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

Quote: Paigowdan

card counting isn't super-human skill we're talking about here. It is a fairly easy skill and ploy considered to be in "bad faith, "cheating," "improper play," "a reason for a back off," and the like by the human beings who have to watch and account for the action that goes on in the table games pit.

Consider the hypothetical, then. Would a man who can visualize the trajectory of a roulette ball and place 4 chips such that he has a 90% win rate (when you or I would instead have an 11% win rate) be considered to be "bad faith", "cheating" or "improper play"?

I won't address "reason for a back off" because you don't need a reason for a back off. But what do you say on the other three? My take: it may be bad faith, but that's an ethical quandary, not a legal one. Use of super-human intelligence is not cheating nor is it improper play. Therefore, use of normal human intelligence cannot be either.

Quote: MathExtremist

Consider the hypothetical, then. Would a man who can visualize the trajectory of a roulette ball and place 4 chips such that he has a 90% win rate (when you or I would instead have an 11% win rate) be considered to be "bad faith", "cheating" or "improper play"?

I won't address "reason for a back off" because you don't need a reason. But what do you say on the other three? My take: it may be bad faith, but that's an ethical quandary, not a legal one. It's not cheating nor is it improper play.

I say yes. Remember the show "Bewitched"?
If you had super-human skills, whether they were mathematical/IQ related, or just magical in nature, if you lead a life where you could pluck off low-lying fruit, twitch your nose, pull your putz, or whatever, and get whatever you wanted in life with no effort, nothing would really have any sweat-equity to it, and I would atrophy into a spoiled sloth.

Perhaps because the challenge is so hard against casino counter-measures, then it [AP play] can be viewed as "worthwhile work" simply because it is work of sorts now, but for that matter, you can describe defeating tricky locks and electronic home protection systems as "valid work" for a buglar. I would use amazing skills to bust bad guys, instead of wanting to be one in its pseudo-illicit glory, precisely because I have to be conscious of ethics otherwise they slip straight away... In game design, I look at game protection and the "easy or possible to deal very well" aspects the way few designers do. A biggie for me. I know for me, if I let ethics slide, then BOOM! down the slippery slope I go...I look at some players and fellow workers, and I get scared....

Quote: Paigowdan

...No receipt, no eight-by-ten color glossies...

with pictures and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining how each one is to be used as evidence against him...

Dan, unless I'm speaking out of turn here, I think Buzz and others would simply like to see a post from you where you say, "Card counting at Blackjack is not cheating in the eyes of the law, regardless of what casino personnel might think of the practice.", or something along those lines.

You continue to say the same thing over and over (yes, as do many other posters in this thread who are on the other side of the argument) about how card counting is "against house rules" or some such thing.

We all know that in the state of Nevada, card counting is not considered cheating or in any way illegal in the eyes of the law. What it is considered in the eyes of a pit boss, dealer or casino manager is another thing entirely and we all get this.

To be clear, I'm asking you to post a statement saying that you understand that card counting is not cheating nor is it illegal according to any law or statute in the state of Nevada. I'm also asking that you don't immediately follow this statement up with your opinion about card counting or your belief about the opinions of anyone in the gaming industry about card counting.

You've clearly made your point. I'm asking that you just as clearly admit that you understand mine. I'll go first.

Card counting is considered to be against house rules in most if not all casinos. It is considered to be cheating by some dealers, pit bosses and casino managers. Anyone caught counting cards or even suspected of counting cards may be "backed off" or politely asked to no longer play Blackjack, may be flat bet, may be dealt a short deck or may in some circumstances be unceremoniously escorted from the premises. The reasons for the "backing off" may not ever be explained to the player and this is all at the sole discretion of the casino and its employees who have the right to refuse service to anyone on their property for any reason that does not violate state laws. Those players who consider themselves "AP's" should understand that this is just the way the game is played and accept that they've overstayed their welcome.

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.

Quote: TheNightfly

Dan, unless I'm speaking out of turn here, I think Buzz and others would simply like to see a post from you where you say, "Card counting at Blackjack is not cheating in the eyes of the law, regardless of what casino personnel might think of the practice.", or something along those lines.

I've given many post stating that, that it is legal, - all with a qualifier that it is against the casino house rules, making it their right to bar you from playing. I stress that the legal status of card counting only spares you a criminal record or jail time, but that its "casino status" gets you expelled or on barred lists of player. Remember, the pit boss is the soup Nazi: "No soup for YOU."

Quote: TNF

You continue to say the same thing over and over (yes, as do many other posters in this thread who are on the other side of the argument) about how card counting is "against house rules" or some such thing.

Yup. Exactly. People, please get it: do something to against the rules, and its nominally legal status doesn't help you. Play by the rules or else you don't get to play.

Quote: TNF

We all know that in the state of Nevada, card counting is not considered cheating or in any way illegal in the eyes of the law. What it is considered in the eyes of a pit boss, dealer or casino manager is another thing entirely and we all get this.

No you don't, in the sense that "some do, - and some don't."

Quote: TNF

To be clear, I'm asking you to post a statement saying that you understand that card counting is not cheating nor is it illegal according to any law or statute in the state of Nevada. I'm also asking that you don't immediately follow this statement up with your opinion about card counting or your belief about the opinions of anyone in the gaming industry about card counting.

Night Fly, if you make demands that I must say this or do this, then I might simply say no to it, at least some of it.
The best I can do is this:
1. Card counting is not cheating in the eyes of the law. However, that legal matter does not extend to a casino operator's right - in many states - to refuse service to advantage players, and to declare certain players "persona non-grata" because of advantage play at this point in time. Furthermore, I agree with it, I see my employer's need to take that position in many cases, and on a case-by-case basis that is decided by management, usually the current shift manager.
2. Card counting, on a personal and business basis and view, is considered or viewed as "cheating," "nefarious behavior," "bad faith play," "a violation of house rules," and "a valid reason to be backed off" by casino management, table games pit supervision, and surveillance workers.

I also explained the history of casino (house banked) Blackjack and how that view got to be that way. We are not lawyers, we're running a business, a gambling operation, and our legal departments okay us to refuse service to anyone for unacceptable behavior, to include a list of items, including advantage play. Food service management workers view taking home extra Buffet food as "theft of services," even though it might be legal (not sure), and is certainly allowable in the form of doggie bags at waiter-service restaurants.

Quote: TNF

You've clearly made your point. I'm asking that you just as clearly admit that you understand mine. I'll go first.

Go!....
1. I understand your position, and why AP players take the position that they do; they view gambling as not based on the results of the trials of the cards of dice, but that the floormen and dealers are hoping for certain results, the whole "Evil Casino Darth Vaders trying to steal my money by any means possible, aha!"

2. It is the AP's "fair hunting game" type of mentality that basically says "The ability to get away with a ploy or manuever makes that manuever completely ethical - by virtue of not getting caught if I can!" - usually in conjunction with a mentality of "us=good guys, the evil casino workers who are just trying to do their jobs=the enemy dog who must die, and who we will take down in FLAMES, na-HA!" often seems to be the point that I am asked to "understand as rational, - of course!" These views are openly expressed here at times, especially by EvenBob.

