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

Quote: AxelWolf

My post got jumbled. I'll repost for you.

Dan you're using some harsh words describing AP's Remember our very own host here is also an AP.

Mike S. is an all around gaming guru and gaming supporter; he can be described as such in all knowledgeable gaming camps. He is NOT an AP player per se, he takes a pro-knowledgeable player position which may NOT necessarily mean using AP methodology or hating casino employees. He believes players should be studied on gaming, and he takes the view that players should simply play well without the view that players should always try to use certain methodologies, and with the view that people should take neutral, open views.

Let me say that I did not wish to hurt anyone feelings, but that I disagree with any sort of an angelic or white hat portrayal of either the AP side or the operator side. I believe that the operator side tries to run the casinos and offer games for us in good faith and should NOT simply be declared the enemy for doing so; I believe AP players arbitrarily "declare" the operator or the card room the be an evil enemy in order to justify this whole "us versus them" de rigueur posture. In reality, the casino is a service provider to you, who provides the very venue you seek out.

Quote: AxelWolf

Also all the so called greats that turned darkside, you claim they were AP's.
Can you name 4 credible AP's that actually made any significant money for themselves though AP for any significantly period of time?
2 or 3 even? Please exclude DI's and Law breaking cheats.

What? No, I don't have to do squat like this is a pop quiz, but I will name a few: Max Rubin, now associated with DEQ, an equipment supplier; Anthony Curtis is a gaming industry publisher (and is friendly to major operator chains through his Las Vegas advisor), our own Mike formerly worked for LVS, a casino operator, etc. and Teliot.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote: AxelWolf

Agian explain why casinos 86 Slot, keno and Video poker players who play perfectly within the CASINOS rules?

Some operators may over-react and may act punitively, and some don't. Also, some players may not be within the rules but claim to be so. It is a mixed bag. From all that I can tell, the vast majority of slot operations for many operators are chugging along smoothly and uneventfully, and in a fashion perfectly cordial to the general player.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote: AxelWolf

So if I don't vary my bet, signal or back count then the casino shouldn't have the right to refuse my action?

No, outside of New Jersey, a casino reserves the right to refuse action, depending on the circumstance. This does not make them "the enemy." This simply makes them a service provider to you where the relationship is a two-way street (BOTH sides have ground rules), and a business operation, and in 99% of experiences are smooth and non-disruptive, so one may also argue that something is up with the 1%-ers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote: Axelwolf

You really believe a business should be able to determine what disorderly or disturbing conduct is with impunity?

No, but I believe a business should be able to determine what disorderly or disturbing conduct is with review and discretion, and this result may STILL be typically disagreed with by some party.

Quote: Axelwolf

Sorry but I think that's RETARDED. It should be based on the law or what the average person believes to be disrupted. With that thinking, asking the waitresses to reseat you to a different location could be disruptive.
Perhaps the guy who has a physical tic is disruptive.

Come on now...

Quote: darkoz

I understand Paigowdans viewpoint. It is simply that the casino is the house and they can say what goes on in their house.

I had this same situation with my ex-girlfriend when I moved into her place during a "down" time in my life.

She would scream at me that I was running up her electric bill because I left 60 watt light bulbs on in her house. When I pointed out she left the front screen projection tv running all night with a 3000 watt lightbulb which ran up her electric bill probably 500x what a collection of 60 watt bulbs could, her response was "this is my house and I set the rules."

Was she correct? In a authoritative, dictatorial way but most certainly not in any sensical or moralistic way. To me, if you are so concerned about your electric bill then ACT on it or shut up.

Now all players want to win. No one goes to a casino trying to lose. They do everything WITHIN their power to win. It's just that in most cases, that is not enough to overcome the house edge. A card counter is also doing everything within his power to win and actually can succeed. That is the only difference here.

And like the above domestic example, it leaves a bad taste. You can only try to win if you are going to ultimately lose but once you can actually win, forget about it. Is the casino their house? Yes. Can they set the rules? Absolutely. But is it right? Hardly.

Very well said, darkoz.
So your message is if you want to stay in the house or play in the casino you follow their rules.
If you decide not to abide by their rules then just stay away.

Would never happen, too many repercussions and suspicions would abound, too hurtful to the biz.

