Gambler accused of dice sliding at Wynn Las Vegas - Sued for return of $700,000

Quote: SanchoPanza

So it would turn everything "ethical" if we start giving correct playing advice at blackjack, at craps, at video poker to the schlumps who don't know the first thing about what they're spending money on.

No, you would have them undergo the full card counting program, where they would learn to view that the casino is an evil entity who cheats you as they teach you card counting, in order to cheat the casinos, when you will learn to:
1. Call the kettle black,
2. Have an dismal career going at it.
3. Be barred from most casinos, and be
4. Unemployable in the gaming industry,
5. And unemployable as an advantage player.
6. Be forced to get a real job, or abaondom this thinking to work as a gaming industry employer, where you get de-programmed from card counting thinking and methodology.

In response to AlanMendelson asking "what's the point of this discussion": Dan suggests that it is

Quote: Paigowdan

"if card counting is unethical behavior to carry out," from an absolute Point of view or scale

That's easy. The answer is "No, card counting is not unethical behavior." Otherwise, the casinos who openly invited card counters to ply their trade would be complicit.

Casino reactions to card counting are related to business profitability, and those reactions vary wildly. Some casinos sweat the money; others don't care as much, or at all. A select few casinos take the enlightened view that by offering a game that is beatable by a small few, more people who *can't* beat the game will play there and the *overall* revenue will go up. In those casinos, you'll find better rules than you would at a casino that is nervous about ever getting beaten by anyone. That's how I'd run a floor if I ever had the opportunity. If I'm a casino owner, I'll instruct my operations team to maximize revenue, even if a handful of people beat me occasionally. I'll accept volatility in exchange for better returns. It's like investing in the financial market. You can go all-equities and have a risk of a down month or quarter but better long-term growth, or you can put your money in safe debt instruments and sacrifice returns for predictability. Allowing card counters more leeway is akin to the former, but I understand the mentality of those gaming operators who choose safety first.

That said, choosing safety and lower profits over volatility and higher returns is strictly a business decision. It has nothing to do with ethics. If card counting were an ethical issue, at a minimum all casinos would reject all card counters -- but we know that doesn't happen. Moreover, regulations or even statutes would be in place to restrict or criminalize card counting. But that's not the case either. Insofar as Dan has a vehement reaction to card counting, that reflects his own personal leanings as well as perhaps that of his employer. I could speculate that the Fiesta Henderson, being a smaller, out-of-the-way property that is part of a larger conglomerate, must routinely put up good numbers or face consequences. I don't really know. But I do know that management's stance on card counting is based on the bottom line, not on any revenue-independent ethical considerations. Dan's had to invent some mythological hidden casino rules to justify his stance on ethics, but those rules don't really exist per se -- they're internal policies that, as above, vary wildly from casino to casino. Such cannot properly be a basis for arguing ethics.

As an aside, the true nature of blackjack has been revealed. It was not always known, but it is now. What we know about blackjack is that, as the composition of the depleting deck changes, so does the expectation of the next wager. That feature of blackjack was always present, but we didn't know about it until the middle of last century. As a result, blackjack is among the ranks of casino games which sometimes present a +EV opportunity for a savvy bettor. But there are many other such opportunities in casinos. Casinos often give away match play or free play as a promotion; that is also +EV. So are progressive slots or VP games with sufficiently high meters. It is not unethical for a player to attempt to maximize his expectation in situations like that. Some VP players only play at +EV machines; they are not unethical. Some table games players always maximize the value of match play; they are not unethical. Some sports bettors always bet on the line they judge is furthest from accurate; they are not unethical. Some poker players bet heavily when they believe their opponent is bluffing; they are not unethical. And some blackjack players bet more when they believe they will win the next hand; they are not unethical.

Casinos are so sure you'll lose in the long
run, they call taking part of the money you
spend on gaming and putting it towards
comps a 'reinvestment'. You see that word
all the time in casino magazines. They
consider all the money they put into building
and operating a casino as an investment,
and they reinvest some of the money you
spend into luring you back into the casino. Its
all part of an elaborate game they play to
get more and more of your money. They
know something the majority of their players
don't know: Its impossible to get ahead and
stay ahead in a negative expectation game.

The casino 'games' their customers. And if
somebody comes along with the ability to
'game' them, they go into a tailspin.
An AP looks at it as playing cat and mouse,
the casino looks at it as search and destroy.
If things hadn't changed, AP's would still be
getting their legs broke, or end up in a
hole in the desert. Dan can cry ethics all he
wants, but casinos get away with just as much
subterfuge as AP's do, its a level playing field.

My favourite bar once did 1oz drink "flights", where you could select 3 1/2 oz shots for 10 bucks. Most of the time the server would select for you based on your preferences and guide you through what you were savouring (this is a decent cocktail joint, not a slam 'em place), but you could request your own.

On their shelf was at least two whisky's that had a list price of over $15 for 1oz shot on the menu (a Pappy van Winkle and a Laphroig quarter cask). Thus you could, if you knew your drinks, get a very cheap taster of an excellent whisky or two for ten bucks. You could, by your own knowledge, game the system.

