Dealer collusion cheats

I would particularly appreciate answers from surveillance or dealers. This question is hypothetical.

Most of the time when you read about a dealer collusion cheat, it seems as if someone was so greedy or stupid that they had to get caught.

(Case one) In January of 2006, George Lee and Tien Duc Vu and other conspirators were convicted of defrauding 18 casinos of over $3 million dollars. The modus operandi was to bribe dealers and floor supervisors to perform false shuffles in blackjack and baccarat. Although there behavior was often deemed suspicious and they were thrown out of several casinos, it is remarkable that they moved from casino to casino for several years before they were caught. All indications are that the slugs in these cheats were often 40 to 60 cards in length. The cheat is usually discovered afterwards by replaying the video frame by frame and observing the cards. A MindPlay™ table could easily detect 40 cards in the identical order of the last hand before they were played. Unlike some other cheats, this one could result in the loss of very large amounts of money in a single deal since the cheaters would have absolute knowledge of card order.

(Case two) In June of 1997 Sands Vice President Roger McElfresh and dealer Laura Hernandez were arrested and indicted on a simple cheating scheme. Hernandez was only 22 years old and had only been dealing for about 8 months. The scheme was simple, Hernandez was actually showing her hole card to McElfresh and he was altering his play accordingly. The amount of money stolen was about $20,000. News articles reported that McElfresh was running a poor camouflage scheme. He was betting very small with other dealers, and betting large when he was playing against Hernandez. What is particularly amazing about this case, is there is evidence that the cheating scheme had occurred 113 times before it was spotted by visual surveillance.

But consider a similar cheat where the conspirators are not as greedy or as stupid. The dealer with a face up ten or Ace will peek for blackjack. Roughly 32% of all hands involve a dealer peek that does not result in a dealer blackjack. Obviously there is the potential for the dishonest dealer to convey to his player partner some information about the hole card.

If the dishonest dealer were to convey the exact value of his hole card, it would require an extremely elaborate signaling system (or flashing the card). If the player were to play perfect strategy with this knowledge he would have a huge advantage (over 10%). Of course, this cheat would only work for a few hands, at best, since it would be quickly discovered.
The safest strategy would be to reduce the amount of data that the dishonest dealer conveys to the player to a simple binary decision. For example the answer to the question: “Will I have to take at least one card?” The dealer could have many different body signals, or code words all of which convey to the player/partner that the answer to the question is “yes”. The failure to do one of these signals would mean the answer is “no”. This would greatly reduce the odds that the casino would detect the signal. Showing the card is inherently detectable, and it gives the player more information than he can safely utilize.

Consider the collusion where the player makes only the following four decisions:
(1) Player has two cards sum to 10 Dealer has 10 up card
Decision: Player doubles when the dealer is stiff; he hits if the dealer is pat.
(2) Player has two cards sum to 11 Dealer has 10 up card
Decision: Player doubles when the dealer is stiff; he hits if the dealer is pat.
(3) Player has two different cards sum to 16 Dealer has 10 up card
Decision: Player stands when the dealer is stiff; he hits if the dealer is pat.
(4) Player has pair of eights Dealer has 10 or an Ace up card
Decision: Player stands when the dealer is stiff; he splits if the dealer is pat.

Previous answers I have gotten on other forums
(response of type 1) The non-mathematicians believe that there would be such a slight advantage that it would not be worthwhile. In reality it should give you the same kind of percentage advantage as card counting.
(response of type 2) I am not interested in the ethics. It is a hypothetical question that I posed to emphasize the importance of direct non-visual electronic analysis of the card play (like MindPlay).
(response of type 3) Some people involved in surveillance responded with standard surveillance procedures. They "always know" when the dealer and player know each other, etc.

=============
IMHO the play deviates so subtly from basic strategy that it would be very difficult to detect without any probability analysis, or sustained concentrated surveillance dedicated to this single player.

