Someone please explain - even if card counting were actually illegal,
Quote: Paigowdan...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...
This is not true. You obviously don't get around the country much.
Quote: AxelWolfYou can walk into a casino and make an announcement you're going to count cards and do so,
I usually announce what the count is when raising my bets from $5 to $30 or even $50. If it's early in the day and I've been waiting for a good count for a while, sometimes the pit boss is right there watching me and wishing me good luck. They are usually smart enough to know even in a good count the bet can lose and their is no reason for a near billion dollar property to sweat a measly green chip. After the big bet I'll ask how much more I need to play to earn a buffet comp. Most of the time they'll either give it to me or say "30 minutes" or something. I either take it or keep playing. Casino management knows full well that I am counting and spreading up to 10-1 and they very rarely ask me to stop. It's mind boggling some fools can somehow try to argue that it is still against casino rules. Obviously moving to black would be a much different story. But even gambling like that is absolutely within their rules until they ask me to stop. And until that happens for anyone to say it is against the rules is either a liar or an idiot
Quote: IbeatyouracesThis is not true. You obviously don't get around the country much.
Yes I do.
I design casino carnival games for a living, and I set their appropriate playing limits, game protection procedures, and gaming approval documents. I generally design carnival games to narrow betting limits as part of the game's design, typically $5 to $100 or $10 to $100, much narrower than Blackjack game limits, which can easily fly over $100 or one black chip.
And I make a good living doing this.
I have games installed from San Diego to Atlantic City, which is basically Coast-to-Coast. I travel the country plenty, particularly to review games across the country. So....
Who are you?
If not for card counters and AP's.... BJ wouldn't be popular in the first place.Quote: Paigowdan
Care to enlighten us why casino toss out progressive players they follow the rules in the casino? IMO It's greed, casinos can't stand if players can actually beat the casinos, but they make money off the premise you can win. APs prove it's possible to beat the casinos. That is attractive to many players.
Quote: AxelWolfIf not for card counters and AP's BJ wouldn't be popular in the first place.
No.
Blackjack is hugely popular because it is very easy to play, very well-established, and doesn't require ANY poker knowledge at all to play, hence it is typically the first casino game countless patrons first try, and often stay with.
The average American does not play it because they ever heard of Ed Thorpe, or the MIT teams, or like they can calculate house edges to a fraction of a decimal point.
They play it because it's easy, sensible, and accessible: "Get a better hand than the dealer without going over 21. And You may draw cards."
A ten-second pitch and a casino has its next patron. Often on someone's 21st or 18th birthday.
Quote: AxelWolfCare to enlighten us why casino toss out progressive players they follow the rules in the casino. IMO It's greed casinos can't stand if players can actually beat the casinos but they money off the premise you can win. APs prove it's possible to beat the casinos. That is attractive to many players.
Casinos don't care if you win. In fact, they like it if you win, and they'll put your smiling face picture in to the winners' Hall of Fame.
They do care, however, if you play by the rules. Their rules. This is both a very simple point and an exceedingly hard point to get across to some casino players.
Play by their rules and you're okay, really very fine.
Quote: PaigowdanYes I do.
I design casino carnival games for a living, and I set their appropriate playing limits, game protection procedures, and gaming approval documents. I generally design carnival games to narrow betting limits as part of the game's design, typically $5 to $100 or $10 to $100, much narrower than Blackjack game limits, which can easily fly over $100 or one black chip.
And I make a good living doing this.
I have games installed from San Diego to Atlantic City, which is basically Coast-to-Coast. I travel the country plenty, particularly to review games across the country. So....
Who are you?
I know what you do.
I played. So I actually see what other players do. And often times other players do change bet sizes.
And this tossing of players for no reason other than discrimination is going to end, and soon. That, you can bank on!
Quote: IbeatyouracesI know what you do.
I played. So I actually see what other players do. And often times other players do change bet sizes.
Yeah. So what. We all do. You should see me playing dice.
But if it matches the shoe count for an extended period of time, then that might be a problem. This all pertains to that old "Remarkable Statistical Synchronicity" to the true count o' de shoe.
A simple tap on the shoulder will let you know.
Take the Buffet comp and be done with this incident.
Best of Luck.
They only give the illusion they want people to win. It encourages others to play and lose. But they actually want all of your money at the end of the day/stay.Quote: PaigowdanNo.
Blackjack is hugely popular because it is very easy to play, very well-established, and doesn't require ANY poker knowledge at all to play, hence it is typically the first casino game countless patrons first try, and often stay with.
The average American does not play it because they ever heard of Ed Thorpe, or the MIT teams, or like they can calculate house edges to a fraction of a decimal point.
They play it because it's easy, sensible, and accessible: "Get a better hand than the dealer without going over 21. And You may draw cards."
