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

Ban variance---run all games based upon computers where all decisions are taken out of players hands---each hand is based on the average of 1billion hands (ie player dealt a 2,K v dealer Q -- player will win or lose the hand based on the average of a computer simulation of one billion hands of 2,K v dealer Q) - why even play anymore

I made it too complicated - just give the casino the (HE*your bankroll) and leave

Boz stated that we (me) are wasting our time debating Dan on this subject. Apparently I am no longer debating Dan, since he has stopped responding to my posts. I supposed he has run out of ligitimate retorts. But I will continue to argue my case against the Dan's of the world, and the casino industry that have engaged in this smear campaign to lump card counters who are playing 100% within the rules of the games in with cheaters or others engaged in illegal activity.

I am a good person and try to live my life by the letter of the law and even a higher threshold, what I consider fair and I attempt to live my life that way as best that I can both inside and outside the casino. Being and AP for a living does not compromise that principal. And frankly I along with all card counters who are playing completely within the rules of the game deserve better than this smear campaign.

Blackjack is a game of unknown origin. The first written references were by Miguel de Cervantes in the early 1600's. But ever since blackjack became a staple in US casinos, the official rules stated that a player must wager within the posted table minimum and table maximum and play out his hand hitting or standing on his total as he wishes until he goes over the total of 21.

This is exactly how I play, betting within the table minimum and maximum and hitting or standing as I wish until I am over a total of 21. Can someone (Dan) explain where it is that I cheat?

Now if you want to discuss cheating....the official rules of the game go on to say that a nature 2 card total of 21, commonly called a blackjack, will be paid at a rate of 3 to 2. In addition the rules for the dealer hitting state that the dealer must hit his total up to and including 16 and stand on all totals of 17.

Let's say that again... 3:2 blackjack and dealer stand on all totals of 17. Two official rules of the game that the casino industry has decided not to abide by in recent years. Now you want to tell me who is really cheating who?

Now lets get into this smear campaign of lumping card counters in with cheaters and criminals. Card counting. The industry has done it's best to make that sound so evil. We are talking about the player tracking cards that have been played to the best of his ability to determine better strategy for the remaining play. The very same strategy, employed by most players in the card games of Pinochle and Bridge. Those players are 'celebrated' as good players, but in blackjack the same playing strategy is equated to some evil scheme of cheating and criminality.

Give me a break! The casinos are bullies! They stack the games in their favor and then when someone comes along and can win, completely within the rules of the game, they want to vilify them and stop them from playing. Shades of the bully taking his ball and running home crying. :)

Quote: MathExtremist

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?

Okay.
The comp is to be used by the player with the blessing of the casino but under the rules of the casino; for example, free bet table game tickets may have restrictions on them, to be used on the pass line but not on prop bets, or on the main Pai Gow bet, but not on the fortune bonus bet. The ticket may or may not say "for even money bets only." That is a restriction. Same with a table game offered by the casino: for example, a player may play perfect basic strategy, - taking advantage of basic strategy, all fine here, but may not raise and lower bets based on the shoe's true count, - to take advantage of card counting, which is restricted.

The issue here is what you are allowed to do on the premises on the games, versus what you are not allowed to do on the games.

Quote: aceofspades

Ban variance---run all games based upon computers where all decisions are taken out of players hands---each hand is based on the average of 1billion hands (ie player dealt a 2,K v dealer Q -- player will win or lose the hand based on the average of a computer simulation of one billion hands of 2,K v dealer Q) - why even play anymore.

Because you can play with both variance and under the house rules. 98% of players do, and that seems to work just fine.

And game protection doesn't apply to Blackjack? I've played Ultimate Texas Hold 'em, Three Card Poker, and DJ Wild where players had to first make their check or bet/fold or bet decisions before the next cards came out, be it the flop, the turn and river, or the dealer's hand. And the games play exactly the same way procedurally, but without the ability to hole-card or edge-sort the community board or dealer's hand. To the recreational player, the game plays exactly the same way and is just as fast. But to the AP player, he can no longer hole-card or edge-sort the game. The regular recreational players do not seem to miss these now eliminated AP opportunities, not being AP players.

Quote: Paigowdan

Because you can play with both variance and under the house rules. 98% of players do, and that seems to work just fine.

And game protection doesn't apply to Blackjack. I've played Ultimate Texas Hold 'em, Three Card Poker, and DJ Wild where players had to first make their check or bet/fold or bet decisions before the next cards came out, be it the flop, the turn and river, or the dealer's hand. And the games play exactly the same way procedurally, but without the ability to hole-card or edge-sort the community board or dealer's hand. To the recreational player, the game plays exactly the same way and is just as fast. But to the AP player, he can no longer hole-card or edge-sort the game. These players do not seem to miss these now eliminated AP opportunities, not being AP players.

And there is nothing wrong with that. When I played poker, I made sure to protect my hole cards. But conversely, if my neighbors were exposing theirs so I could see them, you bet your a$$ I used that info. Nothing wrong with how the house has to protect their hands either.

Quote: kewlj

I am a good person and try to live my life by the letter of the law and even a higher threshold, what I consider fair and I attempt to live my life that way as best that I can both inside and outside the casino.

Kewlj, I know you are a fine man.

Quote: kewlj

Being and AP for a living does not compromise that principal. And frankly I along with all card counters who are playing completely within the rules of the game deserve better than this smear campaign.