To an AP, the concept of recreational play, and the concept that somehow a larger mutual "WE" may be involved, (as we are jointly participating in a game of chance together where the result of dice or cards is really our "friend or foe,") - is utterly absent and unfathomable to them. This view is where the result to happen is the simply result of the dice or cards and carrying that out, and the people who are simply doing their jobs carrying it all out are trying to be as accurate and as disinterested as possible. And we dealers are indeed disinterested in who wins or loses, simply because:
1. It is not our money, and
2. The cards and dice themselves tell us who wins or loses without bias, or feelings, or accusations of who is or is not "the dark side," "white hat' "good guy" or 'bad guy." The point is 4, and dice roll 4. Okay. The Don't pass bets lose, the Odds bets pay 2:1, and the pass line even money. Fine, done. There is no "You WANTED that to HAPPEN, didn't YOU!" or... "You must be SWEATING the money! Die, you casino f*ckers..." or any of that jazz. It's simply: the don't pass loses, the odds pay double, the pass line pays even money, turn off the puck, new roll coming out...and that is IT.
3. This exists, in a sense, that the house edge of the games are the entrance fee or "movie ticket fee," and are supposed to be there as a but for some people who do have such "us versus the evil empire" feelings it declared an evil tax. It's like we have NO right to have reasonable house edge on a game that is 49%/51% (or 2%), that is used to pay the light bills, the $7.75/hour we dealers make, the $140/day the floormen make, and what have you. it is viewed as a rip off, when in reality it is the same as a movie entrance fee, a restaurant bill, or $200 for two tickets for some concert.

Yeah, Nightfly, I DO understand the players' position, and I see what they see, and yes, I also see another side:
- that it's a business to provide a gambling service for the people, who may take it or leave it on a voluntary basis
- that we care about faithfully carrying out the proper results of the dice or cards, - with ANY accusations that we delight in this result or that result or what have you being total B.S.
- that we view players who think that a simple and innocent dealer error is part of a conspiracy, instead of being tired and human and unbiased, BUT
- a dealer's mistake in OUR FAVOR makes it mine, all mine. In all cases, wrong money is simply that, wrong money, and should be corrected in fidelity to the actual play of the cards that occurred, - just as it would if a player were UNDERpaid just as equally.

But there IS a dark side of casino workers view on humanity, too, and it has to do with the nature of people "at play," in recreation, when they let their hair down. When play occurs, especially with money on the line, an infantile, base, competitive snakehead can rise up from the hearts in some people; they take shots, the snatch back losing bets, they curse, they cry, they demand the sky as a God-given right, and damn us if we don't provide it. Outrage if told that it "doesn't work like that," - abiding by a reasonable pit boss or floor supervisor's decision is often a monumental task in this state of play mode.
Add alcohol to the equation, and for some, the ball rolls OFF the end of the table.

If a person were to ever see surveillance tapes of himself ever being publicly drunk and belligerent, of him putting his hand on a cocktail waitresses breast "as a joke" in front of 20 complete strangers (and on tape), of a crap dealer on stick (me) getting punch by a leaving player yelling "F*CK you - that was my RENT MONEY, @sshole!!" (like I threw the dice and wanted that sad event to happen), and the like, there'd be shuddering and astonishment....

"That was MEEE??!! I couldn't have done THAAAT....Aw, God, NOoooooo!!!!!" But I'm a glamber, we can do NO WRONG, we're SAINTLY, it's the casino workers who are evil.....Surveillance sees this and records it all. Dealers and floormen see this on a daily basis in our faces. Can't imagine what judgement day will be like, I am scared now. Plato once said that you can learn more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation. I believe it. I am astonished at how bare-ass naked and raw people are when at play, forget about adding some mixed drink truth serums to it.

I do not think "players" are good or bad, in the sense that some are, some aren't. I do not think dealers or pit bosses are good or bad, also in the sense that "some are, some aren't." I simply do not subscribe to the notion that "people are fundamentally good" - unless it happens to serve them also. Watch how differently people act when a dealer error is - or is not - in their - or in the house's favor. Plain as day for exactly the same "wrong money" event, except for the direction. Use to think otherwise. I now think people are fundamentally corrupt, self-serving, immature, and selfish, to a shockingly sad and great degree. Cannot get people to play by the rules unless it serves their side only, for the most part, I have come to believe this about the human condition. If we weren't, then we would not have been sent to live on earth, because earth seems to be the pre-school for the souls of the universe.

NightFly, Trust me, I've see both sides fully. because I've seen how people act when at play.

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.

Quote: Paigowdan

1. All of the various solutions are used, and they have stopped all the joints from being cleaned out.

Have they, or have they only stopped the paranoia about the joints being cleaned out?
A counter is playing at very small advantage, faster than linearly proportional to his betting spread. To be successful, he needs to spread to high numbers, up to $1,000 a bet, which is watched anyway.

So why don't you cap your $25 tables to say $100, which is enough for any $25 player to let his blackjack ride or something and will make the game essentially unbeatable by counting?
The only explanations are that you 1) Hope that a tourist gets drunk and puts his whole stack down after a bad beat, 2) Intend to win off wannabe counters, which outnumber good ones something like 50 to 1.

Quote: Paigowdan

2. We don't treat honest players like cheaters. We treat honest players like honest players, cheaters like cheaters, and APs like APs.

APs are honest players. Maybe not in your eyes, but in the eyes of the law.

Easily half the people who come to gamble are, by intent, advantage players. They want to win. By throwing the dice just right, by getting rockets and flopping a set, by figuring out the next roulette number, by using a betting system, by playing perfect FPDW, by finding a "due" machine, by riding a lucky streak out before a bad streak begins.

Some of them are unsuccessful, and those you obviously like. Some are successful, and those you resent and ban. But that doesn't make them cheaters or really any less honest than the losers. One player decides to hit or stand based on his gut feel, another based on basic strategy; one tries to predict lucky streaks by watching his past wins, another by watching what cards have left the shoe.

If basic strategy could make the game player-edge or break-even, you would be demonizing basic strategy players and labeling them cheaters as well.

Quote: Paigowdan

Add alcohol to the equation, and for some, the ball rolls OFF the end of the table. If a person were to ever see surveillance tapes of himself ever being publicly drunk and belligerent

Its late here, Dan, and I wish I could respond to
a lot of what you said. But this just jumps out at
me. You ply customers with as much free booze
as they want, with the intent of getting them so
liquored up that they throw their money down
the toilet, and you want to piss and moan about
their behavior after YOU get them drunk? HUH??

I'm not even going to go into the obvious contradictions
here, its too easy. Dan, have you really drank so
much of the casino Kool-Aid that your own moral
compass is spinning wildly out of control? Do you
even realize what you're saying? You're the drug
dealer complaining about his clientele being high
all the time, and how much it offends him. Life on
the DarkSide, exposed for what it really is...

Quote: P90

APs are honest players. Maybe not in your eyes, but in the eyes of the law.
Easily half the people who come to gamble are, by intent, advantage players. They want to win.

We're INVITED by the casino to do our best,
try our luck. All the ads show happy and smiling
winners, and the pit and the dealers are happy and
smiling too. Its false advertising, its fake and phony.
They send my wife all these mailers showing
excited and thrilled winners, jumping for joy, when
the casinos real reaction to these winners is
loathing and resentment. If they could reach into
your bank account, and snatch the money before
you ever went to the casino, they'd do it. Of that
I have no doubts..

Quote: P90

Have they, or have they only stopped the paranoia about the joints being cleaned out?
A counter is playing at very small advantage, faster than linearly proportional to his betting spread. To be successful, he needs to spread to high numbers, up to $1,000 a bet, which is watched anyway.

