rules. And that player action might also be deemed immoral.

Lol, Paigowdan. The casinos tell us that we are free to play our hands however we want. Casinos stand mutely by as players hit a hard 14 vs a dealer five, or stand on a hard 12 vs a dealer ten. Is it moral for them to do so? We are free to go on tilt and bet all of our chips after a bad beat - the casino will not intervene. Is that moral? Yet when an advantage player makes a bet based on card counting suddenly the casino's sphincter muscle tightens and we are no no longer free to make our own decisions? Why do you feel you can have it both ways?

Look, if you don't want card counters and advantage play then simply stipulate that bet size not vary more frequently than once an hour and that the player must follow the same rules as the dealer (or must follow basic strategy) when playing their blackjack hand. But if you are going to grant that players are allowed to make their own decisions on bet size and play of the cards, and allow players to make bad moves and ruinous bets then be consistent -and allow them to make smart plays and wise changes in bet size. And don't huff and puff about morality. There are hundreds of thousands of broken players and ruined lives as a result of the gambling business. There is nothing moral about the gambling business - its a stinking business that does not produce food, knowledge, energy, shelter or anything of value to society. It simply separates people from their money. Its bad enough without being pious and self-righteous on top of it all.

Just ban splitting and doubling down,
counters will leave for good.