As I mentioned a couple of threads down, the dealer does not see the card value, only whether or not the card completes a blackjack. Even still, I doubt the advantage with just your suggestions would rise to the level of a counter, because it has to be exactly those situations, and the dealer has to have a 10-A up. In hundreds of hands, you might meet your four scenarios a handful of times, and even then, the play is not shifting into your favor immensely; a stiff hand can still become pat, your double down could still draw a bad card...If you are risking CHEATING a casino, you should look to another opportunity. The risk is the same as any other cheat, yet the reward is horrendously smaller.

To clarify a bit, if this was possible, a dealer could very easily signal whether they have a 'stiff' hand or not with something very subtle like a twitch. The signals could be changed constantly including the switching of the yes/no to avoid detection. The result would be a significant player advantage because they player would base their hit/stand/double decision on this crucial information. The player could even ask whether to hit every hand and the dealer could use a verbal clue such as inflection of a non-committal answer.

Back in the day, casinos guarded against this. They also were careful that dealers did not give up any unintentional cues that an eagle-eyed player could spot.

However, as cclub has mentioned, this is impossible on nearly every table out there. It was explained to me many years ago in a conversation with a dealer, and is fully explained on another thread on this forum.

To summarize, with an ace up and the card horizontal, the dealer either sees a 10 or a blank space in the mirror. With a 10 up and the card vertical, the dealer only sees an ace or a blank space. The cards are very cleverly designed.

The other rarer method does not use a mirror but rather an electronic device. Same result.

The mirror or electronic devices to check for an ace or 10 haven't been around that long. Back when I was a dealer we would peek to determine if we had a blackjack anytime an ace or face was up. You could very easily and very subtley provide information to a player about your hole card, something as simple as pointing to the left edge or middle of a player spot to indicate the value of the hole card. The simple mirror device is a very powerful tool to prevent this possibility.

How about that. I didn't know the mirror worked that way.

Quote: pacomartin

How about that. I didn't know the mirror worked that way.

You learn something new every day...

I am sure that collusion is still going on and there are dealers who have not been caught. On a blackjack table, checking the hole card using the mirror is not possible. That said, it would not be difficult to learn the value of their other card and transmit that value to the player. But to do that would involve some risk and some anomalies in dealing that probably would be noticed by surveillance.

But there are other ways to collude: improper shuffling and improper payouts to name a couple.

For the dealer, the value of collusion is tempting: you always have tens of thousands of dollars in your chip rack in front of you and and you are earning minimum wage plus tips. The temptation to get a piece of that action through collusion has to be tempting especially if you are in financial bad straights. The problem is that you will probably get too greedy and will get caught.

The best kind of collusion is the legal kind. Even that minor cheat would probably give the player less advantage than he loses by the casinos switching to 6:5 blackjack or by switching all the 9/6 video poker games out for 7/5 machines. Philosophically, how is it moral for the casino to program those near misses into the reel machines. Or labeling paybacks on slot machines. I mean normal financial transactions are subject to truth in lending.

As has been noted, in most casinos in the U.S. they use hole card readers, which eliminates the possibility of hole card collusion. However, maybe in some other countries they still peek. If they did, and it was a face up game, I would suggest a strategy based on four cards, have the dealer memorize it, and signal to the player what to do. There would need to be some sacrifices to not make red flag plays, like standing on hard 18 when the dealer has a 19.

My educated guess is that such a strategy would result in about a 3% advantage, which is much stronger than the approximate 1% from card counting. Of course this is just theoretical. For the record, I don't approve of cheating.

I would suggest not signaling the accomplice directly.

One simple method would work with a chatty dealer. What he says to the other players is the signal, what he says to the accomplice can be ignored. Of course talking to every player, or nearly so, on every hand is itself suspicious.

Further there should be several accomplices, who should never play together. They should all sometimes lose, too

Quote: Wizard

I would suggest a strategy based on four cards, have the dealer memorize it, and signal to the player what to do.

My educated guess is that such a strategy would result in about a 3% advantage, which is much stronger than the approximate 1% from card counting. Of course this is just theoretical. For the record, I don't approve of cheating.

Well, I think a four card strategy would involve a complex signally process which would be easier to spot. If you restrict your information to whether the dealer is pat or stiff, you could have as many as 10 different signals all of which mean the same thing. That way there is not a clear visual trail. But the player would have to restrict his play so as not to betray his information. Obviously you would want to stand on a player 14 if you know the dealer is stiff, but that would be an unusual card, especially if you are playing mostly basic strategy the rest of the time.