If you are within the rules of the game or the rules of the house (which is to say, the rules of the game offered), all 100% acceptable to the house, you would never need a cover play, a disguise, or would never be at risk to be flat-betted or backed off. The thing is, is that there are a whole list of additional game protection rules applied to Blackjack above and beyond the basic rules of the game that we think we know. These rules are called "Casino Internal Controls" or ICs, and they are generally followed quite closely and tightly.

Quote: kewlj

This is exactly how I play, betting within the table minimum and maximum and hitting or standing as I wish until I am over a total of 21. Can someone (Dan) explain where it is that I cheat?

They would look to see if your bet sizes are closely following the shoe's rising and falling true count; if it parallels the count within a certain statistical probability, they will assume that this is deliberate, that you're counting as an AP player, and may take action.

Quote: kewlj

Now if you want to discuss cheating....the official rules of the game go on to say that a nature 2 card total of 21, commonly called a blackjack, will be paid at a rate of 3 to 2. In addition the rules for the dealer hitting state that the dealer must hit his total up to and including 16 and stand on all totals of 17.

Let's say that again... 3:2 blackjack and dealer stand on all totals of 17. Two official rules of the game that the casino industry has decided not to abide by in recent years. Now you want to tell me who is really cheating who?

There are additional Blackjack game rules and guidelines involving deck penetration depth requirements, jump bet raises alerts, and additional card counting bet raise-to-count raise limits, all of them Blackjack-specific rules and procedures used internally, so I can tell you they exist. In fact, at some houses for some periods of time had the blackjack dealers issue a jump bet alert to floor supervisors if a play bet-raised three times or more from his initial first hand bet.

Quote: kewlj

Now lets get into this smear campaign of lumping card counters in with cheaters and criminals. Card counting. The industry has done it's best to make that sound so evil. We are talking about the player tracking cards that have been played to the best of his ability to determine better strategy for the remaining play. The very same strategy, employed by most players in the card games of Pinochle and Bridge. Those players are 'celebrated' as good players, but in blackjack the same playing strategy is equated to some evil scheme of cheating and criminality.

What's allowed in game x might not be allowed in game y or z. When I play bridge, I track discards, as is expected for that game. But you cannot get backed off by tracking discards in Bridge, you get backed off by not tracking discards in bridge, as you'd play poorly and no one would want to be your bridge partner.

Quote: kewlj

Give me a break! The casinos are bullies! They stack the games in their favor and then when someone comes along and can win, completely within the rules of the game, they want to vilify them and stop them from playing. Shades of the bully taking his ball and running home crying. :)

Here's the thing: last week I played High Card Flush at Green valley Ranch, and I played alone. It was right next to the Poker with a Joker table. With no card counting, no collusion, I got a 7-card spade flush. $10 on the flush bet paid $3,000. ONE hand. And I was able to do this without AP-ing jack, counting jack, colluding jack, and it was a lot of gambling fun. I wasn't backed off, I was comped. Never a problem here. And most gamblers play in this mode.

Quote: Paigowdan

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.
.

Tell that to all the people who are back roomed.

Quote: AxelWolf

Tell that to all the people who are back roomed.

I don't think I would do them any good. They should call a lawyer.

Quote: aceofspades

I made it too complicated - just give the casino the (HE*your bankroll) and leave

You would do a lot better this way than real life, which is HE * action, not bankroll.

You can have a bankroll of $10,000 and have action of $500,000. You apply the house edge to that latter number to get expected loss.

Quote: Paigowdan

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.

An optimal playing decision (leading to optimal player play) would be based on all available information.

For the game of blackjack, basic strategy is not based on all available information. (Total dependent basic strategy is certainaly not; composition dependent basic strategy is mostly not.)

Quote: Paigowdan

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

Dan,
The standard rules for Blackjack involve playing multiple hands between shuffles. As a result of this "100% optimal player play" varies depending on what cards came out in previous hands. Part of this variation in optimal play is in the amount (if any) bet. In other words "100% optimal player play" involves counting. So while you try to say you want players to use correct strategy, what you are really saying is that they should play just bad enough that the casino makes a nice profit.

One of the appeals of Blackjack at all playing levels is the ability to make decisions and to be ultimately responsible for those decisions. What a great element within a game! The fact that it's not entirely dependent on chance. Now someone comes along and tells me that I have to play in a way that I believe is stupid/inaccurate in my own opinion; we can call this 'Strategy X.' The agreement between House and Player regarding how the game is played will then be broken. Someone is breaking the rules and it's not the player. The size of the bankroll of the house vs. a player is usually so significant that they can at least follow the rules that they made. Table maximums have also been made by the Houses to protect themselves and which they have complete control over as well.

PG Dan, I am not a counter. In fact, I would imagine that I would benefit from better game rules if casinos didn't have to worry about them. But I have nothing against them (counters). That said, I have a problem with your argument.

Quote: Paigowdan

1. In a nutshell, Card Counting and AP play are against the rules...
2. Not every rule needs to be posted.

Here you state (imply) that card counting is against unwritten rules of the house.

Quote: Paigowdan

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.
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.

And here you talk about betting (entering into a contract) in "bad faith."

However, the rules for the player are explicit -- min bet/max bet; hit/stand/split/double down. Yet according to your statements above, the house has some unwritten rules it does not disclose to the player while entering into the contract of the bet. Given these facts, the only conclusion one can draw is that if anyone is entering into the betting contract in "bad faith," it is the house, not the player.

I know this is off-topic (re: the OP) but card counting is not qualitatively different than any other (legal) attempt to gain the edge in a casino. Certain slot machines have, for decades, been known to be exploitable. When I say "exploitable" I mean that every once in a while the game's theoretical payback exceeds 100% for a short period of time, even if the average payback is still less than 100%. This can happen when a VP progressive jackpot reaches a certain level, when a slot game with an accumulator-triggered bonus round is one or two symbols away from winning, or when a game is left in some sort of bonus mode (e.g., multipliers on Ultimate X).