Quote: Paigowdan

using AP methodology or hating casino employees.

There it is again. You seem to have this deep-seeded idea concerning hate and mortal enemies. In your mind, it seems to be some sort of epic struggle between good and evil with AP's playing the part of 'Satan'.

I don't see it that way at all! I believe it to be two parties, that while they have different agendas, there is plenty of room for co-existence. I know this might sound like utopia inspired crap to some, but I really believe this. I have tailored my approach and game to this concept, with emphasis on identifying and playing within tolerance and comfort levels of each casino, for different particular days, times, shifts, even personnel. And frankly, I have had some success with this approach.

As I have mentioned on prior occasions, I often see a look of recognition from casino personnel. Even though I relocated to Vegas so I would specifically have a larger rotation of casinos to play, my regular rotation consists of about 2 dozen to about 30 casinos. Some of those I only play once or twice a month, while others I play multiple times a week. Multiple times a week, means they know me. I am not tricking them, They know what I am about. But I am playing within their comfort level and for the most part am tolerated. We are co-existing. I get some backoffs, but they are minimal for my amount of play.

Here's a little gem from within the last month, that I will share with you (probably shouldn't) that illistrates my point:

End of the day. This will be my final stop for the day. I am down slightly (about a grand) for the day. 6 deck game, first shoe, count goes positive immediately. About a deck and a half in to the 5 to be dealt from this 6 deck shoe, I am max betting and losing what seems like damn near every hand. I win a few, but I am getting my ass handed to me. This is a smaller local store in my rotation, so my max bet is a little lower than most places, $300 for this session. I have used the chips I came in with (chip inventory) and gone to my pocket. I am down about $5500 for this session and one shoe when the shuffle mercifully comes.

This should trigger my exit point as I have shown my spread and usually try to avoid that biggest of 'tells' reverting back to a smaller wager. But....having lost so quickly and knowing this is my final stop for the day, I decide, to buck my usual routine and play on through a second showing of my spread. Players often erroneously think losing provides cover, buys them some sort of immunity. I know that's not the case, but I do so anyway.

Second shoe, count again heads positive. Not quite so quickly, but with 2 decks remaining to be played of the 5 that will be played before shuffle, I am again in max bet territory, strong max bet territory. I win a few hands. Win a few double down, even get a few of blackjack that I am looking for with such a count. We are closing in on the shuffle card. I won so quickly, I am not exactly sure if I am even or up or down slightly, but I am relatively close to even (turns out I was down $400 for that session although the nearly $6000 in chips in front, makes it look like a winning session).

At this point the pit guy approaches and says "Nice comeback, I thought we had you this time". He then says, "I let you play back to even, but at the shuffle you are done for the day. You can try again next week".

This is a guy that understands that I am not really a threat. Sure I may end up being an overall winner long-term, but I am not effecting their bottom line. And there is some benefit to me playing. It's good for the casino to have other players see someone win once in a while or in this case, even though I didn't win, to make a strong comeback. It makes anyone who has doubts think that this is a fair game. Also, when I wager more, sometimes that inspires other players to wager more. This is a common effect.

Another benefit for the casino, is that because counters like to play alone heads up, they often end up "opening tables", where the dealer was just standing there doing nothing. Much to the counter's dismay, usually by the 3rd round, others have joined as many non-AP players like to wait until someone else is playing. In the past (olden days), casinos actually employed 'shills' to open tables in this manner. So we are providing that service. :)

Now I say this is a pit guy that understands the dynamics that I am not a threat. You may counter that he backed me off. Yes he did, but I almost forced him too, by breaking protocol and playing too long, winning back a pile of money. What choice did he have at that point. His comments, made it clear that he too understand that we can co-exist. We need more in the industry like this and less talking about secret internal rules, and 'hate' among mortal enemies.

Quote: kewlj

There it is again. You seem to have this deep-seeded idea concerning hate and mortal enemies.
In your mind, it seems to be some sort of epic struggle between good and evil with AP's playing the part of 'Satan'.

No I don't, I'm saying this is the problem, and is endemic justification for AP when it is not necessary; I was pointing it out and complaining about it.