The bar owner never took away this option, or barred people for taking it for over a year. He did change the flight to be one of your choice, two of ours, but made that clear on the options. If he knew you, and you ordered the Pappy, you'd probably get a Grant's and pepper vodka shot with it.

So was this unethical to use your knowledge when selecting drinks to get more than $10 value out of the flight?

(I loved the flights, discovered many new and interesting spirits that way).

Quote: thecesspit

So was this unethical to use your knowledge when selecting drinks to get more than $10 value out of the flight?

It's just the same as the coupon shoppers at the local supermarket. And double and triple-value coupons are like double points on the players' card. And we all know what happens to people who concentrate their play on days with high multiples.

In the book Gambling Wizards, famous BJ player
Tommy Hyland says even if the casino offered to
pay him 10 mil a year, he wouldn't work there. He
says he hates casinos because they ruin peoples
lives, both players and the people who work there.
They produce nothing and pander to the lowest
levels of human nature.

Quote: MathExtremist

In response to AlanMendelson asking "what's the point of this discussion": Dan suggests that it is

That's easy. The answer is "No, card counting is not unethical behavior." Otherwise, the casinos who openly invited card counters to ply their trade would be complicit.

good point - and I'm a bit peeved at some of them for trying to straddle the "alluring" play conditions sales pitch - seemingly okaying AP while backing off those that do it well. Either shit or get off the pot. Some are guilty, some are not.

Quote: MathExtremist

Casino reactions to card counting are related to business profitability, and those reactions vary wildly.

Some operators are hypocritical, true.

Quote: MathExtremist

Some casinos sweat the money; others don't care as much, or at all. A select few casinos take the enlightened view that by offering a game that is beatable by a small few, more people who *can't* beat the game will play there and the *overall* revenue will go up.

Yes, if the selectively back off some for being successful on an action they do detest, in order to try to grab some cash from the poor counters, they're B.S.
I've seen a floorman back off a bad card counter saying, "if we back off the good counters off for this, we have no business trying to grab cash for ourselves from those counters who are still cutting their teeth on it, trying to get good. This isn't an episode of 'Bait Car'." Bless him, really.

Quote: ME

In those casinos, you'll find better rules than you would at a casino that is nervous about ever getting beaten by anyone. That's how I'd run a floor if I ever had the opportunity. If I'm a casino owner, I'll instruct my operations team to maximize revenue, even if a handful of people beat me occasionally.

I wouldn't, Stacy. Giving out falsely inticing conditions, - only to back off or 86 the winners at it - is a dead-to-rights 'bait-and-switch' ploy that sends the wrong casino message: "we're two-faced hypocrits about this!" - This is exactly the complaint that many card counters have about two-faced casinos. In a sense it rewards them for doing what they are against when they can take their cash, - then punishes them for getting good at it when they're 86-ed, when no longer able to take their cash. Part of the "counting problem situation" is that some casinos deliberately let counters count if they're lousy at it, but whip them if they're good at something that casinos shouldn't allow as selective policy from the get-go - if they're honest about it, too.

Quote: ME

I'll accept volatility in exchange for better returns.

So would I, if I didn't have to practice a fundamentally dishonest "two-way" policy on it, to do so.

Quote: ME

It's like investing in the financial market. You can go all-equities and have a risk of a down month or quarter but better long-term growth, or you can put your money in safe debt instruments and sacrifice returns for predictability. Allowing card counters more leeway is akin to the former, but I understand the mentality of those gaming operators who choose safety first.

A [very] few of them may have said to themselves, "honestly, now, we have to be consistent on this to have integrity ourselves." Two, - maybe three?

Quote: ME

That said, choosing safety and lower profits over volatility and higher returns is strictly a business decision. It has nothing to do with ethics. If card counting were an ethical issue, at a minimum all casinos would reject all card counters -- but we know that doesn't happen. Moreover, regulations or even statutes would be in place to restrict or criminalize card counting. But that's not the case either. Insofar as Dan has a vehement reaction to card counting, that reflects his own personal leanings as well as perhaps that of his employer. I could speculate that the Fiesta Henderson, being a smaller, out-of-the-way property that is part of a larger conglomerate, must routinely put up good numbers or face consequences. I don't really know. But I do know that management's stance on card counting is based on the bottom line, not on any revenue-independent ethical considerations.

Yes, the generally policy is to not worry about a few winners if most are losers. Then change policy and clamp down when the general Card counting population gets re-skilled and re-tooled to do some damage. It's a "take the cash while the taking is good policy."

Quote: ME

Dan's had to invent some mythological hidden casino rules to justify his stance on ethics, but those rules don't really exist per se -- they're internal policies that, as above, vary wildly from casino to casino.

Stacy - I didn't have to invent anything. Casinos do not like AP/Counting/etc. from either a business practice or on an ethical basis, but when financial pressures of competition make them say, "Why not have a dual or contradictory policy on this - back off the good counters, or if they are too few and far in between, but take the easy business and cash from the bad counters." This is whats going on with some operators. Get this?

Quote: ME

Such cannot properly be a basis for arguing ethics.