A lot of accumulator-bonus slot games were sold to casinos in the late 1990s. Not too long afterwards, knowledge of their exploitability became widely known. After reviewing the situation, casinos decided that those games weren't a net positive to their floor so they took them out. It's incredibly rare to find a meaningfully-exploitable accumulator slot on the floor these days. And there have been exploitable proprietary table games in the past that have been removed from casino operations after word got out. However, casinos have also allowed other exploitable games to remain on the floor, including progressives, Ultimate X VP and blackjack.

Casino operators clearly understand that certain players can exploit these games. It's not particularly hard to look at a multiplier on Ultimate X and figure out that you have the edge for one hand. By allowing those games to remain on the floor, I would argue that the casino has made the evaluation that those games are a net positive despite their exploitability. Certainly walking up to an Ultimate X game with a big multiplier on it and playing for one hand is not "against the rules." Neither is playing a 25c 8/5 JoB progressive with $2000 on the meter until the progressive hits (~1.8% player edge w/ perfect play, discounting taxes). The gambler is simply recognizing a short-term favorable wager, presented to him or her by the casino according to its own rules, and betting on it. That's exactly what card counters do, not just in blackjack but in any card game where the edge varies as the deck depletes (and there are a *lot* of exploitable card games out there). What's the difference?

Well said.

I'm waiting for casinos to announce that you will now

"DOUBLE YOUR MONEY BY GETTING DEALT A BLACKJACK!!!!!!!!!!!!"

mathextemist makes a great point. Card counters only are at an advantage a small amount of the time, during most of the play, they are still playing at a disadvantage, exactly the same as machines that are +EV a small amount of time, but overall, not. The casino industry would be better off to focus on this fact instead of getting all riled up and spending dollars to save pennies as they have done for decades.

As to AoS's comment, many machine blackjack games do pay even money and they advertise 2 for 1 blackjack, with the key word being "for" which is misunderstood by many. 2 FOR 1 is not 2 TO 1. 2 FOR 1 is even money. :( Just another way the casino industry trys to trick and prey on people.

Quote: kewlj

mathextemist makes a great point. Card counters only are at an advantage a small amount of the time, during most of the play, they are still playing at a disadvantage, exactly the same as machines that are +EV a small amount of time, but overall, not. The casino industry would be better off to focus on this fact instead of getting all riled up and spending dollars to save pennies as they have done for decades.

As to AoS's comment, many machine blackjack games do pay even money and they advertise 2 for 1 blackjack, with the key word being "for" which is misunderstood by many. 2 FOR 1 is not 2 TO 1. 2 FOR 1 is even money. :( Just another way the casino industry trys to trick and prey on people.

I remember posting about that years ago when I was at Revel - I thought it was a glitch until I realized the intermediary word was "for" rather than "to"

The 1/6'ers probably don't think there is a difference between "for" & "to".

The whole argument seems to be that counters should follow the rules because they are the rules. It seems circular and sounds like an argument between a parent and child.

Child: "Can I have that?"
Parent: "No"
Child: "Why?"
Parent: "Because I said so."
Child: "???"
Parent: "What I say goes. No exceptions."

Not a great way to parent, not a great way to interact in the counter and casino interaction.

Quote: Minty

The whole argument seems to be that counters should follow the rules because they are the rules. It seems circular and sounds like an argument between a parent and child.

Child: "Can I have that?"
Parent: "No"
Child: "Why?"
Parent: "Because I said so."
Child: "???"
Parent: "What I say goes. No exceptions."

Not a great way to parent, not a great way to interact in the counter and casino interaction.

I don't really "get" that analogy.

To me it boils down to this: If the casino's don't want card counters they have the ability to eliminate them. They can go all CSM or go to all 6:5 or even worse, even money blackjack, which would eliminate card counters.

But that's not what they want. They WANT to advertise and have it be common knowledge that their game of blackjack CAN be beaten. But then when someone does beat it, they want to cry and call them cheaters and criminals. In other words.....they want it BOTH ways.

Quote: Dieter

Quote: Paigowdan

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.

An optimal playing decision (leading to optimal player play) would be based on all available information.

For the game of blackjack, basic strategy is not based on all available information. (Total dependent basic strategy is certainaly not; composition dependent basic strategy is mostly not.)

No.
Optimal play - as defined in the math report calculations that casinos and game designers rely on - is based on all allowable information that is allowed to be used by the Rules of Play, and not the illicit stuff. And card counting and hole carding "possibly obtainable information" are NOT a part of a game's math reports' simulations.

All calculations by mathematicians, GLI, gaming laboratories, etc., do not calculate the house edge to include card-counting, hole-carding, etc, and so assumes no card-counting, hole-carding, card-marking, or any AP play.

The house edge of Blackjack assumes B.S. only.

Quote: Joeman

PG Dan, I am not a counter. In fact, I would imagine that I would benefit from better game rules if casinos didn't have to worry about them. But I have nothing against them (counters). That said, I have a problem with your argument.

Here you state (imply) that card counting is against unwritten rules of the house.

Actually, they are written rules. They're called "ICs" for "Internal Controls," which are the casino operating procedures that cover everything from table games and game protection to slot operations to reporting and accountancy, to cage operations to fills and credits. However, You do not get to see them or define them unless you're the Surveillance head, the Table Games Director, the Slot director, etc.

