Interesting Mississippi stud story
I'm not in interested in plays that could be construed as outright cheating, but that "dark" side of me really wanted to walk up behind this guy and whisper "give me a stack of those purple right now, or it's game-fucking-over."
Instead I just laughed and walked away.
Each transaction in a casino has a cost associated with it. Normally it's a percentage point or two above the fair value of the wager. In this Mississippi Stud case, based on the flawed dealer behavior, the price was wrong, it was far too low. How is that any different than the built-in profit a grocery store expects to charge on their goods? If bananas cost 99c/lb, the store maybe bought them for 89c/lb and expects to make 10c/lb. That's the way retail works. But if the clerk only charges you 19c/lb, obviously you're getting a great deal but, just as obviously, the store is losing money due to the employee error. But most people will say "no, that price is wrong" in the grocery scenario but not in the gambling scenario. Why?
Were not buying fruit here....
*if I sat down and the dealer noticed my raised eyebrows and then he or especially the pit said "we allow betting less than the ante here" - well I think my conscience would be clear
* if no one said anything while I imitated that move, I'd probably start questioning the ethics only after some money piled up - then i still am not sure what I would do
* if I determined that the dealer was so dumb it hurt [by other things being done no doubt] then I think I would color up and go away early. I think.
I'm not suggesting anyone to break the law. But if the casino is trying to take advantage of you (and they are), I see no problem in trying to take advantage of the casino.
Quote: MathExtremistI'm wondering why most gamblers don't have a problem sitting there and getting overpaid in a situation like this, but then they'll go shopping and correct the grocery store clerk who undercharged them for bananas. Morally, what's the difference between a casino dealer and a grocery clerk?
To some, it is the same wrong, to others, a lot different.
By embodying an 'us versus them fair game" mentality against the evil casino and only for casino businesses, then anything goes is okay. This view is NOT transferred over to any other type of business establishment except the IRS, because the others are not evil in the mind of a gambler. It is very hard to view a casino game as beating luck, as much as beating the "enemy" dealer and especially the house.
Quote: MEEach transaction in a casino has a cost associated with it. Normally it's a percentage point or two above the fair value of the wager. In this Mississippi Stud case, based on the flawed dealer behavior, the price was wrong, it was far too low. How is that any different than the built-in profit a grocery store expects to charge on their goods? If bananas cost 99c/lb, the store maybe bought them for 89c/lb and expects to make 10c/lb. That's the way retail works. But if the clerk only charges you 19c/lb, obviously you're getting a great deal but, just as obviously, the store is losing money due to the employee error. But most people will say "no, that price is wrong" in the grocery scenario but not in the gambling scenario. Why?
See above; many here will not say that the goal is to play by the rules or accept the results of the cards to its proper take-and-pay actions, but to take as much as you can if possible in the case of casino play (or IRS reporting, for that matter)..
I think this is similar to the suspension of disbelief in viewing film stories, where you accept it "as the way for it to be for me," for it to work for you, and by the standards you have. In a movie house, when you see Batman or spider man walking on the side of the building, you say "of course, - he's going to stop the Riddler, he's got to...." If you walk down 47th and Park Avenue in New York City, and someone tells you that Batman is coming down the side of the building, you hail a cop to take him to the nut house.
If you're at a Walmart and get clearly undercharged for your groceries, you usually point it out and pay the right price as the decent thing to do, especially because the checkers or Walmart are not viewed as the bad ones. To a gambler in a casino, the dealer and house are viewed as the enemy, and instead of it all being against variance or on the true result of the cards, it becomes what cash you can get away with, and you see this all the time. Books on shopping have titles like 'How to be a smart shopper;" book on casino play have titles such as 'BEAT the dealer," and 'Burning Down the House' (to the ground, baby!)
If a game is stopped because a floorman says the player was overpaid $30 on the last hand and has to toss it back in, all hell breaks loose over the injustice, and it has to be clawed out of his cold, dead hands like Charlton Heston. At Walmart, once that occurs, it is now, 'Oh - sorry - my mistake, here it is."