A ten-second pitch and a casino has its next patron. Often on someone's 21st or 18th birthday.
Casinos don't care if you win. In fact, they like it if you win, and they'll put your smiling face picture in to the winners' Hall of Fame.
They do care, however, if you play by the rules. Their rules. This is both a very simple point and an exceedingly hard point to get across to some casino players.
Play by their rules and you're okay, really very fine.
There's been many cases where people were playing within the rules on Video poker/slots progressives. VP as low as 6/5 yet the casino 86'ed them and worst. The casino still profits, but because of greed they don't care if you are playing within the rules, many casinos will ask you to leave. People have been 86ed for winning to much playing 9/6 JOB without casino benefits.
Casinos only want gaming idiots and they discriminate against smart players.
Quote: AxelWolf
Casinos only want gaming idiots and they discriminate against smart players.
And it will always be that way. Why worry
about it? You just have to be smarter than
they are, which ain't too hard. Actually
talk to the people in the pit, most of them
don't know jack about casino operations,
or even how the games work. They don't
care, they don't get paid to know.
If it bothers you that casinos don't like
smart players, you're in the wrong
business. It goes with the territory.
It's like saying chicken farmers don't
like smart foxes in the chicken coop.
Well, duh..
IMO casinos shouldn't be allowed to 86 people who are not cheating or causing problems. I wish Vegas had NJ rules(you as a roulette player should also want that, I doubt they will be making it worst anytime soon). People may argue conditions will get worst, but they are getting worst anyway. If they keep building casinos, eventually they will have to compete more aggressively. I'm seeing a small shift towards better promotions and offers over the last 18 months, compared to 4 years ago.Quote: EvenBobAnd it will always be that way. Why worry
about it? You just have to be smarter than
they are, which ain't too hard. Actually
talk to the people in the pit, most of them
don't know jack about casino operations,
or even how the games work. They don't
care, they don't get paid to know.
If it bothers you that casinos don't like
smart players, you're in the wrong
business. It goes with the territory.
It's like saying chicken farmers don't
like smart foxes in the chicken coop.
Well, duh..
Gambling seems to be the world's pastime now. Casinos need better odds across the board especially on slots and VP or eventually people will realize they can't get enough entertainment and bang for their buck. Keep raping players and bye bye casinos.
I will love to see the day when CET and MGM have to sell off casinos to outside groups preferably the online gambling market.
Perhaps one day we will see a Google, Amazon or NFL casino. NFL casino would be interesting
Quote: AxelWolfIMO casinos shouldn't be allowed to 86 people who are not cheating or causing problems. I wish Vegas had NJ rules(you as a roulette player should also want that, I doubt they will be making it worst anytime soon). People may argue conditions will get worst, but they are getting worst anyway.
Of the two models, Nevada vs New Jersey, as far as casinos being allowed or not allowed to bar players, from a purely legal standpoint, I am surprised the Nevada model has held up and is the one most the newer jurisdictions are modeled after. Why should any business open to the public be allowed to deny service to anyone, just because they don't like them.
But from a card counting AP viewpoint, I am very comfortable with Nevada's model. I am completely ok, with the cat and mouse game. I have tailored my plan of attack and approach to the game to it and frankly, I am pretty good at playing this cat and mouse game.
And honestly there is very little difference in the two models. I played Atlantic City 4-5 days a week, the first 6 years of my career, and even with the law saying New Jersey can't bar or backoff players, when you have worn out your welcome, as I had after 6 years, does it really matter if they back you off or bar you as Nevada does, or bet restrict, flat bet or reduce penetration to unplayable levels (50% shoe games) as Atlantic City did numerous times in my final months there?
Looking back, one of the funniest things (I didn't think it funny at the time though) was in my final months of playing AC, when I would be playing a $25 table and they bet restricted me. They would pull out a minimum bet $5, maximum bet $50, table card that only applied to me. Other players at the table were confused as hell, and their inquiries were usually not answered. Just another case of the casino pissing off their regular customers.
Quote: PaigowdanThe average American does not play it because they ever heard of Ed Thorpe, or the MIT teams, or like they can calculate house edges to a fraction of a decimal point.
They play it because it's easy, sensible, and accessible: "Get a better hand than the dealer without going over 21. And You may draw cards."
The average American plays blackjack because it's the most common table game.
It became the most common table game because of a massive spike in popularity due to Thorp explaining that the game could be beaten.
A lot of casual players that I've spoken with know that card counting exists, and it works. They don't know the exact details, but they know it comes down to betting more at some times than others, and sometimes you make some plays that don't line up with basic strategy.
A lot of casual players are convinced that what one person might accomplish through skill, they might accomplish through luck. They don't understand that it's not going to happen in one shoe.