Quote: Joeman

And here you talk about betting (entering into a contract) in "bad faith."

However, the rules for the player are explicit -- min bet/max bet; hit/stand/split/double down. Yet according to your statements above, the house has some unwritten rules it does not disclose to the player while entering into the contract of the bet. Given these facts, the only conclusion one can draw is that if anyone is entering into the betting contract in "bad faith," it is the house, not the player.

Bull, really.

Not only are game protection rules codified and implemented (and not shown to John Q. Public), but every AP knows this, hence cover plays, false IDs and disguises, etc. Let me describe this a bit more.....

When gamblers and AP players talk about the rules of the game, they basically talk about the rules of the game as know from the home game version, or from a public description posted on the game, or from playing the game from the player's or AP-er's point of view at a casino, usually as a justification for their POV.

Quite often we hear or get told "Well, that's the FULL rules of the game, right?....RIGHT!" Well...not quite.

What they don't know about are the Internal Control documents that are applied to the operational management of game offerings in casino use. These are basically the additional layers of rules for specific games that casinos use for both operational efficiency and for game protection. These Internal Controls are generally problem-free for poker games, as many game protection measures don't affect the game play or speed of the game, and as such their application to poker games are not noticed by players as operational methodologies are applied; they are transparent to the player, unlike back-offs and flat-betting. Mostly the Internal Controls cover money handling, reporting requirements, cage operations, accountancy, CTRs, fills, count team procedures, etc., but also cover table game protection protocols as rules for specific games to be followed.

Not getting into Blackjack for the moment, but using poker games for an example (which are also AP targets), we can notice the invisible tightening up of Poker Games over time. For example, in Ultimate Texas Hold 'em, the early days of the game had:
1. The dealer deal out a five-card packet, as the five-card board, face down first;
2. Then each player gets a packet of two cards, with the dealer's hand also needlessly brought out at that point.
3. Then the dealer may say "you may bet 3x or 4x your Ante, or you may check and see the flop."
Okay.
If the player knew the community board cards and the dealer's hand at this point, (as if they were dealt face-up) he'd know the FULL deal, and whether or not he won the hand "in the end" - and so whether or not to bet 4x or check or wait for a loss - and the next hand. Well, even dealt as face-down, if the cards were marked, or were edge-sorted, or if the dealer flashed the cards, an AP player would also know the cards up to about as well. And this is far more advantageous than card counting.

I played UTH last week, and the dealer had hand dealt the game. But more so, she dealt each player two cards....and then she stopped. So we looked at our hands. I looked at the dealer's area of the layout, and there was NO community board or dealer's hand sitting there face-down, whether edge-sorted or marked or clean. Nothing. These cards were simply not dealt yet - nor were they needed to be dealt. She then said "Raise or check" - with just the information of our hole cards available - which is ALL the information we're supposed to use for that point. We all checked or raised, THEN she dealt only the three card flop. We then checked or raised. THEN she dealt only the turn and river, and said "Bet or Fold." We ALL betted or folded, THEN she finally dealt her hand. Every single step of the game was protected, and it played exactly the same way as the old way - except with no ability to see the backs of waiting later-stage cards. Well done. The game played the same, it felt the same, it was the same speed, the only thing different was that a card-marker, edge-sorter, or hole-carder didn't have a chance. No back offs, no AP claims about "My Constipational Rights!", no scenes, no nothing but game play action. Nothing was even noticed by anyone, just another hand and a beer from the cocktail waitress. I was of course in game-protection heaven.

So, what happened was that the ICs were updated, which are the internal operational casino rules on how games are offered and operated. The ICs describe how all this unnoticed procedural stuff gets implemented, as all the players noticed were the money and the cards. The game played the same and was now protected. Well, teams might have noticed and gone elsewhere. ICs (operational rules) describing these changes and how the game was to be dealt got updated. (I credit Teliot; bless his heart. You might blame Teliot. Who knows.)

Same with Three Card Poker: the dealer's hand now stays in the card dispenser until all have played or folded, to prevent it from being dealt as one-card Poker.

But with Blackjack, no dealing procedural changes can change the depletion of the shoe in any fashion, so Blackjack game protection is inherently more awkward, yet some people will always hack away and try to count down the shoe, all the while with IC rules and procedures in force on that are unknown to many players concerning deck penetration, flat betting, back offs ("Be polite, do not look for an altercation..."), what have you. The simple fact of the matter is that a card counter cannot sit (is not allowed to sit) at a Blackjack table all the live long day and play in an unrestricted fashion - nor can he claim the Constitutional right to do so. Except in New Jersey, where the games are so stripped AP-wise that it isn't worth it.

ICs are not only written and valid, they will be followed by a business to keep the business viable. All businesses has such controls.

wow just wow.....................

[dup].

Quote: kewlj

To me it boils down to this: If the casino's don't want card counters they have the ability to eliminate them. They can go all CSM or go to all 6:5 or even worse, even money blackjack, which would eliminate card counters.

True. Good point. But an even money on naturals game would be impossible to offer to a non-counter or a bad counter, because then the optimal play would essentially be "you must count to have a chance." A "counting allowed and expected" BJ game would make the game too hard for recreational players.

I am all for even money Blackjacks with counting openly allowed, as a house edge "protected counting" game would now be offerable by the casino, but that would kill the game for 95% of the players who either don't count or don't count well.

Quote: Kewlj

But that's not what they want. They WANT to advertise and have it be common knowledge that their game of blackjack CAN be beaten. But then when someone does beat it, they want to cry and call them cheaters and criminals. In other words.....they want it BOTH ways.