It's not paranoia, it's plain old annoyance. A shift manager sees a player counting, it's not "Oh! I'm scared that he might win a thousand bucks, please hold my hand and pray with me...." which is a nothing swing except for a very tiny 4-table house. It's more like the pit boss tells the floorman, "I got a call from the sky. Back off that petty piss-ant on BJ #24, and send him to Roulette if he still wants to play. If not, he goes home." Bang, done. This is business, nothing personal. Pit bosses, floormen, and crap dealers do not sound or talk like they're Dorothy from Kansas, now. And remember, a true AP player doesn't give a damn what the pit boss thinks of the price of tea in China, he too is there on his business.

Quote: P90

So why don't you cap your $25 tables to say $100, which is enough for any $25 player to let his blackjack ride or something and will make the game essentially unbeatable by counting?
The only explanations are that you 1) Hope that a tourist gets drunk and puts his whole stack down after a bad beat, 2) Intend to win off wannabe counters, which outnumber good ones something like 50 to 1.

Clearly. And if the tourist also wins it, - then good for him. Notice the omission.
Personally, I'd have tight limits, 65% penetration, have CSMs, even use Stanley Ko's 2-thru-6 blackjack variants, and be done with the issue.

Quote: P90

APs are honest players.

No, they're not. Honest players play by the rules, card counting is against the rules. If it weren't against the rules, no counter would be backed off. This is clear and apparent.

Quote: P90

Maybe not in your eyes, but in the eyes of the law.

Not in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of the pit boss, who is:
1. the one running the place, not the cops;
2. and all the cops and legal departments seem to be a-okay with back offs and 86-ing, now don't they?

Quote: P90

Easily half the people who come to gamble are, by intent, advantage players. They want to win. By throwing the dice just right, by getting rockets and flopping a set, by figuring out the next roulette number, by using a betting system, by playing perfect FPDW, by finding a "due" machine, by riding a lucky streak out before a bad streak begins.

It is not whether or not they are advantage players by those definitions.
You see, it's if the players are simply in accordance with the casino's house rules and policies, - not the U.S. Constitution or the commonwealth charter or Mr. P90's definition of Advantage players. It is the casino house's definition of advantage player, - not your definition that decides an 86-ing. Unless, of course, you happen to own a casino.

Quote: P90

Some of them are unsuccessful, and those you obviously like.

Clearly some floormen like them better, although any AP caught can be stopped at any time, even if losing.

Quote: P90

Some are successful, and those you resent and ban.

No, those we just ban without any resentment. it's business.
Garbage man takes out the garbage: no resentment, just part of the job.
Pit boss 86-ed an AP player, there's no resentment, just part of the job.
Maybe annoyance..."Another wanna be card counter of BJ #17? sheesh, they're like bed bugs tonight....Jim, - send him to Roulette, else he goes home..."

Quote: P90

But that doesn't make them cheaters or really any less honest than the losers.

No, it makes them both cheaters AND losers in the eyes of some pit personnel, we're talking doubly pathetic. Again, why care what people think? If you're going to be a true AP, it all has to be business, not personal. There's none of this: "But I want them to think NICE of me, like 'What a GUY'..."

Quote: P90

One player decides to hit or stand based on his gut feel, another based on basic strategy; one tries to predict lucky streaks by watching his past wins, another by watching what cards have left the shoe.

One of those happens to be of a different nature....

Quote: P90

If basic strategy could make the game player-edge or break-even, you would be demonizing basic strategy players and labeling them cheaters as well.

Nope. if players don't make odds bets on craps for NO house edge, they're viewed as foolish players.

Quote: EvenBob

Its late here, Dan, and I wish I could respond to
a lot of what you said. But this just jumps out at
me. You ply customers with as much free booze
as they want, with the intent of getting them so
liquored up that they throw their money down
the toilet, and you want to piss and moan about
their behavior after YOU get them drunk? HUH??

I played at the Cannery tonight, and I drank coffee. Lost too, on EZ pai Gow, no less. (Thankfully, I get the check back at the end of the month....)
1. players expect to have beverage service as a courtesy. if we didn't have it, players like you would be ranting, "What kind of cheap bastards ARE YOU, not providing complimentary beverage services!"
2. Since we Do give people complimentary service, now we get "Aha! It's a conspiracy on YOUR part because I can't handle my own consumption - even though I am an adult who insists upon and uses the beverage service...So it ALL your fault and a conspiracy!"
3. And if we offered customer-pay beverage it would be: "You cheap ass evil bastards, charging us for drinks when you are making one BILLION dollars a minute from your $2 Three Card Poker!"
Yeah, right..which scenario do YOU recommend?

Quote: EvenBob

I'm not even going to go into the obvious contradictions
here, its too easy. Dan, have you really drank so
much of the casino Kool-Aid that your own moral
compass is spinning wildly out of control? Do you
even realize what you're saying? You're the drug
dealer complaining about his clientele being high
all the time, and how much it offends him. Life on
the DarkSide, exposed for what it really is...

Dan Vader: we are no different than a restaurant or pub with a liquor license: drink if you wish, but please drink with discretion and self control. True, players seem to get way too drunk on occasion when at play, as opposed to a restaurant with a liquor license.

Quote: Paigowdan

petty piss-ant
takes out the garbage
bed bugs
doubly pathetic

Quote: Paigowdan

No, those we just ban without any resentment.

I can see that clearly from the terms you are using.

Quote: Paigowdan

No, they're not. Honest players play by the rules, card counting is against the rules.

Could anyone please take a picture of where it says that in a player-accessible area?
Also, please define "counting".

Quote: Paigowdan

One of those happens to be of a different nature....

Please elaborate. On inherently different nature, not "it's house rule". You could make up a non-published house rule that players wearing brown shoes are not to hit stiffs against high upcards except on Tuesdays.

Quote: Paigowdan

Nope. if players don't make odds bets on craps for NO house edge, they're viewed as foolish players.

Yes. Craps with odds is still a HA game. If following perfect basic strategy in blackjack (or making particular bet combinations in craps) allowed players to get an edge on the house, casinos would be banning people who do. And you would be equating them to cheaters in this thread.

Quote: Paigowdan

3. This exists, in a sense, that the house edge of the games are the entrance fee or "movie ticket fee," and are supposed to be there as a but for some people who do have such "us versus the evil empire" feelings it declared an evil tax. It's like we have NO right to have reasonable house edge on a game that is 49%/51% (or 2%), that is used to pay the light bills, the $7.75/hour we dealers make, the $140/day the floormen make, and what have you. it is viewed as a rip off, when in reality it is the same as a movie entrance fee, a restaurant bill, or $200 for two tickets for some concert.

Really?

Then why don't you charge an entry fee, per hour or a day pass, upon which everyone plays for tokens with no cash value?
To keep there an incentive to win, give non-monetary rewards for high token balance, you know, "be a winner, get a dinner". Free shows, award ceremonies, medals, what have you.

By the way, would you be banning card-counters if you operated that way? I guess you specifically would, but would it be universal for other casinos. This is a very good litmus test to tell fair play from unfair: cheating would still be illegal and you would still be watching out for cheaters and catching them.

Quote: P90

[petty piss-ants, beg bugs, etc...]I can see that clearly from the terms you are using.