Quote: PaigowdanPlayers of Carnival games almost never vary their bets widely at all, even with free beverage service, to the point of a 5x spread.
A large part of that is the tendency for poker based carnival games to require a raise or play bet. A $5 hand of blackjack needs $5 to play ($10 in some occasional cases, maybe $20 in some extremely occasional cases to follow recommended strategy). A $5 hand of Mississippi Stud requires $20 to play ($50 to play optimally). A $5 hand of UTH requires $25 to play. The en prison betting requirements for these games strongly discourage parlaying winnings.
If card counting was the only option I agree.Quote: kewljOf the two models, Nevada vs New Jersey, as far as casinos being allowed or not allowed to bar players, from a purely legal standpoint, I am surprised the Nevada model has held up and is the one most the newer jurisdictions are modeled after. Why should any business open to the public be allowed to deny service to anyone, just because they don't like them.
But from a card counting AP viewpoint, I am very comfortable with Nevada's model. I am completely ok, with the cat and mouse game. I have tailored my plan of attack and approach to the game to it and frankly, I am pretty good at playing this cat and mouse game.
And honestly there is very little difference in the two models. I played Atlantic City 4-5 days a week, the first 6 years of my career, and even with the law saying New Jersey can't bar or backoff players, when you have worn out your welcome, as I had after 6 years, does it really matter if they back you off or bar you as Nevada does, or bet restrict, flat bet or reduce penetration to unplayable levels (50% shoe games) as Atlantic City did numerous times in my final months there?
Looking back, one of the funniest things (I didn't think it funny at the time though) was in my final months of playing AC, when I would be playing a $25 table and they bet restricted me. They would pull out a minimum bet $5, maximum bet $50, table card that only applied to me. Other players at the table were confused as hell, and their inquiries were usually not answered. Just another case of the casino pissing off their regular customers.
There's a multitude of different plays. As I mentioned to dan many are perfectly within the casinos on rules and the casino still profits. Unfortunately the casinos can't stand when individuals walk out with a profit. That's been proven time and time again.
Quote: aceofspadesI did - the second post in this thread
You sure did address the question as did MathExtremest and others, myself included. I didn't mean to slight any of you. Rather, I was trying a gentle nudge to get the thread back on track.
The poor OP may have have given up and that's too bad because he asks a very interesting question that I haven't seen before. It would have made an excellent discussion.
I'd suggest he start a new thread and ask that the question be answered without straying too far. I won't though because that "gotcha" is always lurking. He would be risking a suspension for violating Rule 5. Wouldn't that take the cake?
I have to work on my ark now. I hear flooding has been predicted.
Quote: Paigowdan
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.
Therefore, if any player is not declared a counter and denied play, the casino is either violating their own policies, or they are ok with what the player is doing. That is according to you. Any casino could eliminate all counters tomorrow using nearly 100 methods. The only reason they choose not to do so is because they are accepting of some of them
Quote: kewljOf the two models, Nevada vs New Jersey, as far as casinos being allowed or not allowed to bar players, from a purely legal standpoint, I am surprised the Nevada model has held up and is the one most the newer jurisdictions are modeled after. Why should any business open to the public be allowed to deny service to anyone, just because they don't like them.
I had read that NV casinos are considered "private clubs" who can offer or deny membership to whomever they choose. A tacit offer of membership is given to anyone who walks in with money. Is this truly the case? It would explain why they can ban anyone they choose. Or have I stumbled upon urban legend?
Quote: 1BBYou sure did address the question as did MathExtremest and others, myself included. I didn't mean to slight any of you. Rather, I was trying a gentle nudge to get the thread back on track.
The poor OP may have have given up and that's too bad because he asks a very interesting question that I haven't seen before. It would have made an excellent discussion.
I'd suggest he start a new thread and ask that the question be answered without straying too far. I won't though because that "gotcha" is always lurking. He would be risking a suspension for violating Rule 5. Wouldn't that take the cake?
I have to work on my ark now. I hear flooding has been predicted.
I guess I am as much at fault for derailing this thread as anyone. But, despite mostly devolving into the tired "Counters are Scum/Casinos are Scum" argument, there are some good nuggets interspersed within.
So, as my penance, I am consolidating links of the various members' on-topic responses:
AceOfSpades
1BB
MathExtremist
Minty
Quote: JoemanI guess I am as much at fault for derailing this thread as anyone. But, despite mostly devolving into the tired "Counters are Scum/Casinos are Scum" argument, there are some good nuggets interspersed within.
So, as my penance, I am consolidating links of the various members' on-topic responses:
AceOfSpades
1BB
MathExtremist
Minty
I'll count myself among the guilty, Joeman. We all do it; it's the nature of the beast. Thank you for taking the time to provide the links. More importantly, thank you for being one of the reasons that I return to this sometimes tumultuous forum.