The real story is that counters can't have it both ways: either they play a game so bad that counting won't damage the house edge abilities of the game, like in New Jersey, or they get backed off a game with good rules where the innocents are allowed to play.

Actually, what casinos want - or are trying to offer - is a hybrid game: one that is reasonably fair to the innocent player, and has at least some protection against AP play. And it isn't working too well. And no, they don't cry and call them criminals. They back them off without caring less, and get on to more important things.

Quote: Paigowdan

Optimal play - as defined in the math report calculations that casinos and game designers rely on - is based on all allowable information that is allowed to be used by the Rules of Play, and not the illicit stuff.

There's nothing illicit about remembering what cards have been dealt and acting on it. It's not illicit to remember that no tens had been dealt over the prior three rounds and then to take insurance if the next dealer upcard is an ace. That's a degenerate case of card counting and is a very strong advantage play on the insurance bet (far stronger than normal card counting).

It's illicit to use a shiner to peek at the dealer's hole card, or to share information with other players when the rules say otherwise (e.g. in most proprietary poker games). But simply remembering the very recent past? I fail to see how that's anything other than being a smart player. What's the difference between acting on what happened over the past ten hands in blackjack and acting on what happened over the past ten hands in poker? You'd never suggest that a poker player shouldn't change their play strategy based on their read of the table, so why shouldn't a blackjack player do exactly the same thing? In fact, I'd wager that if you saw a poker player who rigidly stuck to some pre-defined starting-hands chart, you'd call them mediocre when compared to a poker player who adjusted their play based on table conditions.

The only distinction between poker and blackjack in that regard is who's banking the game.

Quote: MathExtremist

What's the difference between acting on what happened over the past ten hands in blackjack and acting on what happened over the past ten hands in poker?.

You'll never get thru to Dan, why even
try. He has the mentality that
just by walking into the spiderweb that
is a casino, you have forfeited all
your money by default. Benny Binion
said 'our work isn't done until the last
check the player writes us bounces.'

PGD, I appreciate the insight into game protection. Honestly, I think you and I would agree on most of the arguments you lay out in your various posts.

Quote: Paigowdan

Actually, they are written rules.

Perhaps I should have said 'undisclosed.' Regardless, one party (the house) is fully aware of all the rules, and one party is aware of only the posted rules.

Quote:

Bull, really.

I'm not saying the house shouldn't enact protection measures. It's your game. Do whatever you want. I'm just saying don't say I am acting in "bad faith" if I agree to play the game with the rules as you have presented them to me.

Also, instead of the analogies above comparing counting to turnstyle jumping/buffet stealing, etc., I think it is more like buying a car. I can offer to buy it at a price where you, as the (car) dealer would lose money. You have the right to say, "No." (analogous to refusing action on a bet) But you may say, "Yes." Regardless, I am not acting in bad faith.

ME -
On using the bad word "illicit."
It was a comparative figure of speech here, comparing non-counting "pure basic strategy" play to card-counting play, which is legal - but disallowed.

so:
1. Illicit was meant only in the sense that it is disallowed by the house.
2. Poker and Blackjack are entirely different games. For eons, Blackjack was thought and operated as "un-AP-able" until Thorpe, the MIT teams, etc. For that reason, the expectations and the operations of the game was that card counting is not allowed after the game was exposed as vulnerable - in order to keep BJ offerable by the house - by limiting the game to non-pros, or truly recreational players.

The analogy I used was that in Bridge, you are supposed to track discards and act on that, and in casino Blackjack, you are not, else risk a back-off that denies you play.

Quote: Paigowdan

The analogy I used was that in Bridge, you are supposed to track discards and act on that, and in casino Blackjack, you are not, else risk a back-off that denies you play.

Right, and risking that back-off is entirely fine. The casino can absolutely back you off from anything (except in NJ due to legal history). But that's very, very different than suggesting that legal AP play is somehow wrong, illicit, or in any other way improper. As a private establishment, the house gets to decide which players can play, within a few limits. But if a casino offers a game where the house edge fluctuates from bet to bet, as many casino games do, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a player observing when that happens and betting accordingly.

Now, making the edge fluctuate is a different story. That's cheating. In Nevada:
"NRS 465.015 “Cheat” means to alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine:
(b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game;"

Quote: Joeman

PGD, I appreciate the insight into game protection. Honestly, I think you and I would agree on most of the arguments you lay out in your various posts.

Quote: Paigowdan

Actually, they are written rules.

Perhaps I should have said 'undisclosed.' Regardless, one party (the house) is fully aware of all the rules, and one party is aware of only the posted rules.

This is often the case. Tongue-in-cheek, the last time that my team and I went to the First National Bank of Sausalito, I asked the bank manager for the combination of the vault and where the alarm sensors were, - and he could not disclose that, even though they are documented somewhere. Same with KFC's chicken recipe, what have you, etc. ;)

Quote: Joeman

I'm not saying the house shouldn't enact protection measures. It's your game. Do whatever you want. I'm just saying don't say I am acting in "bad faith" if I agree to play the game with the rules as you have presented them to me.

Also, instead of the analogies above comparing counting to turnstyle jumping/buffet stealing, etc., I think it is more like buying a car. I can offer to buy it at a price where you, as the (car) dealer would lose money. You have the right to say, "No." (analogous to refusing action on a bet) But you may say, "Yes." Regardless, I am not acting in bad faith.

In negotiations, you may ask anything to help your position without it being bad faith, because it has to be agreed upon, that is, - approved.
I view the use of disguises, cover plays, actions, and the like, in order to breach known house rules, which are not approved to do, to be in that category.

