Thread Rating:

DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 77
  • Posts: 7926
May 14th, 2014 at 11:05:09 AM permalink
Quote: AcesAndEights

A CSM game isn't necessarily unbeatable, just unbeatable via card counting.



Stephen How may disagree. Link
Order from chaos
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
May 14th, 2014 at 11:07:08 AM permalink
Quote: DRich

Stephen How may disagree. Link



Occcasionally getting a 0.04% edge does not count as "beatable"
JoePloppy
JoePloppy
Joined: May 2, 2014
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 82
May 14th, 2014 at 11:23:38 AM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Quote: DRich

Stephen How may disagree. Link



Occcasionally getting a 0.04% edge does not count as "beatable"



Never mind, sorry
2/3
DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 77
  • Posts: 7926
May 14th, 2014 at 11:38:26 AM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Quote: DRich

Stephen How may disagree. Link



Occcasionally getting a 0.04% edge does not count as "beatable"



Sure it is. You just have to wong in and bet the $25k table max and you can expect a $10 profit.

Who wouldn't be happy winning an average of $10 per hand at BJ. Lol
Order from chaos
AcesAndEights
AcesAndEights
Joined: Jan 5, 2012
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 4299
May 14th, 2014 at 5:08:58 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Whatever, my eyes suck, and I'm too tall.

The point is, these rules that prevent casinos from backing off good players DO NOT help the players. They just result in worse games. They are bad for everyone.


I agree with you that the rules that prevent casinos from backing off players SUCK. Just playing devil's advocate, as has been done to me before. If you walk in to a casino and all there is is CSMs, yeah that sucks if all you know how to do is count. But don't just turn around and walk out. Take a look around :)

Quote: DRich

Stephen How may disagree. Link


I am referring to hole carding.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
May 14th, 2014 at 5:52:49 PM permalink
Quote: AcesAndEights

I agree with you that the rules that prevent casinos from backing off players SUCK. Just playing devil's advocate, as has been done to me before. If you walk in to a casino and all there is is CSMs, yeah that sucks if all you know how to do is count. But don't just turn around and walk out. Take a look around :)



I always look around. But I am really too tall to hole-card effectively, and anyway, my eyes aren't that good. I have heard of people crowding the table so that the dealer is forced to slide the hole card over the rim of the chip tray, popping it up briefly. I seriously doubt if that is something that I would be able to pull off.
CharlieGamer
CharlieGamer
Joined: Aug 17, 2012
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 6
May 14th, 2014 at 8:48:17 PM permalink
I didn't say it was good for the game. I just said I liked the decision because it upheld justice against casino interests. In other words, legally it was a good decision, but ulitimately it was bad for the game.
CharlieGamer
CharlieGamer
Joined: Aug 17, 2012
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 6
May 14th, 2014 at 8:52:08 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice


The point is, these rules that prevent casinos from backing off good players DO NOT help the players. They just result in worse games. They are bad for everyone.



Actually they enable the ones with sufficient bankroll to make a lot of money on the roll-free period when the games are vulnerable and the casinos cannot bar, but ultimately they may destroy the game. However, the latter depends on the dynamics. For example if casinos win more from wannabe counters than they lose to successfull ones then they may not enact countermeasures even if they lose the prerogative to ban players.
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
May 15th, 2014 at 10:40:56 AM permalink
Quote: CharlieGamer

Actually they enable the ones with sufficient bankroll to make a lot of money on the roll-free period when the games are vulnerable and the casinos cannot bar, but ultimately they may destroy the game. However, the latter depends on the dynamics. For example if casinos win more from wannabe counters than they lose to successfull ones then they may not enact countermeasures even if they lose the prerogative to ban players.



Except, every time that some ruling like this goes into effect, it results in worse games.

This is not "justice against casino interests". This is an injustice of the idiot big government sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong, and doing things that result in consequences that they did not foresee. It is bad for everyone involved.

  • Jump to: