BJ AT A NEW CASINO

I walked into this new casino last night. There was a open BJ table, single deck , and with a very friendly dealer. I sat down and
placed a bet on one spot, then wondered if maybe I could play more than one spot. The smiling dealer with the name tag Dan
said " Of course you can Buzz. It's not against the rules. " So I bet $100 on each spot. Efficient Dan dealt me 3 hands face down,
and while I looked at my first hand Dan turned up an Ace for himself. " Insurance, Buzz ? " he politely asked. While I was thinking it over, he said I could look at my other 2 hands before deciding.
I asked him if that was allowed under the rules and he said only if I was deciding about insurance. At all other times I had to act on each on each hand first before looking at the others. Since it was not against the rules, I looked at all 3 hands and since I had all cards smaller than 6 , I took insurance. Dan turned over a 10 and I ducked the bullet. Normally I never take insurance but with Dan allowing me to see all little cards, I did. And since there is also no rule against tipping, I tipped Dan $25.
Wouldn't you know it, the next hand Dan turned up another Ace. I asked him again about looking at all 3 hands and he said to go right ahead, it's not against the rules, you know.
This time I had all 10's, so I declined insurance. Dan turned over a 6 and started to pay me. Evidently it had been a tiring day dealing with counters earlier. I reminded him to hit his soft 17. I mean, rules are rules. Dan turned over a deuce and paid off my 3 twenties. It was quite a nice start to what I hoped with be an enjoyable night of Blackjack. But just then I felt a tap on my shoulder.
I turned around and this employee had no name tag, just a Sheriff's star pinned on his jacket. As I never did learn his name, but
will not forget his face, let's just call him Face, shall we ?
Face said I could no longer play blackjack at his casino. I picked up my chips, slid then in my pocket to let my wife play later or
cash in, her choice. I told Face I had done nothing wrong, why just go ahead and ask Dan. Dan said I had followed the rules , but had used my brain. . I had taken insurance when the count was positive and refused it when the count
was negative. I tried to explain Dan had told me I could look at the little cards. But Face was plainly getting agitated. I decided not to ask why I was being asked to leave when Face made me an offer I could not refuse. He said " Buzz, you seem like a nice fella. I would not call you a cheater and then refuse to apologize for it. But if you will just allow me to walk you to the front door, I will share
a casino secret with you. I will tell you exactly why I have decided to bar you from playing Blackjack here.
So it was as I walked through the door held open by Face I learned exactly why he barred me " BECAUSE I CAN "

Two hands is awfully quick to 86 someone. If they do that regularly, I have to think all the false positives will be costly.

Well, try explaining that to Face. You know how them damn New Yorkers are. Always in a hurry.

Quote: waltomeal

Two hands is awfully quick to 86 someone. If they do that regularly, I have to think all the false positives will be costly.

Well, there's a new Sheriff in town. And since you "had to think", I'm going to have to ask you to leave.

=D

I understand Face. You were only doing your job, but please don't ever let Dan wear the badge. PLEASE. He would make
Judge Roy Bean look like a compassionate hanging judge.

Buzz -

It doesn't take rocket science, or any experience with card counting, to have done what you did.

I think Dan would be on your side.

A few hands is a little ridiculous for a back-off.
But playing three hands is a counter givaway.
Another is not being consistent with insurance.
Even non-counters get nailed as counters for experimenting, trying different plays as hunches, etc.
This makes "2 thru 7" Blackjack look stronger.
It's hard to not feel offended when backed off but don't.

Some of you seem to have missed the point of what is clearly an allegorical story. An inside joke if you will... I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Quote: Paigowdan

Another is not being consistent with insurance.
Even non-counters get nailed as counters for experimenting, trying different plays as hunches, etc.
This makes "2 thru 7" Blackjack look stronger.

Because insurance isn't available at all? Genius!!!

Good for you, then.
But it can happen just like that. I'm glad and surprised my name sake was tipped.
A good point of that little story is that sometimes using your brains is not using your brains.
Using your brains is doing something gets positive results at the table.

Good for you, then.
But it can happen just like that. I'm glad and surprised my name sake was tipped.
A good point of that little story is that sometimes using your brains is not using your brains.
Using your brains is doing something gets positive results at the table.
Dan and Face were tip-offs truee - but (and pardon the pun) it took it at Face value. :)

Quote: dwheatley

Some of you seem to have missed the point of what is clearly an allegorical story. An inside joke if you will... I thoroughly enjoyed it.

On the contrary, I think most people simply chose to not point it out.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

On the contrary, I think most people simply chose to not point it out.

I could give the early posters the benefit of the doubt, but sarcasm is tough to pick up in forum posts.

It is hard to not feel offended when you have been accused of cheating for using your brain while playing blackjack. Face was man
enough to admit he backed me off simply because he can. I am still waiting for your apology. And please don't insult me by saying " Don't take it personal" I learned long ago when someone says don't take it personal. TAKE IT PERSONAL!

Quote: buzzpaff

... I am still waiting for your apology.

Wait a sec....

Are you saying that the guard really was our member "Face" ?


Quite frankly, in the story, I thought you named him that because he was a tough-guy, in-your-face kinda guard. And named him 'Face' as something of an inside joke or nod to Face...

No Teddy, it was not for real. LOL But Dan did call me a cheater for real in several posts on this forum. Face has pm'd me he took no insult from my story. And has indeed promised to never give his badge to Dan.

Buzz,
Neither did I take offense. Why should I? And I don't want or need a badge.
And I said that yes, - in the eyes of casino operations (and it doesn't matter which casino you're in), card counters are viewed as cheaters - rule breakers - no good players - whatever. Quibbling about the technical legal status of it, it's nomenclature - or your constitutional rights is just a waste of time.
Card Counters just are viewed and treated that way, lumped into the group of undesirables. It can be a reason for resentment against operators and those who agree to carry out and enforce these rules, and it is an issue of resentment. A David and Goliath fantasy against the evil casinos. So many earlier card counting books had titles like "Beat the Dealer," "Stomp the dealer," "Burning the tables," "Stab the dealer in the head with an ice pick," before that was toned down.

In THEIR view and in MY view if you knowingly break a casino ground rule, you are committing a wrong. They don't need to have a sign up, they don't need to show you the Constitution and the bill of rights. I somewhat disagree with the rule, and think other, better solutions are available. But the rule is in place for a reason.
Don't like it? then you can resent it - or not resent it.
I see lots of nervy rule breaking by a significant minority of casino patrons, - often with a huge sense of entitlement to do so, with card counting being a relatively minor issue if no shouting matches/offenened feelings occur from a back-off.

Anyone can ramble on about how it is technically legal, "I have a birthright to do this/show me where it is written/I am exercising my constitutional rights," what have you. They "gum up the works," cause operational problems, you name it.

As for the argument of "using my brains," any time you get backed-off or shown the door by a casino operator, you're viewed as a moron and a waste of time in their eyes. "Don't they know it doesn't work anymore? Slow learners, obviously! Another clown wasting everyone's time, especially their own!"

Buzz, do not resent the fact that card counting is considered an offense to be backed-off for, and not a viable money-making job OR pasttime.

The thing about hurt feelings or resentments over card couinting is this:
It is bad enough that the casino "Wrongfully punished" you for 86-ing you when counting. But when you resent it as an issue, you are then punishing yourself long after the "perpetrator" is long done with you. This is argumably not using your brains but your emotions. Better to learn poker like a pro - and take money from lesser players as "tuition" - than to fight casino operators on card counting like they were City Hall.

More ramblings of a frustrated old man and not a hint even of an apology. The casino's did not call me a cheater, YOU DID!

Buzz,
if you want an apology - allow me to offer it: I am sorry that I have hurt your feelings. Really, no joke.
Please accept my apologies, - very seriously. You're a good guy.
I have never asked for an apology for me, (I've been called lots of things, WTH)
as I feel that in this "cat and mouse" game (or war) between APs and Casino operators, the mutual views are going to be naturally very harsh and emotionally charged, and the mutual terminology is rough. Dealers and floormen have views about APs and undesireables, and if I had sugar-coated it, I would have done a disservice in some ways, arguable. Pit operations is a very rude business. I too have been used as a punching bag here and there, and have black eyes, too.
The kitchen is hot, and is not air-conditioned!
But seriously, my apologies, no hard feelings.

Dan Lubin, I graciously accept. And look forward to our next heated words. Your passion can never be questioned !

Great!

Dan, I really have no idea what your position is on this particular case. Based upon your, um, ramblings, I get the feeling that you're on the side of the casino for ejecting Buzz.

Then I read this sentence.

Quote: Paigowdan

It is bad enough that the casino "Wrongfully punished" you for 86-ing you when counting.

Do you think that what Buzz did in this situation warrented being asked to leave the casino?

Dave -
As for my ramblings, I clearly put quotes around "wrongfully punished" to indicate that this action was Point-of-View involved.
Obviously, the AP feels that it is wrong.
Obviously, the pit boss feels that it is right and decent to do and does it.
My ramblings are often clear - but not always.
1. Breaking a casino ground rule is a no-no, an act of player malfeasance, in the eyes of the casino pit. No doubt there. If the pit boss says go, the player goes. Goodnight.
2. It has nothing to do with the law of the land, the consitution, or whatever its external legal status that were argued here at length - in NV, the pit crew decides that if your play is out of bounds, you can't play. Also - very clear.

As for this theoretical situation, a few hands is too quick IMO.
Also in this situation, two card counting give-aways are displayed - playing multiple hands, and varying responses to insurance.
If a casino says "you're done at this table" or "you're done for the night" - then they have made the call; follow it, and go to another casino, or go to the movies. Don't take it personally.