Quote: MathExtremist

Right, and risking that back-off is entirely fine. The casino can absolutely back you off from anything (except in NJ due to legal history). But that's very, very different than suggesting that legal AP play is somehow wrong, illicit, or in any other way improper. As a private establishment, the house gets to decide which players can play, within a few limits. But if a casino offers a game where the house edge fluctuates from bet to bet, as many casino games do, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a player observing when that happens and betting accordingly.

Now, making the edge fluctuate is a different story. That's cheating. In Nevada:
"NRS 465.015 “Cheat” means to alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine:
(b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game;"

Forgive my semantics. I shall refer to it as "disallowed, except in New Jersey." Stacy, you are closer to Nersesian in knowledge than most others here. ;)

I'm predicting "at least" 11 more pages of this back and forth nonsense. Or maybe only 6. I dunno. :-)

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I'm predicting "at least" 11 more pages of this back and forth nonsense. Or maybe only 6. I dunno. :-)

What's your prediction on someone answering the OPs question? Yikes! :-)

1. It is getting a lot of table action. 2. It's been answered with more points and questions arising, so...slim to none.

Quote: 1BB

What's your prediction on someone answering the OPs question? Yikes! :-)

I tried:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/22053-someone-please-explain-even-if-card-counting-were-actually-illegal/#post458434

PGDan,
You seem to agree standing, hitting, splitting, doubling, etc, are within the rules of blackjack

Do you also agree that raising and lowering bets are also allowed? If so, how is it possible for the gambler to do so without relying on the thoughts inside their head? The vast majority of players change their bet size, why is it against the rules sometimes, but not others?

Quote: 1BB

What's your prediction on someone answering the OPs question? Yikes! :-)

I did - the second post in this thread

I think I answered it too, but it was within the wall of text that I've felt had to be written. It's not immediately visible, but hey, it's not implicit or nondisclosed either...

Quote: TomG

PGDan,
You seem to agree standing, hitting, splitting, doubling, etc, are within the rules of blackjack.

Yes, absolutely, 100% on this.

Quote: TomG

Do you also agree that raising and lowering bets are also allowed? If so, how is it possible for the gambler to do so without relying on the thoughts inside their head?

Yes, also 100% on this. However, if they act on this in real game play in parallel with the count, it is no longer "just thoughts." Same with eyeballing your sister-in-law's @ss. Once you act on it, it's no longer "Honey, I was just 'thinking' about it, that's ALL...." This is when the pit boss becomes your wife.

Quote: TomG

The vast majority of players change their bet size, why is it against the rules sometimes, but not others?

Ah, - this is where the fly flops into the ointment.

It is because "raising and lowering bets randomly" does NOT equal "Raising and Lowering your bets demonstrably in parallel with the count - in order to implement card counting."
If you were raising and lowering your bets randomly, it won't statistically match deliberate card-counting actions. In fact, it would often have an anti-correlation effect, - as raising your bets "with the streak" often correlates with the ten's being depleted, and with the count dropping. Indeed, innocent or random bet sizing statistically doesn't match, or very seldom matches card-counting specific bet raising and lowering that match the count.

Again, the "Remarkable Statistical Synchronicity" of someone who is betting in parallel with the shoe's count is very hard work and very intentional, a dead give away, and clearly demonstrates the usage of disallowed card counting techniques, hence the NO SOUP FOR YOU! soup Nazi response, to which AP players frequently get all Elaine-like ("What??!! ME!! Get OUT!!").

1. Intentional use of a disallowed and provable AP methodology to destroy the casino's house edge for personal financial gain is not only breaching a required business mechanism (the house edge), it foists the costs of all this on "innocent" non-AP players, as the casino is required of offer the game of Blackjack in the first place - that the casino or card room should not reasonably take a provable statistical loss by giving you the opportunity to gamble on their premises.
2. As well known, I do view it as a form of pilferage, and not as a Robin-hood type of action.

Quote: Paigowdan

Dan you claim card counting is against the rules. I get that the casinos can't post everything that is a rule violation. But why won't they post a particular rule on card counting since it seems to be an ongoing controversial problem?

I know the reason. It's because casinos are greedy, tricky and more unethical than 99.99 % of AP's. Casinos are mostly unethical places using any legal method possible, sometime uncouth methods such as faults advertising(I can show proof of faults advertising), cheating and other illegal practices . Their MO is to get all of your money. The entertainment aspect is all smoke and mirrors. Take places like Dotty's and Jackpot Joanies for example. They are nothing but a place designed to take advantage of customers weaknesses. Smoking, drinking and gambling. They offer nothing. They may have been forced into serving food finally, but only because the greed of Station casinos pressing the issue.

You can walk into a casino and make an announcement you're going to count cards and do so, if they think you suck at it, suddenly it's ok to count. I have seen drunk players talking with the pit and dealers about the count, meanwhile dumping thousands. The casinos purposely add slots that are compared to crack.

All casinos in NV purposely knowingly over serve customers drinks. I know a former strip bartender who was specifically told do not cut anyone off as long as they can order a drink and they are not getting out of line.

The other day at Caesars a guy was so drunk he fell off the slot chair and laid on the ground until his drunk friend got security, who came with a wheelchair.
From the conversation I heard, the kid had been drinking at the bar for 2 hrs, then he stumbled to the slot and played for 6hrs and had been fed shots until he finally passed out. Someone had to know he was extremely drunk prior to serving him his last drink.

They do absolutely nothing but supply a problem gambler 1800 number to discourage addicted gamblers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say Play within the casino "rules" and there shouldn't be a problem.