Quote: JoemanI had read that NV casinos are considered "private clubs" who can offer or deny membership to whomever they choose. A tacit offer of membership is given to anyone who walks in with money. Is this truly the case? It would explain why they can ban anyone they choose. Or have I stumbled upon urban legend?
I believe this is correct. But I am surprised this ruling from decades ago hasn't been revisited and re-litigated. The "private club" terminology is just a way around the law. By this same thinking you could rule that restaurants are "private clubs" and allow them to not serve blacks if they chose. It's a different era and this probably shouldn't fly any longer.
Quote: Paigowdan...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."...
This is probably one of the stupidest analogies to blackjack I've ever read. You're saying a counter "isn't just thinking" but that he's also placing bets! Oh man, you need to arrest EVERYONE at the table! They're all sliding their real hands out with real chips and trying to win real money! Oh, we're betting different amounts? Oh, that's 100% legal and within the rules of the game? Huh... looks like indeed the only difference here is what we're thinking.
Sorry for being late to the party boys, been out most last week due to being in Vegas... thinking =).
Quote: 1BBYou sure did address the question as did MathExtremest and others, myself included. I didn't mean to slight any of you. Rather, I was trying a gentle nudge to get the thread back on track.
The poor OP may have have given up and that's too bad because he asks a very interesting question that I haven't seen before. It would have made an excellent discussion.
I'd suggest he start a new thread and ask that the question be answered without straying too far. I won't though because that "gotcha" is always lurking. He would be risking a suspension for violating Rule 5. Wouldn't that take the cake?
I have to work on my ark now. I hear flooding has been predicted.
While on one hand I'm glad that my simple question has sparked such an intense debate, I suppose I am a bit disappointed that the question itself was only discussed by a handful of posts. Oh well, hopefully when this thread gets to like, 30 pages it'll get back on track. :)
Quote: malgoriumWhile on one hand I'm glad that my simple question has sparked such an intense debate, I suppose I am a bit disappointed that the question itself was only discussed by a handful of posts. Oh well, hopefully when this thread gets to like, 30 pages it'll get back on track. :)
I am sorry if you feel your thread was hijacked and I apologize for my part in participating in that hijacked topic. Dan's insane views and statements have a way of drawing some of us, who are passionate about the issue into this nonsensical debate.
But in all honesty, the premise of your original post was ridiculous as well. Too much hypothetical for my liking. Card counting isn't illegal. No judge in this country has ever ruled so, nor will they. If you rule thinking is illegal, we cease to be America. So therfore discussion of what it would take to proof the case against a card counter becomes equally ridiculous, IMO.
Quote: kewlj
But in all honesty, the premise of your original post was ridiculous as well. Too much hypothetical for my liking. Card counting isn't illegal. No judge in this country has ever ruled so, nor will they. If you rule thinking is illegal, we cease to be America. So therfore discussion of what it would take to proof the case against a card counter becomes equally ridiculous, IMO.
This is what I'm getting at. You can't know 100% that card counting/betting will never be deemed to be illegal. But even if it were, could proof beyond a reasonable doubt even be shown?
What if you don't raise and lower your bets? What if you find a good game come in after a new souffle bet big off the top, if the count goes positive you stay if it goes negative you just walk away?Quote: PaigowdanYes, absolutely, 100% on this.
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.
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!!").
Quote: hook3670One thing I don't understand. If casinos are so concerned with card counting, why not just install CSM's? I always hear well people hate those. If you are not a card counter, then it doesn't really matter if you are playing on one of those or not. I cant imagine it would really reduce the business a casino brings in(of course I have done no actual research on this...)
CSM would eliminate that false but perceived threat in the mind of the casino industry, from card counters. More importantly, there would be REAL benefit (as opposed to that false perceived benefit mentioned...lol) of higher revenue in the form of more rounds per hours due to less shuffling.
One problem is that regular customers don't like those machines. Many erroneously have in their mind that CSM stack the cards in an order advantageous to the casino, which of course would be illegal.
But probably more of a concern is there is a reasonably high cost to those machines. Unless things have changed in the last couple years that I am not aware of, a casino must lease those machines, they can not buy them. This creates a continuing cost. In addition they break down A LOT, creating maintance cost.
Most casinos that have them, use them on tables that operate around the clock. If they have auxiliary or extra tables that are only open during busy times, such as weekend, it doesn't make sense to have CSM sitting there not in use most of the time, but still paying the rent.
Quote: AxelWolf
What if you don't raise and lower your bets? What if you find a good game come in after a new souffle bet big off the top, if the count goes positive you stay if it goes negative you just walk away?
Wait.... you wake up and jump right back into this argument after 10 hours? Did you dream or have nightmares about this thread? :)
Quote: malgoriumI am a bit disappointed that the question itself was only discussed by a handful of posts.