Certain mindsets of protocol and acceptability drop into us the various mental models or paradigms or protocols, based on where we are, and what we think is all right there; in the movies it is Spider Man walking up the side of a building to save the day; at 47th & Park Avenue, while hailing a cab but seeing Spider Man walk up the side of a building, it's now a trip to the Psychiatrist's office; at Walmart it is to return any ill-gotten gains; at a casino it is grab as much ill-gotten gain as you can get without getting caught; at Shul, it is 'don't mention the Shrimp you had for lunch to the Rabbi'; but on a date, it is a Chinese restaurant for that lunch. Etc. We all rationalize Malarkey to ourselves as we see fit, and will fight to defend our often-wrong POV to the death.
The mind rationalizes and justifies our POV no matter how irrational in reality it is, - at varying times. We don't have to be rational or even honest, we just have to justify it to ourselves and then accept it as 'our fact' - for the situation.
,
I'll just say I dont think casinos have a reputation treating people fairly and dont have a reputation of admitting fault and liability. They would get more sympathy if they weren't guilty of being difficult when owing money.
Quote: onenickelmiracleBananas $.99, in the year 2036 maybe. I think mathextremist has never bought a banana in his life.
I'll just say I dont think casinos have a reputation treating people fairly and dont have a reputation of admitting fault and liability.
Often this may be the case, often it is not. Often the players are shot takers themselves, and just don't see this or can admit it; this is very, very, very common also, as an ex-dealer.
But it is how we rationalize our own suspect maneuvers; we either say or think:
a] Well, it is THEY who are the evil ones, you see, - so what I did was righteous, of course, (the Robin Hood argument: "I busted a move - but it was against people I hereby declare to be thieves themselves...
so of course MY action was justified, as they were declared thieves by me, while my actions were declared righteous against these thieves.), or
b] Little Johnny down the street did a smash-and-grab, why can't I? (This is the "other people do it/are thieves also/cheat on their taxes/everybody does it" rationalization.)
Casino generally call surveillance and pay what the cards and bets say to pay out in good faith. I also believe that many gamblers do take shots, or who get caught taking shots don't have a reputation of admitting fault and liability here. Dealers and casinos referee the games, and really just care what the cards or dice say, - and to the bet amount made.
I'd say, it's more like the nature of the interaction is different. Buying fruit is like the ballet. Gambling is like MMA.
The casinos throw punches and kicks. That's the game they wanna play. But their ideal is, they throw punches and kicks and you do pirouettes.
There are no foreclosed houses, empty college funds and divorces from banana purchases. Super markets don't get you drunk to make you buy more bananas than you can afford. In fact, bananas are healthy. They sell you nourishment and stuff that tastes good. They might want you to overpay for the banana, but that's about it.
Casinos are enterprises meant to extract as much money as possible from you by luring you into playing games with where you are at a disadvantage. The goal of the casino is for the customer to be materially worse off, and as much so as possible. So, the response of trying to play with an advantage and take money from them is reasonable.
Anyone?
In MS, they typically stack all the chips by demon when the player wins, and size them with like chips while paying. If it's a losing hand, they stack and put them on the tray. Pushes, the player would just pull back his chips. So security would have to be watching very closely from above to realize the scam, know the bet structure as designed, know the payouts, to realize something was wrong.
And they may not be doing it every hand. You might have just happened along for a hand or two where they felt safe placing the advantage bet, and been Schooled enough in the game to recognize the cheating at a glance, looking at it from the side.
I would guess the advantage approached 20%, maybe more. The hit rate is not that great on that game.
I would quickly point out the bandannas hoping they would miss the fact that they undercharged me for my big screen TV. I might even bring a cute little puppy in to distract the cashier (-;Quote: MathExtremistI'm wondering why most gamblers don't have a problem sitting there and getting overpaid in a situation like this, but then they'll go shopping and correct the grocery store clerk who undercharged them for bananas. Morally, what's the difference between a casino dealer and a grocery clerk?