Explain why they toss out, 86, backroom, beat, progressive VP/Slot/keno players? They do nothing that violates the casino rules, or is winning a casino rule violation? Is having an advantage a rule violation? FYI the casino still profits from it.

The casinos offer +EV VP games and then harass players who play them. Kind of unethical IMO.

Quote: Paigowdan

Optimal play - as defined in the math report calculations that casinos and game designers rely on - is based on all allowable information that is allowed to be used by the Rules of Play, and not the illicit stuff. And card counting and hole carding "possibly obtainable information" are NOT a part of a game's math reports' simulations.

Allowable information?

So, am I not allowed to see the cards, when they're dealt face-up on the table in front of me?

I understand that you think that people should play for entertainment with an expectation of losing. Your consolation may be that card counting isn't exactly easy.

Basic Strategy for blackjack has always been an approximation. Having perfect knowledge of the other cards exposed in this round and in previous rounds since the shuffle could theoretically inform better play than basic.

Quote:

optimal adjective
most desirable or satisfactory : optimum

"Basic Strategy" may be optimal if you don't know any better. If you happen to know something more, be it a gut feeling, a glimpse of a card, or because you've been paying careful attention to everything that's happened on the table in the last 15 minutes, the house still wins if you bust out, and doesn't pay out when the dealer gets a blackjack.

Quote: AxelWolf

Dan you claim card counting is against the rules. I get that the casinos can't post everything that is a rule violation. But why won't they post a particular rule on card counting since it seems to be an ongoing controversial problem?

Why would they? It's ONLY an openly-discussed and argued issue here at this place. Know that 99.8132% of casino players are non-WOV members - never heard of us (and that's a crying shame). It would be a waste of ink. They would probably consider the printing of such "no counting" signs a waste of money as well as off-putting, as everybody - especially cover-playing AP's in disguises with false IDs already know that. It would be like posting "No yelling FIRE!" signs in a movie house.

Quote: AxelWolf

I know the reason. It's because casinos are greedy, tricky and more unethical than 99.99 % of AP's. Casinos are mostly unethical places using any legal method possible, sometime uncouth methods such as faults advertising(I can show proof of faults advertising), cheating and other illegal practices . Their MO is to get all of your money. The entertainment aspect is all smoke and mirrors. Take places like Dotty's and Jackpot Joanies for example. They are nothing but a place designed to take advantage of customers weaknesses. Smoking, drinking and gambling. They offer nothing. They may have been forced into serving food finally, but only because the greed of Station casinos pressing the issue.

Ah. The old "Casinos are evil, - and that's why I go there to take them down as a Robin Hood Delta-Force kind of thing" argument. I get it - it's us against the evil empire kind of thing, because I'm doing a tremendous service to humanity when I AP or scam a card room for my own personal financial gain, and the nerve of them when they back me off for doing so. It's sooo unfair." Yeah, I totally get it. But it is not how I make my living in this business, though some can make a living from it.
With casinos in practically in every state, aside from Utah and Hawaii (and as for Hawaii, that's what Main Street Station and the California are for), people don't think casinos and card rooms are evil. Nor do they think cinemas, bars and pubs, restaurants, water parks, and show venues are evil.

Quote: AxelWolf

You can walk into a casino and make an announcement you're going to count cards and do so, if they think you suck at it, suddenly it's ok to count. I have seen drunk players talking with the pit and dealers about the count, meanwhile dumping thousands. The casinos purposely add slots that are compared to crack.

Yup. As for drinking, People are responsible for their own drinking at casinos, as they also would be in any Bar, though casinos, like bars, must look after their patrons, at which point they should be comped a room to get off the tables or be called a cab, so they can pick up their car the next day when they are sober. Every One of us casino workers has an Alcohol awareness card, I got mine in 2006.

Look,
* If casinos charged for drinks, the argument would be "I can't believe these cheap bastards! They don't even give us free drinks! Casino are evil!!!"
* If casinos were dry, the argument would be "I can't believe these cheap bastards! They don't even give us free drinks! Casinos are evil!"
* If casinos comped beverage service as a courtesy for the players (and who are responsible for their own consumption as adults), the argument would be "I can't believe these cheap bastards! THEY'RE GIVING FREE BEVERAGE SERVICE TO THEIR PATRONS AS A COURTESY! The nerve of them! This is a conspiracy the level of the Warren Commission, I tell ya...Casinos are EVIL!!!"

Pick one. There is NO other scenario as it pertains to Beverage Service.

And no, casinos do not add slot machines that are like crack cocaine. Nevada Gaming and Nevada courts barred "near miss" slot machine displays on a loss, though that was a slot manufacturer, now defunct for good reason.

And Casinos may let a player play, even if determined to be "attempting to count poorly" at times. Attempting to break into to storeroom might not be called off if you're just really bad at it, simply because they may give you your own very wish to continue play in that case, which you will say is your right anyway, as you yourself can walk away at will. Here we have card counters - who are trying to scam extra cash from card rooms - bitching that they aren't backed off when they lose - because they are still crappy at it. REALLY?

You complain about being backed off, - but here you also complain about being allowed to play "when you KNOW what I'm darn well doing! How DARE you not back me off for card counting when I'm still lousy at it!" ....Wow....certainly you don't wish to also say: "Well, you can back me off when I get good at it!" ;) You accuse casino operators of attempting to have it "both ways." Here I ask you to answer if card counters want it both ways.