I don't use these terms, I hear these terms. And I can see it.
And No - it's annoyance, just pure annoyance. AP players and shot takers are viewed as pure annoyance, with a bit of a fed-up, these-clowns are-wasting-my-time when I got to do the table counts and close a bunch of tables.

Quote: P90

[another "Now Where does it say....]Could anyone please take a picture of where it says that in a player-accessible area?

On the floorman's lips. He will let you know if you are cheating or doing advantage play, because if you are, then you already know what you're doing, you see...

Quote: P90

Also, please define "counting".

Don't need to. We both know what it is.

Quote: P90

[on comparing card counting to trying such things as jump bets]Please elaborate. On inherently different nature, not "it's house rule". You could make up a non-published house rule that players wearing brown shoes are not to hit stiffs against high upcards except on Tuesdays.

Sure. Card-counting is a known infraction, while jumping up a bet to "all in" when leaving is gambling with no infraction.
And yes it is a "house rule," - whether you like it or not - and one that is widely known, from here on this forum to every casino out there that offers Blackjack as a house-banked game. and it is also different because counting can change the odds in the game to nullify the game's require house edge, whereas jump betting on a lark does not. This too is obvious.

Now, The house could make up a rule that you would have to not hit stiffs - if wearing brown shoes or if it is Tuesday - if they damn well wanted to also. And they would 86-you if you broke that rule too. But casino houses don't make up ground rules that are irrelevant to business needs, like staying on all stiff hands on a tuesday, as per your example. They define ground rules on business needs, and disallowing card counting in blackjack is one such need and rule in order to offer the game. As I had explained earlier, blackjack was discovered to be countable only after it was already widely installed, and so counter measures against counting was introduced after that time - so as to keep the game without removing it from casinos. I don't play much BJ, as I feel it is a boring game, and have no personal need to count on it like many do.

Quote: P90

Yes. Craps with odds is still a HA game. If following perfect basic strategy in blackjack (or making particular bet combinations in craps) allowed players to get an edge on the house, casinos would be banning people who do. And you would be equating them to cheaters in this thread.

Yup, if it against the rules of play as defined by the offering casino or gambling hall. And if a game produces a consistent loss for the casino, it gets killed. Remember, the casino counter measures against card counting kept your precious Blackjack alive in the first place for you to play it and debate it. If Blackjack had been a consistent loss drain on casinos without these counter-measures that you complain about, then your precious Blackjack would have been jettisonned - just like Faro and Hazard - to the ash heap of casinos games that died. And we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Quote: EvenBob

We're INVITED by the casino to do our best,
try our luck. All the ads show happy and smiling
winners, and the pit and the dealers are happy and
smiling too. Its false advertising, its fake and phony.

So you would like it better if the casinos advertised losers. That would work for you, but not for them. It's sort of like automobile advertising that always shows the sleekest lines of the vehicle and never the messy undercarriage or the fashion layouts of the good-looking stud in a fine suit that never shows his semi-soiled underwear. But that is the nature of promotion and advertising. Exaggeration yes. Outright lying no.

Quote: Paigowdan

And No - it's annoyance, just pure annoyance. AP players and shot takers are viewed as pure annoyance, with a bit of a fed-up, these-clowns are-wasting-my-time when I got to do the table counts and close a bunch of tables.

Could you clarify here: Are you saying that Stanford Wong and his followers did not take you for millions of dollars, or are you saying that it's such peanut change to you that you barely care?

Though in truth you are certainly at a very high net win after all the free advertising they've provided.

Quote: Paigowdan

On the floorman's lips. He will let you know if you are cheating or doing advantage play, because if you are, then you already know what you're doing, you see...

Not a false positive ever.

Quote: Paigowdan

[banning players for playing basic strategy]
Yup, if it against the rules of play as defined by the offering casino or gambling hall.

And if it's not against the rules, but causes you to lose money, or just takes up seats that could be better used by ploppies, too.

Since rules don't have to be posted anywhere, you can make them on spot. Say, if it's 6:51 PM and someone in a green cap is playing perfect BS+CDE or just doesn't seem to lose, then it's against the rules to be in possession or to have been in possession of a green cap between 6:50 PM and 6:52 PM today.

Of course it sounds silly, because it is. You don't need a rule to ban someone you don't want, as long as you don't announce the reason. Neither do you let the rules hold you back when a big baccarat player is tearing cards up - and that one I've actually seen in writing.

Quote: Paigowdan

If Blackjack had been a consistent loss drain on casinos without these counter-measures that you complain about, then your precious Blackjack would have been jettisonned - just like Faro and Hazard - to the ash heap of casinos games that died. And we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Yup. No, wait, not really. Casinos didn't kill Faro, players did, and Craps is just Hazard with side bets.

You see, when a food-serving establishment offers an "all you can eat" option, they know there will be big eaters there. Be it large people, big mouths, low-incomers deciding to take their daily food in one sit-down. They know they are going to lose money on these. But for each of those there will also be ten customers who just want to taste a piece of everything, or outright just want a meal. On these they are going to make money. And they figure, with the overall distribution as it is, that they're going to be ahead overall.

Same deal with games of skill like blackjack. Some will be winners, but for each +EV player there is a lot more -EV ones, and here we're talking 1:50 ratio range even if all it takes is perfect BS+CDE. Between a small number of winning players and a large number of losing players, with the overall distribution as it is, a casino is going to be ahead overall.

Except unlike buffets, casinos don't settle with being ahead overall, and meticulously try to ensure that no single customer is getting more value than he is paying for. Why? Since you are not going to admit it, I'll go ahead and say it: because you can.

In the earlier days, casinos used to ban players just because they kept winning or were winning too much. Then someone revealed to them probability, variance and the law of averages. With reluctance, you believed and redefined winning as being +EV. But the game didn't change; you only like "winners" because you know they are losers in the long term, and can already see them losing it back.

A day may come, dark and stormy, when someone also tells casinos that the law of averages applies across the population, not only across a single gambler's lifetime. Or it may not come, doesn't matter. You might then find another criterion to exclude players more likely to win than others. If you had a working crystal ball, you would just be backing off players it says are going to win.


Now, no one here is arguing that you can't do it, or even that you shouldn't be able to do it.
But please don't pretend there is anything more behind it, that it's done "for players' own sake", "to save the game", "for fairness", to stop "nefarious gains" or anything else. Players try to get an edge because they can, and you ban those who do because you can.
There is no wrong or right here, only might. Don't try to stake the moral high ground - a player not betting when the game is -EV for him and you not allowing players who are -EV for you are symmetrical and identically motivated decisions.

Dan-

I lurk here pretty regularly, but only post very occasionally. I think that folks are getting tied in semantic knots here, but words DO matter.

It seems to my that the concern being expressed by other posters is your view that AP generally, and card counting specifically, is "cheating" and morally wrong in some sense.

It seems that almost everyone agrees that casinos have the legal right to not take action from APs, and to back off card counters. Further, I think most agree there is no problem with installing CSM, ensuring light penetration, and minimizing spreads (particularly if this is done at the outset.) I certainly agree with those contentions.

Where we hit friction is your assertion that counters are in some sense taking money from the casino that is rightfully theirs. I strongly disagree.

Consider three scenarios:

1. Taking Tupperware to the buffet.
2. Hole-carding.
3. Counting.

I can certainly understand casinos wanting to eliminate all three things; they cut into their profit margin and they are in business for the money, not to provide an opportunity for people to take advantage of them. Similarly, one can see that people would like to get the most "bang for their buck" and engage in any of these activities.