The question - "if card counting were actually illegal, how would they prove it?" is problematic.
Card counting, in the narrow definition that I use, is making observations about the game conditions based on previously played cards. So, is watching a card game illegal? Is analyzing the play of that card game illegal? I guess no more poker shows on the TV, then.
Is changing your bet illegal? How about "moving your money with the count"? That would effectively ban loss chasing. Casinos make a lot of money from people chasing their losses.
How about making "nonstandard" plays? Much of the appeal of the game (for me) comes from the player's freedom of choice. I have the option to double on a hard 17, or split my 5's or stand on a hard 8 if I think it's the best play in a situation. I've seen a lot of people double on a hard 12.
Trying to win is illegal? Nobody would play if they weren't legally allowed to win. (Well, almost nobody.)
In order to have a meaningful discussion of the original question, I'd need to know what exactly is illegal.
Marking the cards? Illegal.
Altering a bet out of turn? Illegal. (Pinching, capping, etc.)
Dealing from not-the-top of the deck? Illegal.
Using a device to keep track of....? Illegal. (Do it in your head, or don't do it.)
Using a ... to catch a view of a supposedly unexposed card? Illegal. (Do it without the device, or don't do it.)
Not forgetting what cards have been exposed and discarded? Not illegal.
Betting more when you think you will win? Not illegal.
Making the play you think will win? Not illegal.
Quitting when you're ahead? Not illegal.
At the risk of further derailment, I don't even object to the casino electing to stop accepting action - I just object to the way it seems to be done commonly.
If the house wants to discontinue play, they shouldn't get the privilege of selecting an individual and precluding them from play; they should have to close the table.
Quote: kewlj
Most casinos that have them, use them on tables that operate around the clock. If they have auxiliary or extra tables that are only open during busy times, such as weekend, it doesn't make sense to have CSM sitting there not in use most of the time, but still paying the rent.
... And I thought that's why at least one shuffler company was offering a "pay per shuffle" lease option.
Quote: Dieter
In order to have a meaningful discussion of the original question, I'd need to know what exactly is illegal.
I was trying to answer this question, and in doing so, I realized you actually answered my question.
I was going to say, "if the betting shows a strong correlation with the count." But how strong of a correlation? and which count would you be using?
I guess no matter what sorts of concrete numbers you could put onto a card-counting law, either card-counters could find a way around it, or the law would be so vague that even casual non-counting players could be prosecuted.
For example, if the law said something like "Only betting the table minimum on TC1 and below", card-counters could just bet the table min + $1.
So thanks, it's given me something to think about!
Quote: 1BB
I'd suggest he start a new thread and ask that the question be answered without straying too far. I won't though because that "gotcha" is always lurking. He would be risking a suspension for violating Rule 5. Wouldn't that take the cake?
I was about to suggest that very thing. In fact, I should've split this as soon as it went down the path that shall not be named, but what can I say? I got lazy =p
If someone wants to "restart" the actual OP, go for it. If it reboots, we'll keep that one clean. I'd offer to split this one, but it's too mingled and too long to do it without seriously jacking both conversations up.
Quote: PaigowdanME -
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.
This is your most reasonable post so far. We are all reacting to your use of harsh language (illicit, immoral, cheating) to describe card counters.
Please answer this question. I am playing at a table with a five card shoe and the dealer holds a 10. The hand before mine splits a pair of fours three times (the maximum) then, on on all four split hands the player hits 4-4-4-4-4, thus using up all 20 of the fours in the 5-deck shoe. Is it immoral or illicit or wrong for me to decide not to hit my 16 vs a dealer 10 because 20 of the cards that I need came out during the play of the hand to my right at the table? Why shouldn't I be allowed to have a "hunch" that a 4 is unlikely to be dealt to me and to play my hand accordingly? Do the undisclosed rules of the casino require that I ignore that all 20 4s came out on the previous hand?
Honestly, a vacationing construction worker that walks into a casino and plays blackjack without an awareness of "Basic Strategy" would likely observe the 20 fours that just got dealt and decide not to hit his hard 16. Is his play against the rules? Is it immoral? How do you draw the line? At what point does "observing and thinking" become against the (undisclosed) casino rules? Again -how do you draw the line?
Quote: gordonm888Quote: PaigowdanME -
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.
This is your most reasonable post so far. We are all reacting to your use of harsh language (illicit, immoral, cheating) to describe card counters.
Please answer this question. I am playing at a table with a five card shoe and the dealer holds a 10. The hand before mine splits a pair of fours three times (the maximum) then, on on all four split hands the player hits 4-4-4-4-4, thus using up all 20 of the fours in the 5-deck shoe. Is it immoral or illicit or wrong for me to decide not to hit my 16 vs a dealer 10 because 20 of the cards that I need came out during the play of the hand to my right at the table? Why shouldn't I be allowed to have a "hunch" that a 4 is unlikely to be dealt to me and to play my hand accordingly? Do the undisclosed rules of the casino require that I ignore that all 20 4s came out on the previous hand?