Quote: kewlj

I don't see it that way at all! I believe it to be two group that while they have different agendas, there is plenty of room for co-existence. I know this might sound like utopia inspired crap to some, but I really believe this. I have tailored my approach and game to this concept, with emphasis on identifying and playing within tolerance and comfort levels of each casino, for different particular days, times, shifts, even personnel. And frankly, I have had some success with this approach.

Kewlj, I know you don't.
I am against the whole general approach or justification of the "us against the big bad guys" attitude that many still retain or cling to. Again, I know you're different and peaceable.

Quote: kewlj

As I have mentioned on prior occasions, I often see a look of recognition from casino personnel. Even though I relocated to Vegas so I would specifically have a larger rotation of casinos to play, my regular rotation consists of about 2 dozen to about 30 casinos. Some of those I only play once or twice a month, while others I play multiple times a week. Multiple times a week, means they know me. I am not tricking them, They know what I am about. But I am playing within their comfort level and for the most part am tolerated. We are co-existing. I get some backoffs, but they are minimal for my amount of play.

Here's a little gem from within the last month, that I will share with you (probably shouldn't) that illistrates my point:

End of the day. This will be my final stop for the day. I am down slightly (about a grand) for the day. 6 deck game, first shoe, count goes positive immediately. About a deck and a half in to the 5 to be dealt from this 6 deck shoe, I am max betting and losing what seems like damn near every hand. I win a few, but I am getting my ass handed to me. This is a smaller local store in my rotation, so my max bet is a little lower than most places, $300 for this session. I have used the chips I came in with (chip inventory) and gone to my pocket. I am down about $5500 for this session and one shoe when the shuffle mercifully comes.

This should trigger my exit point as I have shown my spread and usually try to avoid that biggest of 'tells' reverting back to a smaller wager. But....having lost so quickly and knowing this is my final stop for the day, I decide, to buck my usual routine and play on through a second showing of my spread. Players often erroneously think losing provides cover, buys them some sort of immunity. I know that's not the case, but I do so anyway.

Second shoe, count again heads positive. Not quite so quickly, but with 2 decks remaining to be played of the 5 that will be played before shuffle, I am again in max bet territory, strong max bet territory. I win a few hands. Win a few double down, even get a few of blackjack that I am looking for with such a count. We are closing in on the shuffle card. I won so quickly, I am not exactly sure if I am even or up or down slightly, but I am relatively close to even (turns out I was down $400 for that session although the nearly $6000 in chips in front, makes it look like a winning session).

At this point the pit guy approaches and says "Nice comeback, I thought we had you this time". He then says, "I let you play back to even, but at the shuffle you are done for the day. You can try again next week".

This is a guy that understands that I am not really a threat. Sure I may end up being an overall winner long-term, but I am not effecting their bottom line. And there is some benefit to me playing. It's good for the casino to have other players see someone win once in a while or in this case, even though I didn't win, to make a strong comeback. It makes anyone who has doubts think that this is a fair game.

Another benefit for the casino, is that because counters like to play alone heads up, they often end up "opening tables", where the dealer was just standing there doing nothing. Much to the counter's dismay, usually by the 3rd hand, others have joined as many non-AP players like to wait until someone else is playing. In the past (olden days), casinos actually employed 'shills' to open tables in this manner. So we are providing that service. :)

Now I say this is a pit guy that understands the dynamics that I am not a threat. You may counter that he backed me off. Yes he did, but I almost forced him too, by breaking protocol and playing too long, winning back a pile of money. What choice did he have at that point. His comments, made it clear that he too understand that we can co-exist. We need more in the industry like this and less talking about secret internal rules, and 'hate' among mortal enemies.

If you're good with them and they with you, all good. They know you bring some good, I mean they like having a natural shill, as nothing creepier or colder than an ice-cold dead table that someone has warmed up for them. You may have primed the pump for the ploppies for the night, and they'll take it with accommodation.

"...I do view it as a form of pilferage..."

I don't see how that's morally correct. A competent counter is in effect taking the losses of less skilled players which would otherwise go to the house. Same true with positive expectation video poker, even closely negative comped games as well. In the general economy profits are routinely ethically returned at least partly based on the ignorance of large fractions of the market, not all, of course, nor even majority, but non negligible. People differ in interests and ability and it's economically manifested. In extreme cases charity is required to install a floor for the working, deserving poor (who are only a fraction of the poor).