But that doesn't mean that there's moral equivalence between all three items.

At a buffet, it's "All you can eat," not "All you can physically remove from the buffet." Taking in Tupperware (I assume surreptitiously) is straight up "cheating." You are not allowed to do it by the explicit terms of the agreement with the buffet owner-- in this case I assume a casino.

Hole-carding is an attempt to take advantage of additional information that is not generally available. To me, this is a somewhat gray area; use of a device to determine the hole card seems pretty clearly "cheating" but simply being particularly observant and using that information is more fuzzy. The casino has an obligation to ensure integrity of the game; their failure to do so is at least partly their own fault. I'm not convinced, however, that all hole carding is blameless; when hole carders engage is some form of misdirection, they are turning up the "fault-o-meter" on themselves.

Counting is simply making use of information available to anyone in the most effective way possible. Anyone with the modest skill (which I, for one, have never developed) can use this. It is not "wrong" to employ that information effectively, any more than it is "wrong" for the casino to back-off someone who they see is counting. When detecting card counting, isn't the casino also making use of that same widely available information to determine that a player is using advantage play?

Money won from counting isn't "dirty" although it probably falls into a category of "money that the casino didn't think it was going to have to lose."

While backing off players is certainly within their rights, it seems to me that casinos could foil counters far more effectively by adopting structural changes to their games that reduce possibility of player advantage, as mentioned above. I assume that their failure to do so indicates that they believe that such changes would be less profitable to the casino overall than the money lost through counting that goes uncaught.

Card counting is not cheating. It's using information available to everyone, so it sounds like those who don't have the brainpower to do it are envious of those who can, and call it cheating just to level the playing field. If I increase my bet size when I have the advantage at the poker table, is that also cheating, Dan? If not, then why would it be at blackjack? Oohhhhh, because BJ is against the house? Whiner.

Is Yao Ming cheating at basketball just because he's 7'6"?
Is a baseball player cheating if he chooses to wear eyeglasses?
Is a fat person cheating at the buffet table because he can put away more food than most? Dan would likely get annoyed at the food loss and change the rules and back him off. ("Sir, you'll have to eat that corn cob and crab shells or we'll ask you to leave. We don't like how you're able to accomplish things others can't")

Quote: Paigowdan

I say yes. Remember the show "Bewitched"?
If you had super-human skills, whether they were mathematical/IQ related, or just magical in nature, if you lead a life where you could pluck off low-lying fruit, twitch your nose, pull your putz, or whatever, and get whatever you wanted in life with no effort, nothing would really have any sweat-equity to it, and I would atrophy into a spoiled sloth.

I did not say super-human skills, I said super-human intelligence. The character on Bewitched had telekinesis and the ability to manifest objects out of thin air. If I could do that, I'd just manifest some gold and not bother with gambling. And your argument doesn't seem persuasive. It doesn't matter whether you would atrophy into a sloth if you had super-human intelligence; that wasn't the question. The question was whether someone with super-human intelligence, playing roulette with a significant player advantage simply from looking at the wheel, would be playing improperly or cheating. They would not be doing either. It wouldn't be much of a challenge for the player, and the casino would lose its shorts, but there's no rule-breaking going on. There is no rule, written or otherwise, against beating roulette by looking at the wheel.

Your argument seems to be that using fairly-gotten knowledge to gain an advantage over one's casino opponent is improper. I contrast this with ill-gotten knowledge, such as from dealer collusion, which would definitely not be proper. But using fairly-gotten knowledge to gain an advantage is well-accepted in a casino: in a poker room, do you suggest that an astute player, having identified an opponent's tell, should not act on that knowledge? Poker players are expected to act on their fairly-gotten knowledge of their opponents. Why should blackjack players not be?

Quote: SanchoPanza

Not quite. Some "reasons" like appearance, skin color, facial or body shape, dress, homelessness, physical disabilities or other handicaps are illegal.

But any places that refuse service are going to cite something vague, not something specific like anything listed above.

I know this isn't a usual casino game, but suppose you were wagering on a game of contract bridge. Would anyone consider it cheating for a player to keep track of how many/which trump cards had been played? Same for the non-trump suits? I'm sure people do bet on bridge, just as they do on other player-vs.-player games like poker and gin rummy. If there were some way bridge could be operated as a player-vs.-the-house casino game, would the house take the position that anyone who tries to remember which trump cards have been played is cheating? I thought it was an expected (almost required) part of the game. (I mean, you don't have to keep track of trump; it's just to your advantage.) How is that different from keeping mental track of cards played at blackjack, other than the fact that the casino doesn't offer a contract bridge game?

Quote: Doc

I know this isn't a usual casino game, but suppose you were wagering on a game of contract bridge. Would anyone consider it cheating for a player to keep track of how many/which trump cards had been played? Same for the non-trump suits? I'm sure people do bet on bridge, just as they do on other player-vs.-player games like poker and gin rummy. If there were some way bridge could be operated as a player-vs.-the-house casino game, would the house take the position that anyone who tries to remember which trump cards have been played is cheating? I thought it was an expected (almost required) part of the game. How is that different from keeping mental track of cards played at blackjack, other than the fact that the casino doesn't offer a contract bridge game?

Bridge can be a great game to bet on. We used to do it in college quite frequently. $1/trick, $5/game. Usually netted to less than $20 for the winning team by the end of the night.

For me, as a (now rusty) bridge player and a fairly skilled player of spades, hearts, and euchre, the idea of purposely forgetting information during a blackjack session is hard to wrap my head around. It does help that the pit is usually surrounded by distracting items to keep me from noticing the information in the first place.

As a former dealer and current casino manager here's my opinion.
Card counting is not cheating or immoral. That doesn't make it acceptable to an operator. House BJ rules are designed for non-advantage players to appeal to a wider audience. If every player as an AP player, all casinos would have much tighter rules. That's not good for anyone.
A player has every right to use any legal means to maximize their chance of winning.
A casino has every right to use any legal means to prevent an AP from winning, including backing off.
Our policy is that we won't automatically back of a player we think is counting but we will implement counter measures. Most AP will recognize it right away, cash out their chips and go along their merry way.

Obviously some people don't think it's right that casinos back off players just because they are using legal means to win. I'll counter by asking you what you would think if a casino made it a practice to back players off once the player had lost a certain amount? It's certainly not illegal.

Mark

Quote: marksolberg

As a former dealer and current casino manager here's my opinion.
Card counting is not cheating or immoral. That doesn't make it acceptable to an operator. House BJ rules are designed for non-advantage players to appeal to a wider audience. If every player as an AP player, all casinos would have much tighter rules. That's not good for anyone.
A player has every right to use any legal means to maximize their chance of winning.
A casino has every right to use any legal means to prevent an AP from winning, including backing off.
Our policy is that we won't automatically back of a player we think is counting but we will implement counter measures. Most AP will recognize it right away, cash out their chips and go along their merry way.

I think all, or almost all, of your points are quite reasonable positions for a casino to take, though it doesn't seem as if all casino employees who participate here share your opinions. The only one of your points that I am slightly concerned about is the "use any legal means to prevent an AP from winning." My concern is strictly due to my not knowing what is legal for a casino to do. Would it be legal to remove all of the jacks from the shoe without telling the players? I would consider that unfair play, but I don't know whether it violates a law. Similarly, I don't know whether it would violate any law for the casino to reshuffle any time the count goes (highly) positive but deal the entire shoe when it is negative. I have no problem with changing the penetration, provided the shuffle point is unrelated to the count.

Quote: Doc

Would it be legal to remove all of the jacks from the shoe without telling the players? I would consider that unfair play, but I don't know whether it violates a law.

Based on my moderate level of gambling knowledge, this is absolutely illegal and would incur heavy sanctions from the appropriate gaming board if it were discovered.

Quote: Doc

Similarly, I don't know whether it would violate any law for the casino to reshuffle any time the count goes (highly) positive but deal the entire shoe when it is negative.

Also based on my moderate level of knowledge, pretty sure this is legal for the casino to do. However, we can only hope all casinos have the same moral compass as Paigowdan, who would say this an unethical play by the casino, regardless of its legality.

Quote: Paigowdan

We don't treat honest players like cheaters. We treat honest players like honest players, cheaters like cheaters, and APs like APs.

Finally- Dan has separated cheaters from APs!!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a pit boss sees a player topping his bet, or sneaking in a card, or something like that, the player is not just 'asked to leave'. That player I assume will be arrested and turned over to the authorities, because they have violated a law, and are subject to prosecution.
However, if the pit boss or other casino person notices a player alterring their bet as a result of card counting they might ask the player to leave, as it is in the casino's best interests to not lose money to a player who would be playing within the rules of the game. As we have determined, barring, race, religion, etc... the casino as a private enterprise can ban anyone. So, the casino can and does choose to ban law abiding non cheating players, solely because those players have found a legal way to turn a negative EV game into a postive EV game. Essentially, as both Dan and EvenBob have stated, the casino will protect it's interests by banning those that can legally beat it.
Other than Dan, I have never heard anyone refer to a counter as a cheater.

Quote: DCSpartan

Dan-

I lurk here pretty regularly, but only post very occasionally. I think that folks are getting tied in semantic knots here, but words DO matter.

It seems to my that the concern being expressed by other posters is your view that AP generally, and card counting specifically, is "cheating" and morally wrong in some sense.

Yes, exactly. But again, why is it an issue for counters if a pit manager 'x' feel it is morally wrong?
1. Do counters get their moral compasses from pit bosses??
2. Because it is considered improper ("Bad faith play", "morally cheating", "Valid reason for a back off", etc.) by pit mangers, and is clearly against the rules, as well as the fact that BJ would be totally unsupportable - I mean gone from casinos if not profitable, then why is it morally and intellectually impossible to see this "pit operations" point of view?

Quote: DCSpartan

It seems that almost everyone agrees that casinos have the legal right to not take action from APs, and to back off card counters. Further, I think most agree there is no problem with installing CSM, ensuring light penetration, and minimizing spreads (particularly if this is done at the outset.) I certainly agree with those contentions.

Very Fine.

Quote: DCSpartan

Where we hit friction is your assertion that counters are in some sense taking money from the casino that is rightfully theirs. I strongly disagree.

Consider three scenarios:

1. Taking Tupperware to the buffet.
2. Hole-carding.
3. Counting.

I can certainly understand casinos wanting to eliminate all three things; they cut into their profit margin and they are in business for the money, not to provide an opportunity for people to take advantage of them. Similarly, one can see that people would like to get the most "bang for their buck" and engage in any of these activities.

But that doesn't mean that there's moral equivalence between all three items.

At a buffet, it's "All you can eat," not "All you can physically remove from the buffet." Taking in Tupperware (I assume surreptitiously) is straight up "cheating." You are not allowed to do it by the explicit terms of the agreement with the buffet owner-- in this case I assume a casino.

Very True, very clear.

Quote: DCSpartan

Hole-carding is an attempt to take advantage of additional information that is not generally available. To me, this is a somewhat gray area; use of a device to determine the hole card seems pretty clearly "cheating" but simply being particularly observant and using that information is more fuzzy.

This is not a grey area. It is information that you are both legally and morally not supposed to have.
1. If it is done by dealer flashing, (that is the dealer basically SHOWS you the card on no action on the player's part) than it is "technically" a dealer error. Again, you are unquestionably using information that you are NOT supposed to have for advantage. Ethically and morally, this is not a grey area, it is "insider trading" - doesn't matter if the information was gotten by player action OR by dealer mistake.
2. If it is done by player action, to include using a device OR using any deliberate method or adjustment (even without an additional mechanical device), then this "insider trading" information was obtain by outright player action and attempt on his part. unquestionally unethical, and ALSO an illegal action - by law.

Quote: DCSpartan

The casino has an obligation to ensure integrity of the game; their failure to do so is at least partly their own fault.

A good point. But let's say you find an ATM machine that has a programming error in it, allowing you to get free money, money not deducted from your account. Is it ethical to take that money, money you KNOW isn't yours, money you KNOW you did not earn - because somebody ELSE made that programming error? no. By saying "A dealer/employee error makes it mine" is a lot like saying, "well, a programming or clerical error on the bank's part makes the cash mine!" No, it does not.

Quote: DCSpartan

I'm not convinced, however, that all hole carding is blameless; when hole carders engage is some form of misdirection, they are turning up the "fault-o-meter" on themselves.

Good to hear.

Quote: DCSpartan

Counting is simply making use of information available to anyone in the most effective way possible. Anyone with the modest skill (which I, for one, have never developed) can use this. It is not "wrong" to employ that information effectively, any more than it is "wrong" for the casino to back-off someone who they see is counting. When detecting card counting, isn't the casino also making use of that same widely available information to determine that a player is using advantage play?

Your claim is that it is "publicly available information." Let me show why it is NOT directly publicly available information, to counter this claim. It [the deck count value] is NOT public available information because it is NOT like cards of THIS round are open and visible on the table.
It is that cards of:
1. ALL previous rounds that are now gone, and are currently out of sight, and so were deliberately tracked or recorded with intent and purpose when they otherwise would not have been in innocent play.
2. are being tallied, - added together - using a very specific and defined algorythm (Hi-Lo for example)
3. Using a deliberate and additional mathematical process in a very specific way;
4. Then applying another specific and mathematically-based algorythm to determine the bet amount - in conjunction with the count, - also obtained by such a process.
5. To specifically obtain a player advantage that would not be there if these very specific and additional processes were NOT employed.
6. 95% + of the players at a table do NOT accurately know the count OR the bet adjustment to make. If it were publicly available information, then:
a) EVERY player and the dealer would already and instinctively know the running count, AND know exactly how much to adjust the bet amount also. This is NOT the case,
b) Since several specific mathematical and deliberate processes have to be additionally applied - to historical data from earlier in the shoe via a tracking or recording effort on it that otherwise would NOT have been done - then this is NOT public information. Instead, it is using advantage play processes and mechanisms on historical data that would otherwise not have been recorded or tracked - except for the purposes of obtaining a player advantage. These additional, specific and deliberate processes and and actions that would otherwise have been absent in innocent "non-advantage" Basic Stratgey play were deliberately introduced and employed for player advantage. This is different than "publicly available information,' and in a sense makes the extra gains "not innocent' or "dirty" through these deliberate additional processes, even if legal, by the books.

Quote: DCSpartan

Money won from counting isn't "dirty" although it probably falls into a category of "money that the casino didn't think it was going to have to lose."

POV. I had just shown how guilt or "intent to take advantage" had to be deliberately performed by specific and exact processes

to obtain that advantage. Remember that there is a difference between publicly available DATA, and applying processes to convert data into information, and that deliberate and specific processes HAD to have been employed - with the intent and purpose to seek an arguably unfair advantage.

Quote: DCSpartan

While backing off players is certainly within their rights, it seems to me that casinos could foil counters far more effectively by adopting structural changes to their games that reduce possibility of player advantage, as mentioned above.

Absolutely. To include using Stanley Ko's 2-thru-6 Blackjack, where BJ payouts are adjusted from 2:1 on a dealer's 6 or less, to 1:1 on a dealer's 7 or better (roughly corresponding to the count - and still giving the agregate 3:2 payout), along with cut-card penetration, tracking bet jumps, and the like.

Quote: DCSpartan

I assume that their failure to do so indicates that they believe that such changes would be less profitable to the casino overall than the money lost through counting that goes uncaught.

Adjustment are costly to casino overhead: floorman training, procedural training, surveillance training, the whole nine yards. Everyone pays, namely the players.

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.

Quote: SOOPOO

Finally- Dan has separated cheaters from APs!!

Other than Dan, I have never heard anyone refer to a counter as a cheater.

Work in table games pit operations, and you may indeed. Granted, it is not the legal definition, it is a biased view from pit bosses. But I can see their business, operational, and moral POV on the effect of AP.

Quote: SOOPOO

Finally- Dan has separated cheaters from APs!!

What he means is, they call the cops on cheaters,
but not on AP's. Thats only because they can't. But
they still consider AP's as cheaters, that will never
change.

Quote: Paigowdan

Work in table games pit operations, and you may indeed. Granted, it is not the legal definition, it is a biased view from pit bosses. But I can see their business, operational, and moral POV on the effect of AP.

We are not in the pit, we are in a forum. And you are the only one that refers to a counter as a cheater !

For Blackjack, I think the rules have already been changed based on the player skill. If everyone was able to count, you would know that the rules would change and you woulnd't find a shoe dealt, 3:2 game in town.

I don't buy into the notion of not to use your mind when playing blackjack. If there is a shoe dealt 6 deck game and 14 10s come out on the first hand, you can bet that I'll be betting a minimal amount the next hand. If a game is shoe dealt, then why not remember cards that were played to your advantage?

Casinos sell shoe games to invite the counter into the casino, IMO. There is no reason why every casino could not use CSMs to eliminate the possibility of counting. It's a game that the casinos play with patrons: Come on in and try to count. If you're too good, you'll be backed up, but if you think you're good and you're not, come on in!

Quote: rdw4potus

Bridge can be a great game to bet on. We used to do it in college quite frequently. $1/trick, $5/game. Usually netted to less than $20 for the winning team by the end of the night.

For me, as a (now rusty) bridge player and a fairly skilled player of spades, hearts, and euchre, the idea of purposely forgetting information during a blackjack session is hard to wrap my head around. It does help that the pit is usually surrounded by distracting items to keep me from noticing the information in the first place.

I play bridge also. In fact, in the 1980's I wrote a commercial bridge-playing program for the Commodore-64 market.
I understand tracking discards for bridge, as well as for BJ.
They're different games, different ground rules, different histories, operating in different environments, etc.

Quote: Doc

Would it be legal to remove all of the jacks from the shoe without telling the players?

In the jurisdiction that I work it would be illegal to remove cards from any game of twenty-one or blackjack. The game is defined in the Tribal-State compact and references all the face cards.

Quote: Doc

Similarly, I don't know whether it would violate any law for the casino to reshuffle any time the count goes (highly) positive but deal the entire shoe when it is negative.

You sir, are a genius. You've just solved my hold volatility problem. I've got a crack team rewriting our procedures as we speak. Just kidding of course. Could we? To be honest I'm not sure. Would we? No. For the same reason our slot hold percentage isn't set anywhere near the maximum allowable by regulation. Short term gain causes a long term loss. It's just bad business.

Mark

Paigowdan: You seem to be operating under the premise that basic strategy is fair play. Let me show you why it is not. I will use your own words.

Quote: Paigowdan (almost)

...is obtained...
3. Using a deliberate and additional mathematical process in a very specific way;
5. To specifically obtain a shift in odds towards the player that would not be there if these very specific and additional processes were NOT employed.
6. 95% + of the players at a table do NOT accurately know the move to make. If it were publicly available knowledge, then:
a) EVERY player and the dealer would already and instinctively know the odds, AND know exactly what to do. This is NOT the case,
b) Since several specific mathematical and deliberate processes have to be additionally applied

I had just shown how guilt or "intent to take advantage" had to be deliberately performed by specific and exact processes

to obtain that advantage. Remember that there is a difference between publicly available DATA (cards), and applying processes to convert data into information (action for any dealt hand), and that deliberate and specific processes HAD to have been employed - with the intent and purpose to seek an arguably unfair advantage.

This is a very direct description of what Basic Strategy is, how it has been derived, and what it is used for.

Quote: P90

Paigowdan: You seem to be operating under the premise that basic strategy is fair play. Let me show you why it is not. I will use your own words.

Quote: Paigowdan (almost)

...is obtained...
3. Using a deliberate and additional mathematical process in a very specific way;
5. To specifically obtain a shift in odds towards the player that would not be there if these very specific and additional processes were NOT employed.
6. 95% + of the players at a table do NOT accurately know the move to make. If it were publicly available knowledge, then:
a) EVERY player and the dealer would already and instinctively know the odds, AND know exactly what to do. This is NOT the case,
b) Since several specific mathematical and deliberate processes have to be additionally applied

I had just shown how guilt or "intent to take advantage" had to be deliberately performed by specific and exact processes

to obtain that advantage. Remember that there is a difference between publicly available DATA (cards), and applying processes to convert data into information (action for any dealt hand), and that deliberate and specific processes HAD to have been employed - with the intent and purpose to seek an arguably unfair advantage.

But basic strategy will at best allow you to break even with the house. Dan only thinks that winners (AP) are CHEATERS !

This is a very direct description of what Basic Strategy is, how it has been derived, and what it is used for.

Quote: boymimbo

For Blackjack, I think the rules have already been changed based on the player skill. If everyone was able to count, you would know that the rules would change and you woulnd't find a shoe dealt, 3:2 game in town.

A salient point.

Quote: boymimbo

I don't buy into the notion of not to use your mind when playing blackjack.

The issue is not "using your mind." One can argue that any clever thief or embezzler were just "using their minds, so it's okay."
Nor is the real issue is "public information", it is:
1. employing processes and methods that were NOT a part of the original game, but were introduced only when - and after - the discovery that the game was countable - and when the game was already entrenched, and;
2. for purposes of obtaining an advantage and purposely defeat casino businesses, which use the house edge mechanism as a valid business model to insure that the game can be offered in the first place.
So it is not public information, it is the deliberate conversion of "public and historical data" of a game that otherwise would not be tracked to "private information" - and through the use of specific processes that are forbidden by casino ground rules.

Quote: boymimbo

If there is a shoe dealt 6 deck game and 14 10s come out on the first hand, you can bet that I'll be betting a minimal amount the next hand. If a game is shoe dealt, then why not remember cards that were played to your advantage?

That's the argument.