Honestly, a vacationing construction worker that walks into a casino and plays blackjack without an awareness of "Basic Strategy" would likely observe the 20 fours that just got dealt and decide not to hit his hard 16. Is his play against the rules? Is it immoral? How do you draw the line? At what point does "observing and thinking" become against the (undisclosed) casino rules? Again -how do you draw the line?
This post brought be back to give Gordon a hearty round of applause
Why doesn't the casino erect walls between the players so the player can only see their hand and the dealer's hand?
Quote: aceofspadescorrelation ≠ causation
As a lawyer, maybe you can shed some light on this.
If you had tape of a player, say, 10 hours worth, and for counts of 1 or lower, he's literally played every hand at the minimum, but at every hand of 2 or higher he's bet more than that, could that alone be proof that he's a counter? Or would you need something more concrete? And if so, what would constitute concrete evidence, if that's even possible?
Well since the original question is to hard to answer. I figured I could get Dan to answer a few question. It's fairly comical watching him regurgitate the same nonsense.Quote: kewljWait.... you wake up and jump right back into this argument after 10 hours? Did you dream or have nightmares about this thread? :)
And I'm in need of some cheering up.
How Many times will he tell us, if you count cards the casinos will politely give you a buffett and ask you to leave?
He claims AP's are scamming the casinos, but it's the casinos who scam everyone.
Crap like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbTv0WCeepA (display error my ass)
Casino admits 'serious violations' in rigging
giveaway: http://www.lottoreport.com/022604casinos.htm
There's much more but you get the point.
What about preferential shuffling, the casino is actually altering the odds physically. Sounds like cheating to me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually maybe it's not hard to answer the OP. Assuming enough evidence was gathered, it would be easy to convince a jury someone was counting cards.
Lets mix it up a bit. Let's pretend you made a bet/ deal with someone for 10k. They couldn't stop counting cards. You catch them playing BJ 5 times,, each time they raise and lower their bets according to the count and make all the normal decisions that you would while counting. They even toss in some cover play. Would that be good enough for you?
IMO Counting is easy to prove in certain cases.
Quote: malgoriumSo thanks, it's given me something to think about!
Glad to help!
Quote: AxelWolfWhat about preferential shuffling, the casino is actually altering the odds physically. Sounds like cheating to me.
This one really ticks me off.
There is a place nearby that offers a pitch game where they shuffle up on every dealer change.
The obnoxious part is that they just give the dealers really frequent breaks when players start winning and upping their bets.
In both law and life there are different standards for proof, depending upon the consequences.
In criminal law, what is at stake is the ability of the government to deprive you of liberty (by putting you in jail) and to deprive you of money. The standard for evidence is high, as it well should be - your guilt must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt." The evidence you are citing is circumstantial and would almost certainly not be enough to find the player guilty of a criminal offense.
In civil cases, involving one party suing enough party, the standards are lower. Simplified, the standards are that a reasonable person would find that you are probably guilty of the offense that the other party is alleging, as decided by a jury of your peers. This lower standard is why OJ Simpson was found Not Guilty of 1st degree murder in criminal court , but was found guilty of wrongful death in civil courts. Even at this lower level of evidentiary standards, I suspect that a civil court would not find the player guilty of card counting unless the player freely admits to doing so or previously confessed to third parties (friends, etc) and the third parties testified against the player in court.
The standards that casinos use to ban counters from playing BJ at their facilities are the lowest of all standards. They are the same standards that the golf club that hosts the Masters Tournament used for a long time to justify not electing females to their club. It is the "we are a private club and we can act at our own discretion." In the U.S., private companies are indeed allowed to discriminate against people as long as they don't use race, nation of origin, age, gender, sexual preference or disabilities as the basis for their discrimination. So casinos use their own discretion to discriminate against people who they think are counters.
Quote: kewljI am sorry if you feel your thread was hijacked and I apologize for my part in participating in that hijacked topic. Dan's insane views and statements have a way of drawing some of us, who are passionate about the issue into this nonsensical debate.
These views and reasons are indeed viewed as insane by many here, - but this is simply because they are anathema to card counters, who wish to have the right to freely ply their craft without restriction, and to always have it viewed as a wholesome and righteous-dude thing to do. Now, this isn't always the case or POV outside of this forum in the wider world, or is a wholesome thing from the casino operator's point of view, who's in business to earn money and pay operational expenses. So:
1. I simply stated what casinos can do: they can flat-bet and back off counters if they feel that it is necessary for running their business - and they do.
2. That Card counting actions are both deliberate and discernable - not just "thinking about it" - as counters do raise and lower their bets with the count which is the issue. This is not just thinking, but taking real world action on thoughts and intentions (deliberate bet sizing to get more money out of the table, for example). All actions that we carry out in the real world we had thought about (aside from autonomic functions), are based on thought and premeditation, so the argument "I have a right to do something just because I had thought about doing it, and thinking is not illegal" is malarkey. No; the resulting action you take from your thinking is what is deemed acceptable or not acceptable. That simple.
3. Casinos, outside of New Jersey, simply have the right to limit or deny play, and we know that this happens; I detailed why it may be deemed unacceptable to casinos (otherwise they'd let you play),
Quote: KewljBut in all honesty, the premise of your original post was ridiculous as well. Too much hypothetical for my liking. Card counting isn't illegal. No judge in this country has ever ruled so, nor will they. If you rule thinking is illegal, we cease to be America. So therfore discussion of what it would take to proof the case against a card counter becomes equally ridiculous, IMO.
Her original post was answered, along with general debate. It's not illegal, but if it were, it would be argued or proven on a mathematical and statistical basis of how closely the optimal bet was employed in relation to the count, and the percentage of statistical probability that the actions were deliberate and intentional, and not random. Exactly this methodology is currently employed by casino surveillance crews to determine if a player is card counting. Is this discriminatory against card counters? Yes.
Now rest assured, that compositional card play won't be illegal, ever I believe. The argument from one poster about a "Truck driver on vacation not hitting a 16 against a ten because he saw ten 4's go out" is not illegal, immoral, or fattening, and I never said or felt that it was. That trucker can hit and play his hand as he sees fit. It's when a casino determines play to be unacceptable that you might not be allowed to play.
Quote: kewljQuote: malgoriumWhile on one hand I'm glad that my simple question has sparked such an intense debate, I suppose I am a bit disappointed that the question itself was only discussed by a handful of posts. Oh well, hopefully when this thread gets to like, 30 pages it'll get back on track. :)
I am sorry if you feel your thread was hijacked and I apologize for my part in participating in that hijacked topic. Dan's insane views and statements have a way of drawing some of us, who are passionate about the issue into this nonsensical debate.
But in all honesty, the premise of your original post was ridiculous as well. Too much hypothetical for my liking. Card counting isn't illegal. No judge in this country has ever ruled so, nor will they. If you rule thinking is illegal, we cease to be America. So therfore discussion of what it would take to proof the case against a card counter becomes equally ridiculous, IMO.
I, too, will apologize for not answering the question and instead focusing on one persons foolishness and intellectual dishonesty.
I'll disagree with KJ and say it isn't totally ridiculous, especially when compared to some laws that have been tried and some that are still around. . .
If counting were illegal, proof could easily be obtained by monitoring a simple RC and TC and comparing it to the players bet size over a long enough sample size (wouldn't take more than a few hours of play, either). If you are familiar with Freakonomics, analyzing the data to prove someone was counting could be done similar to what the authors did when analyzing the data against colluding sumo wrestlers and cheating school teachers.
Though if a community were to desire a ban on card counting, they would have either already banned gambling, or they would be too simple-minded to accept the data as proof
Quote: Paigowdan
1. I simply stated what casinos can do: they can flat-bet and back off counters if they feel that it is necessary for running their business - and they do.
You went even further than that and insisted that even when the casinos choose not to implement those measures the player is still breaking the rules. Yet if that were true, the casinos failure to back-off the player means it is the casinos themselves who are violating their own rules by dealing to someone who just so happens to be doing elementary school arithmetic in their head.
Again, most of us agree that the casinos can do things to stop card counters. You are the only one who somehow insists that it is the card counters and not the casinos who must police the games by not playing with an optimal strategy.
The only possible explanation for why you could continue to argue this is an extreme case of cognitive dissonance.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: PaigowdanME -
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.
This is your most reasonable post so far. We are all reacting to your use of harsh language (illicit, immoral, cheating) to describe card counters.
What is viewed as reasonable or unreasonable from me is not viewed based on reason by many members here, but on whether or not I agree with their positions.
I've basically tried to describe three things in a factual manner:
1. What casinos may do with counters (to flat-bet or back off)
2. Why they do it (for business and operational reasons; it breaches the house edge that casinos depend on to run and offer their games in the first place).
3. How they do it (by tracking bet sizing in parallel with the shoe's count, to a reasonable certainty that the actions are deliberate).
4. I may view any attempt by a player to run a game down against a card room or casino against the house rules for personal gain as a less than righteous-dude thing to do; I may view it as kind of low action, unrighteous, be it as a professional job or as a pastime. A lot of people (not here, though) may find this reasonable, and a lot here might not. WTH.