Casinos are good training grounds for bad counters, but bad grounds for good counters. In other words, you may continue to play if your play is acceptable to them, bad card counting and all, - if in their view if they deem your play to be acceptable to them, which they would in this case. If you want to bang your head against a wall with money on the line and they accept your wagers, you are simply in business trying, which you want to do and that you show it by doing it. Again, how dare they back me off!

Indeed, most Bad card counters do not even register on the surveillance "back off statistical trigger," and many that bad counters may indeed be allowed to play longer, under the argument of either "not meeting statistical proof of counting" or "additional statistical verification of counting is needed." In other words, if a card counter is a bad card counter, he innocently might not be considered a card counter by surveillance. So, how dare he not back me off...win a little money back, I say, your days are still numbered. I disagree with this personally, because I always feel that in all cases that they are barking up the wrong tree, and that they should be notified to give up the "card counting path to enlightenment," and to play some craps or get a real job. But they will back you off if they deem you're good at it, as a business decision, which is again will be determined if you met "statistical determination" in surveillance and they don't like your play, (as you are demonstrably and statistically following the count with your bet sizes.)

Quote: Paigowdan

For eons, Blackjack was thought and operated as "un-AP-able"

... and for the last 50 years or so, it has been thought otherwise.

Done with this thread - already seen this movie in plenty of previous threads — OP's original premise was excellent and, as an attorney, I was interested in the discussion but...

Quote: Dieter

... and for the last 50 years or so, it has been thought otherwise.

Which is why back offs are also 50 years old. It's the only defense for BJ.

Still complaining, still an issue.....

Quote: aceofspades

Done with this thread - already seen this movie in plenty of previous threads — OP's original premise was excellent and, as an attorney, I was interested in the discussion but...

But....You stuck around through scores of posts and thousands of hits on this thread.

You were glued to the tube longer than you'd admit. You made it this far.

Quote: Paigowdan

It is because "raising and lowering bets randomly" does NOT equal "Raising and Lowering your bets demonstrably in parallel with the count - in order to implement card counting."

Almost no gambler changed their bet based on randomness, they virtually all do so based on their own desires.

Quote: Paigowdan

Again, the "Remarkable Statistical Synchronicity" of someone who is betting in parallel with the shoe's count is very hard work and very intentional, a dead give away, and clearly demonstrates the usage of disallowed card counting techniques, hence the NO SOUP FOR YOU! soup Nazi response, to which AP players frequently get all Elaine-like ("What??!! ME!! Get OUT!!").

Not always. Most of us agree that the casinos do have the choice to ask a player to only flat bet, to only play other games, or to even 86 them. But the vast majority of times a player varies their bets, the casino chooses not to do that. When the casino makes that choice, using any strategy desired is absolutely within the rules

Quote: TomG

Almost no gambler changed their bet based on randomness, they virtually all do so based on their own desires.

Quote: Paigowdan

Again, the "Remarkable Statistical Synchronicity" of someone who is betting in parallel with the shoe's count is very hard work and very intentional, a dead give away, and clearly demonstrates the usage of disallowed card counting techniques, hence the NO SOUP FOR YOU! soup Nazi response, to which AP players frequently get all Elaine-like ("What??!! ME!! Get OUT!!").

Not always. Most of us agree that the casinos do have the choice to ask a player to only flat bet, to only play other games, or to even 86 them. But the vast majority of times a player varies their bets, the casino chooses not to do that. When the casino makes that choice, using any strategy desired is absolutely within the rules

No, this is not true - and that's precisely the thing.

Not only is Blackjack counting here an exception because of the problem of counting, there are other issues:

1. Players of Carnival games almost never vary their bets widely at all, even with free beverage service, to the point of a 5x spread. A divorced truck driver with child support payments playing $10 a hand on Three Card Poker isn't going to jump to $50 or $100 a hand (leaving $110 in his remaining chip stack) because he feels lucky. He'll still bet $5/$10 and $10 hoping to get trips or a straight flush. They'll play the main bet hands at a stead bankroll amount (say $10 or $25 consistently) for hand-setting strategy interest, and just hope to win a big payout on a bonus bet. Maybe he'll bet $10/$50/$50 after a huge win for two hands. Things really stand out to the surveillance crews.

2. Non-counting "recreational" Blackjack players actually play in a very narrow range, or else may follow a streak that is clearly against the count and "get lucky." Now, sometimes a recreational player may see and follow a winner's bet pattern at a blackjack table where the table is indeed counted down, and where the innocent players who simply wish to follow the "Big Player" sent in, simply thinking "that guy is lucky - let me bet like him!" - only to get accused of being part of an AP team. It is not uncommon for an innocent recreational player to use right to vary bets to "bet like the Big Guy at the table" - and to count along with a team, and wind up back off also, and perplexed.

3. But as I described earlier, NO, using any strategy "that you May wish" is NOT always within the house rules, - as far as it pertains to Internal Controls or ICs addressing card counting. This is because it is statistically demonstrable that following the shoe count with your bet raises and drops can be associated with the count, to rise and fall with the shoe's count, that within a statistical probability the player is a counter, that the player will be seen and declared a counter and be denied play.

You have every right to raise and lower you bets as you see fit, absolutely true; However, the casino reserves the right to deny you Blackjack play action if your bet sizing just happens to parallel suspiciously the Blackjack Game's true count. If your bet sizing has Remarkable Statistical Synchronicity where card counting is declared intentional, You may be asked to bet the same amount on every Blackjack hand, or to play craps instead, or to leave the premises. And casinos outside of New Jersey have this right. Within New Jersey, you'd play weak games.

It doesn't matter if this makes sense to you, as you do not tap yourself on the shoulder to get that tap on the shoulder.