Sure can be - when you point out that both may ethically fail at it - by doing it - or by allowing it "whenever it serves our purpose."
When I argue that card counting is bad faith play - it can apply to casino operators too, when they selectively rubber-stamp an action they know and feel is impropery - when it suits their purpose, too.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Here's what the Nevada Gaming commission says about card counting:

1. It is NOT illegal
2. The casinos can decide who they want playing their games
End of story.

Almost right...

Quote: AlanMendelson

Here's what the Nevada Gaming commission says about GAMBLING:
1. It is NOT illegal
2. The casinos can decide who they want playing their games
End of story.

" Casinos do not like AP/Counting/etc. from either a business practice or on an ethical basis"

Ha! "Ethically we hate it when people remember things that happened ten minutes ago. Unless it was a big win. We like them to remember that, so they keep the buzz happening. That's okay. Or 3 months ago, the good time they had. But how dare they remember the number of aces played so far!"

This argument is bobbins all to do with ethics by the casino business themselves, and a lot to do with the bottom line -as it should be for the casino.

Every time I see Dan make this statement, my head spins upside down. It's nonsensical to call it a game with a stupid rule like "no remembering the cards now!".

I love this thread, it's slowly convincing me to avoid bothering with "Gaming" and to stick with gaming where I can read the rules (they come in the box, most of the time they are clearly written, and no-one tells me the rules are on the lips of a pit boss...).

Quote: thecesspit

"
Every time I see Dan make this statement, my head spins upside down. It's nonsensical to call it a game with a stupid rule like "no remembering the cards now!".

I love this thread, it's slowly convincing me to avoid bothering with "Gaming" and to stick with gaming where I can read the rules (they come in the box, most of the time they are clearly written, and no-one tells me the rules are on the lips of a pit boss...).

Well, what can I tell you. In the table games pit, there is a huge amount of he-said-she-said, MY POV, etc.
The pit boss makes the call, like it or not. In their defense, they've seen it all AND do try to be fair, although there is a 0.0001% chance of this being believed.

The history of Blackjack, and the introduction of Ed Thorpe and counting was really a wrench thrown into the machinery of Blackjack opertions, it really is.

Dan-blame all you want, I was upfront with all the attitudes and aspects.

The game was to be kept, with the later rules of "don't do that added new thing (counting)," as a table games pit rule to keep the game in the post-counting period.

Because it [enforcement] can be selectively enforced on the casino side (losing card counter = take his money!, good card counter = he hits the streets!), this is horrible.
I say - clean it up:
1. make the game uncountable; otherwise it's either going to be selectively enforced, or a cluster f*ck. CSMs, 2-thru-6 BJ tables (same game with a BJ payout varying with a dealer's "pat or stiff" up card, corresponding to the count.
2. End the dream of "card-counting = such a wonderful dreeeam...." Really. Casinos will ENSURE that it'll never again be profitable, and is vulnerable to be used as a "bait and switch" cat & mouse game against hapless card counter wannabees, of which there are many broke-@ss examples defend it's viability and "respectability" to the ends of the earth, especially at this forum.
3. Have a consistent - non-selective application of "no card counting," LOSE the "it's okay if I can fleece the lousy counters, they're getting the punishment they deserve, but G-d help the good counter when I get him" attitude in the pit. It's wrong, - apply the same measure to all.

edit Timspeed has a motto:They say casino's aren't built on winners... No...they're built on ignorance. this includes card counters and APs who think they'll win in the end.

Casinos are like oceans; as the sailors used to say, "you can play in the ocean, but you cannot play WITH the ocean" [it'll kill you.]
In that regards, you can play in the casinos, but you cannot play WITH the casinos. [When push comes to shove, they don't play.]

I just think, to be completely fair and consistent, we should standardize player actions. You just drop all your chips, their value is divided by the number of hands per shoe for the bet, and all hit/stand/split/doubles are decided house way.

Fine. Set up your business model, and let us know how well your "P90 Casinos does..." It'll produce a lot of hardy har-hars...you cannot ever leave a winner your way with that scheme, but you can with a casino, even with clean play. In fact, winning with clean play is the only way to get away cleanly...

Quote: Paigowdan

Giving out falsely inticing conditions, - only to back off or 86 the winners at it - is a dead-to-rights 'bait-and-switch' ploy that sends the wrong casino message: "we're two-faced hypocrits about this!" - This is exactly the complaint that many card counters have about two-faced casinos. In a sense it rewards them for doing what they are against when they can take their cash, - then punishes them for getting good at it when they're 86-ed, when no longer able to take their cash. Part of the "counting problem situation" is that some casinos deliberately let counters count if they're lousy at it, but whip them if they're good at something that casinos shouldn't allow as selective policy from the get-go - if they're honest about it, too.

I'm not suggesting that I'd do exactly that, mind you, but I wouldn't have the same problem with it that you do. I think your definition of what "ethics" means is perhaps a bit overwrought. If a restaurant offers a $9.99 all-you-can-eat buffet, and some world eating champion comes in and consumes 8 meals' worth of food, the restaurant is not out-of-bounds for telling him not to come back. And the champion is not out-of-bounds for eating the food, either. That's because there's a more important policy in place than "$9.99 = all the food you can eat". That policy is "management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone."