Quote: boymimbo

Casinos sell shoe games to invite the counter into the casino, IMO. There is no reason why every casino could not use CSMs to eliminate the possibility of counting. It's a game that the casinos play with patrons: Come on in and try to count. If you're too good, you'll be backed up, but if you think you're good and you're not, come on in!

No, the game is to be used with basic strategy. CSM are expensive and require additional overhead costs and maintenance contracts, while a plastic shoe dispensor is $20.
I do think the gaming industry/casino operators should use CSMs, more use of 2-thru-6 BJ, lower penetration and the like, and not hint at "partially using" a lure of "great game offerings!" if their intent is to back off simple winners.

Quote: buzzpaff

But basic strategy will at best allow you to break even with the house. Dan only thinks that winners (AP) are CHEATERS !

No, it does not allow players to break even with the house, even with BS a house edge remains. It is the craps' odds bet that has no HA, though it must be used with a line bet that does have some HA.

Quote: buzzpaff

This is a very direct description of what Basic Strategy is, how it has been derived, and what it is used for.

No, it is used for optimal play to reduce the HA, not for the total elimination of the HA.

edited

Quote: P90

Paigowdan: You seem to be operating under the premise that basic strategy is fair play.

it is indeed.

Quote: P90

Let me show you why it is not. I will use your own words.

Quote: Paigowdan (almost)

...is obtained...
3. Using a deliberate and additional mathematical process in a very specific way;
5. To specifically obtain a shift in odds towards the player that would not be there if these very specific and additional processes were NOT employed.
6. 95% + of the players at a table do NOT accurately know the move to make. If it were publicly available knowledge, then:
a) EVERY player and the dealer would already and instinctively know the odds, AND know exactly what to do. This is NOT the case,
b) Since several specific mathematical and deliberate processes have to be additionally applied

I had just shown how guilt or "intent to take advantage" had to be deliberately performed by specific and exact processes

to obtain that advantage. Remember that there is a difference between publicly available DATA (cards), and applying processes to convert data into information (action for any dealt hand), and that deliberate and specific processes HAD to have been employed - with the intent and purpose to seek an arguably unfair advantage.

This is a very direct description of what Basic Strategy is, how it has been derived, and what it is used for.

No, it is not. Basic Strategy has some very clear distinctions from card counting:
1. It does not nullify or eliminate the HA of BJ. You gain improvement, - not advantage.
2. Does not track or record historical public data to convert it to private information.
3. Is approved and expected to be used by casino ground rules.

Quote: Paigowdan

The issue is not "using your mind." One can argue that any clever thief or embezzler were just "using their minds, so it's okay.".

But its not OK, Dan, because its against the law.
Thats the difference, counting is not against any
law. BJ is a flawed game, either change the rules
so any edge gotten by counting is nullified, or
get rid of the game entirely. The casino isn't really
interested in either of those options because they
know they make too much money off the 98%
of wannabe failed counters. Its that wascally 2%
that has their panties all in a knot, oh why can't
the casino have its cake and eat it too..

Still applies to BS.

Quote: Paigowdan (almost)

Nor is the real issue is "public information", it is:
1. employing processes and methods that were NOT a part of the original game, but were introduced only when - and after - the discovery that the game was mathematically finite and a computer can calculate one best action for every given hand - and when the game was already entrenched, and;
2. for purposes of obtaining an advantage and purposely defeat casino businesses, which use the house edge mechanism as a valid business model to insure that the game can be offered in the first place.

Quote: Paigowdan (almost)

No, the game is to be used with gut feel.

Using a computer to generate basic strategy certainly has all the elements of cheating, following your definitions. So what if the HA isn't always overcome? He might be a comp cheat!

Quote: Paigowdan

No, it does not allow players to break even with the house, even with BS a house edge remains.

Actually, in a single-deck game with loose rules, it allows players to beat the house. Not by much. But beat. And then add Nefarious CDE.

Quote: Paigowdan

1. It does not nullify or eliminate the HA of BJ. You gain improvement, - not advantage.

Neither does 1-4 spread with less than perfect counting.

Quote: Paigowdan

2. Does not track or record historical public data to convert it to private information.

Does play out millions if not billions of simulated hand on a highly nefarious "thinking machine" to produce a cheat sheet, rather than engage the player in a process of thought on every hand.

Quote: Paigowdan

3. Is approved and expected to be used by casino ground rules.

So if a casino expected me to play "neverbust" or "mimic the dealer", and did not approve basic strategy, then using it would be cheating?

Quote: EvenBob

But its not OK, Dan, because its against the law.

It's been clearly stated that "the law" - Constitutional or state penal code or otherwise is not the issue. the issue is whether a casino business allows or disbars card counting.

Quote: EvenBob

Thats the difference, counting is not against any
law.

See above.

Quote: EvenBob

BJ is a flawed game, either change the rules
so any edge gotten by counting is nullified, or
get rid of the game entirely.

Absolutely true, a fine point. Ideally, the game should be counter-proof, Basic Strategy based, and never requiring that backs-off would ever be necessary.

Quote: EvenBob

The casino isn't really
interested in either of those options because they
know they make too much money off the 98%
of wannabe failed counters.

No, they make the bulk of their BJ money off of regular recreational players.

Quote: P90

Neither does 1-4 spread with less than perfect counting.

The issue isn't half-assed card counting vesus effective card counting. It's simply card counting.

Quote: P90

Does play out millions if not billions of simulated hand on a highly nefarious "thinking machine" to produce a cheat sheet, rather than engage the player in a process of thought on every hand.

The action is not based on a process of thought, but on the actual player's intent and actions based on what type of processes were used.
You can have and use perfect card-counting knowledge at a table, but not be of consequence if the player carries out basic strategy and flat betting. If your hands are carrying out the bet jumps and drops in response to a calculated count tally, this is more than thought process, this is taking action for restricted player advantage play.

Quote: P90

So if a casino expected me to play "neverbust" or "mimic the dealer", and did not approve basic strategy, then using it would be cheating?

Yes, obviously, if it using basic Strategy was restricted by the casino to the point of resulting in back offs.
But clearly this is not the case, as you may use basic strategy totally unemcumbered, without any casino restriction on that.

Shame on any BJ players who wants to bet more when the odds are in his favor. SHAME SHAME SHAME

Quote: Paigowdan

The issue isn't half-assed card counting vesus effective card counting. It's simply card counting.

No, the issue is not card counting at all.
You are admitting yourself now that it's not actually important how the advantage was obtained - it's only important if it is there.

Quote: Paigowdan

The action is not based on a process of thought, but on the actual player's intent

Yes. The intent is to win. Why do you think players come to the casino, to stare at dealers' racks?

Quote: Paigowdan

Yes, obviously, if it using basic Strategy was restricted by the casino to the point of resulting in back offs.

Which it would be, if you were to decide, and if Basic Strategy allowed the player to get an edge or break even.

So clearly your line separating cheating from fair play is the line of EV=0. Any EV<0 is fair play, and EV>0 is cheating.
You don't care how exactly, you consider any player who manages to squeeze out an advantage to be robbing you.

Quote: Paigowdan

No, they make the bulk of their BJ money off of regular recreational players.

They make enough from wannabe counters that
they have no real interest in changing the game
enough to stop them.

Yes. The intent is to win. Why do you think players come to the casino, to stare at dealers' racks?


In fairness to any female forum members, I am sure he meant the racks that hold chips and not any physical attributes among
female dealers LOL

This thread=

You're never going to see eye to eye. Give it up.