Besides there is no particular advantage to knowing if the dealer has 2,3,4,5,6 in their hole card. There would not be much difference in your play.

Surveillance's job is to build the record, not make immediate busts. Surveillance never likes to tip the dealers as to where they are watching, that way the dealers have always be worried.
Many crooks do seem unreasonably foolish. Some Asian males were arrested last year on the East Coast because they were at a casino in the wee hours of the morning, winning big and had no women with them. If they had simply hired a few hookers would they have made themselves less obvious and won more before the casino got wise to them? I don't know, but four males with stern, non-festive demeanor and no females about them stuck out like a sore thumb. Add in the fact that they were winning and casino security eventually wakes up.

Casinos rotate dealers every twenty minutes (usually) just to avoid collusion and I've been in casinos where they will rotate players. Yep!! Couldn't believe it.

Collusion can later be detected by watching what a player does when he is not with a suspected confederate.

Frankly, I've heard that surveillance really catches very little, its floor people that get suspicious and ask for a camera focus on a particular table. My only casino security experience was triggered by surveillance since I was frisked before I had begun to play but I understand most incidents are triggered by security personnel when you enter or by floor personnel when you are playing and that surveillance doesn't really spot anything beyond the very obvious rubberneckers who look around to see if a security guard is nearby before they do purse snatch or something.

Quote: Nareed

I would suggest not signaling the accomplice directly.

One simple method would work with a chatty dealer. What he says to the other players is the signal, what he says to the accomplice can be ignored. Of course talking to every player, or nearly so, on every hand is itself suspicious.

Further there should be several accomplices, who should never play together. They should all sometimes lose, too

I've often thought how this could be done. I'm someone who wants to find a way to beat the system but not to be dishonest, just to beat it. They alluded to this being a profile of a counter on "The History Channel" MIT Special. I'd break into and our of Fort Knox just to say, "What took you so long?" when the Army came to get me. Anyways....

Better than hand signals would be coding the way your voice works. I forget who the magic act was whio did this, but in high school we had to read the play on them. The wife was blindfolded and they guessed color of something he "described" but it was how he inflected his voice only that gave her the "code" for red, green, etc. Over years nobody figured it out.

Let's take the simple choice of insurance. As a dealer I peek and see I have a 10 in the hole. In that case I stress the first sylable:

IN-surance?

If I do not have a 10 I say it fast:

Insurance? Insurance??

If I peek old-school (no prism) and have S17 and must stand I say:

Inaurance anyone?


You could easily come up with a dozen inflections so subtle it would take forever to have them catch on as long as you didn't get greedy. The eye can't hear voice. To a pit-boss you might come off as chatty or putting on a show. If you really get it down you change your "tones" to something different when your partner is not there.

Quote: AZDuffman

Let's take the simple choice of insurance. As a dealer I peek and see I have a 10 in the hole. In that case I stress the first sylable:

IN-surance?

You'll have to come up with a better plan.

Insurance is only offered BEFORE the dealer peeks, for the very purpose of PREVENTING collusion.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Quote: AZDuffman

Let's take the simple choice of insurance. As a dealer I peek and see I have a 10 in the hole. In that case I stress the first sylable:

IN-surance?

You'll have to come up with a better plan.

Insurance is only offered BEFORE the dealer peeks, for the very purpose of PREVENTING collusion.

ooopsie!

Most of the latest collusion scams are false shuffles enabling the dealer to deal the same set of cards to the player and the player to bet accordingly. Procedures disable the dealer to cheat by revealing hole cards and improper pays. Other scams such as post plays (changing your bet after the results) are detectable by surveillance and thorough procedures but would be more difficult to detect if the dealer was complicit in the actions.

Casinos have struck back by putting card scanners on high value tables such as Bacarrat and RFID chips to avoid improper pays.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

You'll have to come up with a better plan.

Insurance is only offered BEFORE the dealer peeks, for the very purpose of PREVENTING collusion.

Cheating is hard. Who'd have thought ;)

Seriously, it's hard, it's risky and the rewards can't be very big or you'll get caught sooner. That's the other thing. You may get away with cheating a few times, maybe. But if you cheat too much you'll very likely get caught.

Of course it's interesting to think about it and to discuss it. Eventually you may find legal ways to beat the system. For example, if you find a tell by a dealer, it would be legal to take advantage of it (I know they don't see the card, it's an example).

Now, ethically, what if you notice and decode a dealer's signals to his accomplice? Can you take advantage of it?

Quote: Nareed

Now, ethically, what if you notice and decode a dealer's signals to his accomplice? Can you take advantage of it?

Why not? Just follow the bet of the accomplice and plead ignorance while you're being backroomed!!!

Quote: DJTeddyBear

...Insurance is only offered BEFORE the dealer peeks, for the very purpose of PREVENTING collusion.

Actually, another reason is to simply prevent a dealer from having an unintentional 'tell'. Then again, the only difference between a signal and a tell is proving that there was an accomplice.

Quote: Nareed

Now, ethically, what if you notice and decode a dealer's signals to his accomplice? Can you take advantage of it?

Well, whether there is an accomplice or not, you're using the signals as a 'tell'.

Would it be any different than if a dealer had flashed his hole card? Deliberately or accidentally, doesn't matter.

Casinos take advantage of bettors that play stupid. It is no different than a player that takes advantage of a dealer that makes stupid motions.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Quote: AZDuffman

Let's take the simple choice of insurance. As a dealer I peek and see I have a 10 in the hole. In that case I stress the first sylable:

IN-surance?

You'll have to come up with a better plan.

Insurance is only offered BEFORE the dealer peeks, for the very purpose of PREVENTING collusion.

It's interesting you brought this up. In the book "Double Down" by the Barthelme brothers (highly recommended, probably the best book on gambling and addiction), the brothers are busted by the Mississippi authorities for dealer collusion. Gaming claimed that the dealer was sending them signals on when to buy insurance. So I guess she was peeking at her card before she offered insurance. Guess that's changed now. Anyway, of course they were innocent, and they got pulled into a whole sht*tstorm of legal troubles. These were guys who had lost hundreds of thousands at the casino before. Appalling treatment.

When casinos find a cheating scheme, they put in countermeasures in procedures and technology:

- the mirror for checking for blackjack.
- procedures for covering the cut card.
- deeper penetrations
- dealer changes
- RFIDs for high value chips
- machines that track value of cards played
- slug and bill detection
- dice and card changes
- surveillance

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Well, whether there is an accomplice or not, you're using the signals as a 'tell'.

Would it be any different than if a dealer had flashed his hole card? Deliberately or accidentally, doesn't matter.

Casinos take advantage of bettors that play stupid. It is no different than a player that takes advantage of a dealer that makes stupid motions.

First I would like to apologize. I don't like highly improbable hypotheticals, and this is just one such. I mean, how would a player catch on to dealer collusion after playing a few hands, while the casino doesn't notice?

Anyway, if I knew for certain collusion was going on, then it woulnd't be ethical to take advantage of it. It would be like like taking home the contents that spilled of a crashed truck, in other words stealing.

Yes, the casinos have all sorts of advantages, but by and large they play by the rules. Any reasonable person knows this, and if he doesn't like the rules then he shoulnd't play. Taking advantage of dealers' mistakes is all right. To carry above analogy further, it would be like a store mistakenly marking down the price of something way too low.

Making use of other kinds of legal advantages, such as counting cards, is also all right.

If I am sitting at a table with collusion going on that doesn't involve a player cheat (such as an improper shuffle, a dealer tell, etc, I don't have an ethical problem with that. I am not cheating... I am using my observational tools to change the odds of the game. For example, if I am sitting at third base and have the hole card viewable to me every deal, I will change my bet and strategy accordingly. Now if I had a camera that took a picture of that card or was marking the cards, that would be unethical. But if the cards were already marked by someone else and I was able to read them that would not.

Inotherwords, if I can an advantage by something that I didn't cause, I would take advantage of it. Is that unethical? When I think about it is probably is. On the other hand, while the casino does deal a fair game, it does everything it can to keep you gambling in their casino. Is that ethical?

Quote: boymimbo

If I am sitting at a table with collusion going on that doesn't involve a player cheat (such as an improper shuffle, a dealer tell, etc, I don't have an ethical problem with that. I am not cheating... I am using my observational tools to change the odds of the game. For example, if I am sitting at third base and have the hole card viewable to me every deal, I will change my bet and strategy accordingly. Now if I had a camera that took a picture of that card or was marking the cards, that would be unethical. But if the cards were already marked by someone else and I was able to read them that would not.

Inotherwords, if I can an advantage by something that I didn't cause, I would take advantage of it. Is that unethical? When I think about it is probably is. On the other hand, while the casino does deal a fair game, it does everything it can to keep you gambling in their casino. Is that ethical?

Unethical or not there is a good chance the casino will not care if or not you were involved and still 86 you if your play kept changing based on inside information.

Life is so complicated now. Many, many years ago when my wife and I were on a junket with her sister and husband we needed to put in 16 hours of play at the old Marina (most of it's rooms are part of the MGM now) each in the 3 days to receive free our fully comped stay.

We ended up doing most of our playing late at night/early morning when the casino was quite quiet and only a few BJ tables open. The first time we played we ended up with a crotchity old dealer who was almost rude to us. We stayed at his table and genourously tipped him and he eventually warmed to us an we to him. He began to tell us many interesting stories of old vegas and informed us that he used to be sent in to cheat the card counters or anybody that was winning too much. We weren't sure we believed him but he began to help us. He began to manipulate the deck (still single deck in those days) and tell us, signal us or just pass us by on what would normally be a hitable hand and he was always right. At first if passed by we would insist on getting our card and invariably bust, we soon learned.

We didn't make any huge amount of money at his table but we all put in our hours and walked away small winners and our comped stay and we were happy with that. Even sitting at the table I was never able to see what he was doing but it was like he knew every card before it was dealt.

Dealers that have that kind of control are the reasons that the casinos have so many procedures in place now to protect themselves from collusion.

Quote: kenarman

We didn't make any huge amount of money at his table but we all put in our hours and walked away small winners and our comped stay and we were happy with that. Even sitting at the table I was never able to see what he was doing but it was like he knew every card before it was dealt.

Dealers that have that kind of control are the reasons that the casinos have so many procedures in place now to protect themselves from collusion.

It is stories like that one that makes me wonder if you can ever really be sure you are getting a fair shake at a blackjack table. If a dealer can manipulate cards in such a way, couldn't he or she take someone for a bunch of money? And wouldn't the casino be quite happy about it?

IF the dealer is following procedures, he will not really be able to do anything. Oh, he can claim credit for what happened or you can simply give him the credit for what happened or you heap blame as well as scorn on him, but you can also blame the cocktail waitress or the carpet.

Anything the dealer does that is improper is probaby simply a mistake rather than an attempt to aid you or cheat you.

The dealer can slow down a bit and await your signals and that can help but no dealer can really do much.

Sorry Flea but the dealer was definately helping us. He was not even being particularly subtle. The Marina was shutting down to make room for the MGM in a month. He was about 70 years old and retiring once it shut down and basically didn't give a shit anymore. As I said in my first post the casino was quiet and the pit boss was leaning on his desk reading most of the time and not even paying any attention unless called over by a dealer.

We would do things like stand on a hard 18 and pass, he would say are you sure you don't want a card? After we figured out what was going on we would take the card. Sure enough it would be a 3 and the dealer would have 20. He would also have all four of us stand on obvious hit hands and then he would bust. It would all be easily picked up now but no one seemed to care that weekend. Probably because it was shutting down and they were all out of a job anyway.

Quote: FleaStiff

IF the dealer is following procedures....

Clearly, the dealer wasn't following procedures.

Quote: kenarman

...no one seemed to care that weekend. Probably because it was shutting down and they were all out of a job anyway.

Hmmm.... Hit a casino on the last days before it shuts down. Sounds like a plan!