The same holds in a casino. It's a business, and business operations means protecting the bottom line. It's not "falsely enticing" to offer a good gamble. If I'm a casino that has good blackjack rules, and you want to take a run at me, go for it. I have surveillance and trained dealers to do their jobs. And I can always resort to my back-up plan: I can kick you out if I don't want your business (except in New Jersey). It's not unethical for me to do that any more than it's unethical for you to take a run at my game rules in the first place.

If you think about it, it would be silly to suggest otherwise. We teach children in school to "do your best", that intentionally doing poorly is bad form, and that cheating is wrong. Nothing about those life lessons changes when money is on the line. In blackjack, "doing your best" means making the optimal play and wager based on knowledge of the remainder of the deck. It does not mean stealing chips, marking cards, or using a mirror to view the dealer's hole card - those are cheating. But nobody said doing your best is easy. Counting cards isn't easy, but it's still the optimal way to play blackjack.

I have seen the 'except in New Jersey' line mentioned a few times. Is counting a legal and accepted practice at the New jersey casinos? Or do they still back off players?

Quote: MathExtremist

And I can always resort to my back-up plan: I can kick you out if I don't want your business (except in New Jersey).

Actually except most of the world, other than US. And even then not the entire US.

Quote: SOOPOO

I have seen the 'except in New Jersey' line mentioned a few times. Is counting a legal and accepted practice at the New jersey casinos? Or do they still back off players?

Counting is "legal" everywhere, but in New Jersey, Ken Uston won a state lawsuit against Resorts International Hotel that said casinos cannot legally back off card counters. Instead, the game rules got worse -- shallow penetration and many decks, etc.

Quote: SOOPOO

I have seen the 'except in New Jersey' line mentioned a few times. Is counting a legal and accepted practice at the New jersey casinos? Or do they still back off players?

AC casinos cannot bar skilled players do to Uston vs. Resorts International (see wikipedia summary). Instead they add all kinds of rules and conditions to make counting harder. Notably they can't bar you, but they can flat-bet you if they suspect you of counting, which is pretty much the same thing. Also they move up the shuffle frequently to 50% pen, there's no mid-shoe entry, etc.

Note I have never played in AC, this is just based on my book knowledge.

Quote: P90

Actually except most of the world, other than US. And even then not the entire US.

Yes they do. They restrict bets and shuffle up in the middle of a shoe. They also half-shoe, making the game unplayable for counters.

Oops, I meant to reply to SOOPOO.

Quote: Paigowdan

In that regards, you can play in the casinos, but you cannot play WITH the casinos. [When push comes to shove, they don't play.]

But you can certainly game them. Listen to the Bob
Dancer radio show from last Thursday. Laurie C,
the wife of Johnny C, who was head of the MIT BJ
team, is still making a living playing BJ in Vegas. And
she's been arrested and her pic is in Griffin and she's
been around for 30 years doing this. She has no
problem playing almost anywhere she wants. Why is
that if the casino is so vigilant on getting rid of successful
counters.

Since this thread started with dice sliding....
If I ask a casino what are the rules about how I am required to throw the dice, will I get an unambiguous answer?
Will I be able to see that answer in written form anywhere?

A hypothetical... I ask, and the pit boss tells me the dice must both hit the back wall....
I am rolling and they all do... I have the points all covered.... I roll 'short' with one die not reaching the back wall... 7 out... I call the boss over and state that the die did not hit the back wall thus its an invalid roll... I know Dan will tell me I'll never be able to play there again... which likely will be true... but... I think I would have a case.... not worth pursuing of course...

Are there actual rules regarding dice throwing or just another set of 'secret' rules in the bowels of the casino?

Quote: SOOPOO

Since this thread started with dice sliding....
If I ask a casino what are the rules about how I am required to throw the dice, will I get an unambiguous answer?
Will I be able to see that answer in written form anywhere?

A hypothetical... I ask, and the pit boss tells me the dice must both hit the back wall....
I am rolling and they all do... I have the points all covered.... I roll 'short' with one die not reaching the back wall... 7 out... I call the boss over and state that the die did not hit the back wall thus its an invalid roll... I know Dan will tell me I'll never be able to play there again... which likely will be true... but... I think I would have a case.... not worth pursuing of course...

Are there actual rules regarding dice throwing or just another set of 'secret' rules in the bowels of the casino?

As with card counting, it's entirely discretionary. The standard rule of thumb is that the dice must hit the back wall. Failure to do so may, but will not necessarily, result in a no-roll. It is up to the discretion of the stickperson. Bear in mind that a no-roll costs the casino money (on average) because it lowers the rolls per hour and therefore the revenue per hour. So as long as the dice stay on the table and aren't egregiously manipulated, such as sliding or not making it past the prop box, the roll will usually count. I've never seen a new shooter get no-rolled for a short throw the first time out, but it does happen after repeated short rolls.

But to your point, if the stick or boxperson doesn't say no-roll, it's a valid roll. A short roll, especially where only one die fails to reach the back wall, isn't a procedural error in the same way an exposed card at blackjack is a misdeal and grounds for voiding the hand. The dice don't behave predictably even when you throw them at the same spot -- some of the time they go sideways or just stop. I was shooting once and both dice simply fell dead where they landed, but that wasn't called no-roll. I couldn't do it intentionally in a million years, and the casino knew that the rest of my throws were reaching the far wall, so they just let it go.

Quote: SOOPOO

Since this thread started with dice sliding....
If I ask a casino what are the rules about how I am required to throw the dice, will I get an unambiguous answer?
Will I be able to see that answer in written form anywhere?

A hypothetical... I ask, and the pit boss tells me the dice must both hit the back wall....
I am rolling and they all do... I have the points all covered.... I roll 'short' with one die not reaching the back wall... 7 out... I call the boss over and state that the die did not hit the back wall thus its an invalid roll... I know Dan will tell me I'll never be able to play there again... which likely will be true... but... I think I would have a case.... not worth pursuing of course...

Are there actual rules regarding dice throwing or just another set of 'secret' rules in the bowels of the casino?

I wouldn't tell you that. (People love to speak for me).
I say, assuming both dice tumble:
1. Roll counts if both dice hit the back wall.
2. Roll counts if one die hits the back wall, the other die past the "prop box" area, and if boxman said "we'll give you this roll, but try to get the dice to hit the back wall."
3. Both dice pass the prop box area mid-way, boxman might give it to you first offense, with a louder "both dice must hit...."
4. Faling this repeatdly, dice go to the next shooter.
(Now, I could have said, How much money I had been making off you, ya-ya, but no. If you can't get dice to hit the back wall, I'd say continue to play, but the dice pass to the next person who ate enough Wheeties to hit the back wall.....)

edited

Dan, you have no comment on this?

In the book Gambling Wizards, famous BJ player
Tommy Hyland says even if the casino offered to
pay him 10 mil a year, he wouldn't work there. He
says he hates casinos because they ruin peoples
lives, the players and the people who work there.
They produce nothing and pander to the lowest
levels of human nature.

Obviously I disagree. The same can be said bars, pubs, liquor stores and restaurants with licenses (alcoholism), McDonalds and Wendy's (obesity, diabetes and heart disease), firearms manufacturers and the like.
Adults are responsible for their own choices and behavior, and are responsible for their own self control with anything in this world.
It's an utter cop out for a gamblers to say casinos ruin their lives, just as it is for alcoholics to wail against Seagrams instead of making a meeting.
Tommy Hyland is hypocritical, IMO, for being a gambler/player who hates the outlet and lifestyle that he choses and made his life.
For gamblers to hate gamining operators instead of supporting them is about as ridiculous as epicures hating the existence of restaurants and chefs, beer drinkers hating breweries, and gun owners hating firearms manufacturers. Couldn't give a rats ass what Tommy Hyland thinks; the real story he'd have nothing without casinos with blackjack. Probably made a mint on wannabee counters on his books. He sure as hell proslytized playing blackjack.
He certainly and obviously has a resentment for getting busted at the Windsor Casino in Canada in 1994. Good Job to the Pit Crew and Surveillance on that one.

Quote: Paigowdan

Tommy Hyland is hypocritical, IMO, for being a gambler/player who hates the outlet and lifestyle

He's certainly not the first. I even wondered many
times over the years why people would work in
such an environment when they weren't forced to.
I can take it in small doses if I don't think about it
much when I'm there. More than a few pro BJ
players and team members have quit over the years
because of the debilitating nature of the casino
business. Seeing people lose a great deal of money
right in front of you, and knowing the hardship it
causes, and also knowing the casino celebrates this
kind of behavior, does a number on your head if
you're around it too long.

Quote: Paigowdan

Because it [enforcement] can be selectively enforced on the casino side (losing card counter = take his money!, good card counter = he hits the streets!), this is horrible.
I say - clean it up:
1. make the game uncountable; otherwise it's either going to be selectively enforced, or a cluster f*ck. CSMs, 2-thru-6 BJ tables (same game with a BJ payout varying with a dealer's "pat or stiff" up card, corresponding to the count.
2. End the dream of "card-counting = such a wonderful dreeeam...." Really. Casinos will ENSURE that it'll never again be profitable, and is vulnerable to be used as a "bait and switch" cat & mouse game against hapless card counter wannabees, of which there are many broke-@ss examples defend it's viability and "respectability" to the ends of the earth, especially at this forum.
3. Have a consistent - non-selective application of "no card counting," LOSE the "it's okay if I can fleece the lousy counters, they're getting the punishment they deserve, but G-d help the good counter when I get him" attitude in the pit. It's wrong, - apply the same measure to all.

I have no problem with number 1, you can offer any gamble you wish to. Don't complain if someone ends up finding a different edge to the one you thought you were offering, adjust and adapt. That's what we do in software. If it don't work, fix it, or die in the market.

2, I'll say it one more time ... it does not matter if card counting is profitable or not for this discussion on whether it's allowed to count cards. Does not matter one wit. It's immaterial to my argument and the points I raised.

3. Absolutely, if for some reason the casino wants to enforce the unenforceable rule of "you can't remember the cards just dealt", then it should always be "enforce". The thing is, you CAN NOT enforce whether I am remembering the cards and adjusting my bets based on that. I might adjust my bet higher for every black face card I see and downwards for each red seven, eight and nine. Would that be "unethical"? It would make the casino edge higher (I guess). Quick answer : no it's not.

So put the game protection in if you feel the need, back off players who are "too good" if you feel the need, but don't tell me I can't use my memory or brain in a "game" and that doing so is "unethical" or "cheating".

It's not "gaming" it's gambling.

Quote: thecesspit

It's not "gaming" it's gambling.

Its like the casino saying hole carding is illegal.
Don't look at the card when the dealer flashes
it, thats illegal. Don't remember the cards, thats
immoral. Shhh, secret rules.

Don't take any notice of the last 20 spins in Roulette! Don't recall that the QB from Pittsburgh is playing with one leg this week!

Quote: Paigowdan

Good Job to the Pit Crew and Surveillance on that one.

Where was I reading that casinos catch so
few actual counters, that when they do, its
high fives in surveillance and big grins all
over the pit. Surveillance experts agree
that a big Vegas casino is lucky if they catch
5 actual card counters a month, and an
Indian casino might go months without
catching one. Thats why known counters like
Laurie C, who's been doing it for 30 years,
still play whatever Vegas casinos they want.
Nobody is really looking for them, you have
to be really obvious about it before they catch
you. Surveillance is a boring and underpaid
job, and nobody really believes card counters
are getting away with all that much money
anyway.

I'm thinking of changing my sig line to:

'Casinos are vile places, a total scam, a total con. James Grosjean'

Quote: thecesspit

Don't take any notice of the last 20 spins in Roulette! Don't recall that the QB from Pittsburgh is playing with one leg this week!

Do notice that, that's fine. You be crazy not to take that into account since you're allowed.

Quote: EvenBob

I'm thinking of changing my sig line to:

'Casinos are vile places, a total scam, a total con. James Grosjean'

This is an issue I have with anyone who chooses to partake in something that they detest or abhor: if you feel it's bad, vile, or evil, then you are no better than a dog returning to its vomit, a smack addict returning to the needle. If it honestly isn't working for you, then just lose it or admit that you dig it.
A definition of insanity used the G.A. rooms is that doing the same thing in vain over and over again expecting different results is crazy for your life.

I will say that the only three actions that people can find satisfaction in, - in this life, - on a consistent basis are:
1. Food.
2. Sex.
3. Laughter, humor.
When these stop working and become dull, you may indeed be clinically depressed.
If gambling stops working or has become less of a preoccupation, oftentimes you've become a healthier individual.

As for me, I am debating if I should engrave and personalize my nameplate onto my handbasket that goes to a particular place...

Quote: Paigowdan

If it honestly isn't working for you, then just lose it .

For Grosjean it works in spades. There's not a better
counter or hole carder in the world. He just thinks
casinos are a total fraud and deserve what happens
to them. If there's a way to beat a casino game, he'll
figure out how to do it.

Quote: Paigowdan

This is an issue I have with anyone who chooses to partake in something that they detest or abhor: if you feel it's bad, vile, or evil, then you are no better than a dog returning to its vomit, a smack addict returning to the needle. If it honestly isn't working for you, then just lose it or admit that you dig it.

Is it possible for you to be more asinine? You have damn near written a book throughout this thread saying how card counters are worthless excuses for human beings and shouldn't be allowed in the casino because they are breaking the rules or cheating. Then you have to balls to sit here and say that load of BS? According to you Dan the only good players for the casino that should be allowed are blind gamblers who only know how to piss their money away. The second they try to gain an advantage, they are worthless excuses for players and need to be thrown out. Anyone else who loses should not blame the casino and only look at themselves because the casino has nothing to do with it.

Wow, could you possibly come off like more of a dink?

I'm sure you are a nice guy in other areas, but you seem very inhuman in this arena.

Quote: Paigowdan

I will say that the only three actions that people can find satisfaction in, - in this life, - on a consistent basis are:
1. Food.
2. Sex.
3. Laughter, humor.
When these stop working and become dull, you may indeed be clinically depressed.
If gambling stops working or has become less of a preoccupation, oftentimes you've become a healthier individual.

As for me, I am debating if I should engrave and personalize my nameplate onto my handbasket that goes to a particular place...

1. There are food addicts that are obese or have other food related problems.
2. Sex.... Really Dan. Too easy, AIDS, Herpes extra-maritial affairs.
3. Laughter, humor. Jokes in bad taste are just vugar...

There is only one action that people can find satisfaction in. Crist first in all things and rest will take care of itself.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

1. There are food addicts that are obese or have other food related problems.
2. Sex.... Really Dan. Too easy, AIDS, Herpes extra-maritial affairs.
3. Laughter, humor. Jokes in bad taste are just vugar...

There is only one action that people can find satisfaction in. Crist first in all things and rest will take care of itself.

Sure leaves a whole lot of unhappy Muslims in the world

Quote: MarieBicurie

Is it possible for you to be more asinine?

No, sweatheart, we count upon Thee...if you in anyway resent what I say, then I have done a damn good job in making you punish yourself with resentment precisely because it had a valid and powerful point, - long after I said what I had to say. Bad enough I pissed you off, now you punish yourself. And if what I said didn't have a point to it, agree or disagree, or troubled you in any way, it had indeed worked. It wouldn't have rented space in your mind, and make you respond, if it weren't response worthy. Thank you for sharing.

Quote: MarieBicurie

You have damn near written a book throughout this thread saying how card counters are worthless excuses for human beings and shouldn't be allowed in the casino because they are breaking the rules or cheating.

Never said that - you did sweetheart - and right here.
I said they have a right to be backed off, again, to the usual resentment and wailing from wannabee counters, - just for casinos operators doing their jobs, and this simple fact of casino business cannot be seen, accepted, or understood.

Quote: MarieBicurie

Then you have to balls to sit here and say that load of BS?

Sure, damn straight. Because countermeasures against card-counting ain't BS, it's the reality.
If you cannot walk into a casino and pick them clean with card-counting - and you cannot - then it is actually card-counting that's the load of BS in the end. And I will point this out, as this is the real f-cking story with it. In the end, card counting avails you and your life squat. Unless it is simply studied for what it is.

Quote: MarieBicurie

According to you Dan the only good players for the casino that should be allowed are blind gamblers who only know how to piss their money away.

Again, that is your words that you attempt to attribute to me. I said:
1. Casinos have a right to defend their interests, just as ANY business does.
2. Card-counting is an unethical waste of time to practice - a freaking fantasy, - and regardless of "technical legality excuses" and "Constitutional Writings" that say it is "okay."

Quote: marieBicurie

The second they try to gain an advantage, they are worthless excuses for players and need to be thrown out. Anyone else who loses should not blame the casino and only look at themselves because the casino has nothing to do with it.

No, not at all. Again I was clear on this.
1. Get - and take - ANY advantage you want - by the house rules.
2. break the house rules, - and get shown the door.
3. Don't like it? Too bad, set up your own 'Marie's Casino" - and SEE how YOU will tolerate people ripping you off, you'll go out of business and be in the poor house.

Quote: MarieBiCurie

Wow, could you possibly come off like more of a dink?

This is how: By continuing to tell you the real story on how it really works in Casinoland, even if it painfully busts your bubble.
Best thing you can do for the people you care about - is to get them to see how it really works, and see if it is - or is not - really useful as a personal practice, - or just as an area of study in the industry, which it can be there.

Quote: MarieBiCurie

I'm sure you are a nice guy in other areas, but you seem very inhuman in this arena.

I am. And You will NEVER believe it, or recognize me if you met me.
But in this area, it is all "Sorry, this is not personal, it is business" and seems VERY harsh. It does.
And it comes off really bad. Ah, So be it.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

1. There are food addicts that are obese or have other food related problems.

I find fine dining a pleasure. And no, I am slender, I now watch my weight and practice self-control. Fine cuisine is delicious, and I don't apologize for that, or think it is a sin. Good Christians do have feast days, is there sin in that?

Quote: AceCrAAckers

2. Sex.... Really Dan. Too easy, AIDS, Herpes extra-maritial affairs.

My wife and I love each other and don't cheat on each other. Did the whole Bangkok/Pattaya/Phuket thing between marriages years ago, am now done with it, and stay close to home. As a matter of fact, a LOT of healthy and normal people find a satisfying love and sex life to be a positive thing - even married Christians.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

3. Laughter, humor. Jokes in bad taste are just vugar...

My own laughter and smiles versus frowns and thumbs-down will decide for me on that. There's humor even in the Bible. if G-d doesn't have a sense of humor, no one does or is allowed.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

There is only one action that people can find satisfaction in. Crist first in all things and rest will take care of itself.

I believe the religious fanatics are the Infidels who must be gone. Jesus was a fine man, the Redeemer, but I believe he detested zealots.

About 43-million posts ago, I asked:

"Excuse me, but what is the point of this discussion?"

And the response I got was:

"It is: "if card counting is unethical behavior to carry out," from an absolute Point of view or scale, as an obvious extention of the dice sliding case and its ethics."

Let's put ETHICS aside because the issue in the DICE CASE was not one of ethics at all. Dice sliding is against the rules of the game as defined by the Nevada regulators and the casinos.

Card Counting is a skill some players have. Is it unethical to use your skill? Should Tom Brady or Eli Manning use less than all of their skills? Should a video poker player put aside his skill when he plays? No, skill and use of skill is not an ethical question.

The question, when it comes to a casino and card players is all about whether a casino wants or has to do business with someone with skill.

Do you have to play golf at $25 per stroke against Tiger Woods?
Do you have to bet $100 on a hundred yard dash against Usain Bolt?

The Nevada Gaming Commission has gone out of its way to say card counting is not against any rules, but casinos have a right to decide who they will do business with.

Can anyone say with 100% certainty that a casino has barred EVERY single card counter who has ever played at its tables? As I wrote earlier, I know a card counter who was allowed to play as long as he kept his bets small.

Quote: Paigowdan

Do notice that, that's fine. You be crazy not to take that into account since you're allowed.

Oh thank you for the permission to notice the roulette. Now about that deck of cards over there...

Quote: thecesspit

Oh thank you for the permission to notice the roulette.

Ask a sarcastic question....get a sarcastic answer. How simple.

Quote: thecesspit

Now about that deck of cards over there...

Now that [the cards] might be a problem, - depending on how YOU handle the situation: you know what the deal is, what the rules are, and playing dumb won't help you.

You can kid yourself, you can try to kid the pit boss, - but you will be kidding yourself if you think you can kid the pit boss.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Can anyone say with 100% certainty that a casino has barred EVERY single card counter who has ever played at its tables? As I wrote earlier, I know a card counter who was allowed to play as long as he kept his bets small.

Since the casinos have the option to bar anyone, - they may selectively use it, which I also feel is wrong and unethical.

Don't allow someone to commit something that you feel is wrong just because you know he'll fail, and you can fleece him, while barring the one you know can fleece you. If it's wrong, bar it all.

Quote: Paigowdan

Ask a sarcastic question....get a sarcastic answer. How simple.

Now that [the cards] might be a problem, - depending on how YOU handle the situation: you know what the deal is, what the rules are, and playing dumb won't help you.

You can kid yourself, you can kid the pit boss, - but you will be kidding yourself if you think you can kid the pit boss.

Once again, you either miss the point or don't realize how laughable your answer is. These are the rules ONLY written on the the pit bosses lips right?

So here it is another way : the human brain has a MEMORY. We will use it.

I like Dan, and I respect where he's coming
from. But the truth is, casinos catch a fraction
of AP's in their casinos. The reason is, unmotivated
employee's. Lets face it, they don't exactly hire
the best and the brightest. Dan is an exception.
Casinos employ a lot of ding dong's, barely
above the flipping burgers mentality at In and Out.
The smart one's, those capable of working at
Target, get to wear suits. If you're smart enough
to game a casino, you're smart enough to get
get away with it.

I'm not talking about anybody here, if you're smart
enough to join a forum, you're already above the
rest in your profession.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Do you have to play golf at $25 per stroke against Tiger Woods?
Do you have to bet $100 on a hundred yard dash against Usain Bolt?

I would do both of these. Figure losing to TW by 25 strokes... cost $625 certainly positive EV for me!!!!
Losing to bolt by 4 seconds or so... I'd pay $100 to chase him....

Quote: thecesspit

Quote: Paigowdan

Ask a sarcastic question....get a sarcastic answer. How simple.

Now that [the cards] might be a problem, - depending on how YOU handle the situation: you know what the deal is, what the rules are, and playing dumb won't help you.

You can kid yourself, you can kid the pit boss, - but you will be kidding yourself if you think you can kid the pit boss.

Once again, you either miss the point or don't realize how laughable your answer is. These are the rules ONLY written on the the pit bosses lips right?

I get the point exactly - but you don't. First of all, if that is enough to legally work for the casino house, then the counter is out, goodbye- and with no recourse. Get that point. Duh. You get backed off or shown the door or disbarred, you cannot call a cop. The lawyer is on your dime, and you'll pay him to tell you, "Sorry, Jack, they have the right to refuse service here." And you can write a letter of the editor of the Review-Journal, and see if it gets printed. Or post here, and get told that that's how it works in the real world. And just hate it.
Secondly, card counting is documented all over the place at casinos: in the pit, surveillance, and the blacklist persons report, the legal department, etc. Walk into the pit, and say, "I DEMAND to see where it is written!," - looking like Napolean Bonapart, and see where it gets you. Because that's written on YOUR lips, too.

Quote: thecesspit

So here it is another way : the human brain has a MEMORY. We will use it.

Let's see if you can. Try to remember:
1. How much the education cost you, (how much you failed to make or retire on by unsuccessfully trying to take it from the casinos, what your REAL income is, etc.)
2. How much time you wasted on a dream in real life. Study it as an artifact or relic of gaming, fine, but practice it as a serious persuit and you might be a fool wasting your own and your family's time in life.
3. Casino workers have memories, too: "Oh, - there's that wannabee card counting fool again. Watch me back him off."

There are minimal compliance workers in every discipline. But all it takes is one time to get flagged or marked as an AP player and get blacklisted or rememebered.

Quote: Paigowdan

You can kid yourself, you can try to kid the pit boss, - but you will be kidding yourself if you think you can kid the pit boss.

It's really amazing - almost scary - how much you worship your boss. You know that to the rest of us he's just a jackass in a bad suit with a chip on his shoulder, right?

Quote: rdw4potus

It's really amazing - almost scary - how much you worship your boss. You know that to the rest of us he's just a jackass in a bad suit with a chip on his shoulder, right?

He's a great guy just doing his job. He doesn't have any good or bad feelings about anyone, no chip on his shoulder. He thinks card counters are wasting their own time as well as his, and driving ups costs for all concerned, and he's right about that. And this scares and annoys you. You call him a jackass in a bad suit with a chip on his shoulder, I call him a good guy in a good suit (I've seen it), and I know him; you don't, now do you? He has nothing against anybody, really but you seem to do.

You never met or know the man, but you say, "he's a jackass in a bad suit with a chip on his shoulder." Who has the chip on his shoulder?

Quote: Paigowdan

Now that [the cards] might be a problem, - ...you know what the deal is, what the rules are, and playing dumb won't help you.

Apparently playing smart will get me kicked out.