Quote: gordonPlease answer this question. I am playing at a table with a five card shoe and the dealer holds a 10. The hand before mine splits a pair of fours three times (the maximum) then, on on all four split hands the player hits 4-4-4-4-4, thus using up all 20 of the fours in the 5-deck shoe. Is it immoral or illicit or wrong for me to decide not to hit my 16 vs a dealer 10 because 20 of the cards that I need came out during the play of the hand to my right at the table?
No; play your hand as you see fit. This hand example is fully separate from any other intentions you may had when buying in, as to the kind of session you sought. Was it "I want to play blackjack just as a recreational player" or "I view this table as my own personal ATM machine, and do things that are disallowed in order to get that money."
Quote: gordonWhy shouldn't I be allowed to have a "hunch" that a 4 is unlikely to be dealt to me and to play my hand accordingly?
You are allowed that. I never said anything to the contrary on playing hunches or using available information that is totally fine with the casino or card room.
Quote: GordonDo the undisclosed rules of the casino require that I ignore that all 20 4s came out on the previous hand?
No, not at all, in an of itself as an example hand. If it is not a part of a true card counting session, all may be fine with it and you continue to play. If it is part of a card counting session, then it might not. Ask the floorman if all is fine, see what he tells you, he's running the place. (Though I don't recommend this).
Honestly, a vacationing construction worker that walks into a casino and plays blackjack without an awareness of "Basic Strategy" would likely observe the 20 fours that just got dealt and decide not to hit his hard 16. Is his play against the rules? Is it immoral? How do you draw the line? At what point does "observing and thinking" become against the (undisclosed) casino rules? Again -how do you draw the line?
Quote: Paigowdan
No; play your hand as you see fit. This hand example is fully separate from any other intentions you may had when buying in, as to the kind of session you sought. Was it "I want to play blackjack just as a recreational player" or "I view this table as my own personal ATM machine, and do things that are disallowed in order to get that money."
You are allowed that. I never said anything to the contrary on playing hunches or using available information that is totally fine with the casino or card room.
But the casino can use players as their personal ATM machines by only allowing losing players to keep playing?
you just stated that "using available information" is "totally fine" - isn't that what card counters do?
Quote: TomGYou went even further than that and insisted that even when the casinos choose not to implement those measures the player is still breaking the rules.
No.
I was very clear that if the player's actions were against the house rules, then yes, and if not against the house rules, then no.
If a house lets you count all you want with their blessing, then fine.
As a matter of fact, I even proposed "all you can count" versions of Blackjack games. make a special version an approved game especially for counters so that they CAN do it to their hearts' content.
Quote: TomGYet if that were true, the casinos failure to back-off the player means it is the casinos themselves who are violating their own rules by dealing to someone who just so happens to be doing elementary school arithmetic in their head.
No.
If a casino decides your play is fine with them, then they won't back you off, and that is very fine. This violates absolutely nothing.
And a casino couldn't care less what you think about. They care about their patron's behavior, that is, is it acceptable to them or not acceptable to them, which may include card counting actions, not thinking about it. Doing it. That's different.
Quote: TomGAgain, most of us agree that the casinos can do things to stop card counters.
Yes they can, and they do.
Quote: TomGYou are the only one who somehow insists that it is the card counters and not the casinos who must police the games by not playing with an optimal strategy.
No.
I said the casinos manage their properties the way they do for certain business reasons that may be valid.
I also said players may use any optimal strategy that meets with approval from the casino supplying the game, and I gave examples of approved strategy such as Basic Strategy; other examples include raise and check strategies for Ultimate Texas hold 'em, etc.
Quote: TomGThe only possible explanation for why you could continue to argue this is an extreme case of cognitive dissonance.
I'm fine with with casino policies on this, as are most outside of this forum.
I believe the cognitive dissonance is within the pro-counting camp, where card counting cannot be reconciled as a righteous and justifiable thing while there exists the risk of getting flat-betted or backed off, and the reasons of others (like casinos) who have the authority to say no to it.
Quote: aceofspadesBut the casino can use players as their personal ATM machines by only allowing losing players to keep playing?
you just stated that "using available information" is "totally fine" - isn't that what card counters do?
yes, I said that, but the assumption is "allowable" available information, and that it should indeed be used to play well. But AP players may not limit themselves to what is allowable, which then becomes a game protection issue that a casino may respond to. Different games have different protocols; tracking discards is a part of allowable and expected protocols of Bridge. Tracking discards doesn't always seem to be allowable in Blackjack.
Using restricted information is not always fine or allowable, hence the flat-betting and back offs. I also gave an example of how UTH is now dealt, as a way to prevent restricted information from getting out that may affect game protection.
As for customers being ATMs, all businesses view customers as a revenue source, and all businesses have customers. If that's evil, then ALL businesses are evil.