Each transaction in a casino has a cost associated with it. Normally it's a percentage point or two above the fair value of the wager. In this Mississippi Stud case, based on the flawed dealer behavior, the price was wrong, it was far too low. How is that any different than the built-in profit a grocery store expects to charge on their goods? If bananas cost 99c/lb, the store maybe bought them for 89c/lb and expects to make 10c/lb. That's the way retail works. But if the clerk only charges you 19c/lb, obviously you're getting a great deal but, just as obviously, the store is losing money due to the employee error. But most people will say "no, that price is wrong" in the grocery scenario but not in the gambling scenario. Why?
But seriously, I wouldn't point out a undercharge at Walmart(Walmart is a evil empire too, but that's a different topic), unless I suspected the cashier was going to get in trouble. I would give the cashier back an over-payment.
Grocery Stores Overcharging Across the Country - ABC News.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/grocery-stores-overcharging-country/story?id=32025735
Quote: beachbumbabsTo me it looks more like collusion with the pit. From above, the bets would look the same size; both red-topped, 2 chips. Green under the ante, red under 3rd and 4th st, green again under the reds to make 90. 6 chips to triple up, whether 30 or 90.
In MS, they typically stack all the chips by demon when the player wins, and size them with like chips while paying. If it's a losing hand, they stack and put them on the tray. Pushes, the player would just pull back his chips. So security would have to be watching very closely from above to realize the scam, know the bet structure as designed, know the payouts, to realize something was wrong.
And they may not be doing it every hand. You might have just happened along for a hand or two where they felt safe placing the advantage bet, and been Schooled enough in the game to recognize the cheating at a glance, looking at it from the side.
I would guess the advantage approached 20%, maybe more. The hit rate is not that great on that game.
My thoughts exactly. In retrospect I really wish I would have stuck around a little longer to observe.
Quote: beachbumbabsTo me it looks more like collusion with the pit...
Very astute; I would say probably so.
With a weak floorman and a hard-to-discern payment to the player, this can be done, and it happens.
Thieves often work as teams. I'm certain the dealer knew the game he dealt and its payouts like the back of his hand.
I knew a very successful businessman who told me he funded his business, years ago, by "working" the BJ table he dealt at an AC casino when AC was booming; took about $80K additional off the place over months from his dealing job, totally got away with it, started a business that made him a millionaire.
A few years later he came back with a check for $80 Grand for the table games manager, and told his story; the manager said, "I'm not going to go through a whole rigmarole over this now, it's a can of worms from the past, - just leave and get on with your life. Goodbye." He offered to make good because he became rich in legitimate business.
I'm amazed by the maneuvers people pull and often get away with, all totally rationalized. If you do something, if you decide to take some action, it is always 100% justified and righteous in the eyes of the doer, and is not seen any other - which is why it is done and why it is rationalized.
Quote: PaigowdanVery astute; I would say probably so.
. I'm certain the dealer knew the game he dealt and its payouts like the back of his hand.
I have to disagree with that,I have played with so many dealers who did not know the game.
I played Mississippi stud, with a dealer who if you folded did not take your ante, 3 card poker where you didn't have to make the play bet to still be in the hand.,
Blackjack where if you surrendered you got your entire bet given vack to you.Those are just a few examples out of many.
People are always quick to think it's collusion,but many times it's just incompetence.
Could be, but BBB is right that the bet sizes are clearly tailored to avoid surveillance noticing anything. It's easier to exploit incompetence if you hide that incompetence from as many people as possible. With different bet sizes, there's a much greater chance that surveillance catches it, calls down to the pit, and puts an end to the misdealing.Quote: HunterhillI have to disagree with that,I have played with so many dealers who did not know the game.
I played Mississippi stud, with a dealer who if you folded did not take your ante, 3 card poker where you didn't have to make the play bet to still be in the hand.,
Blackjack where if you surrendered you got your entire bet given vack to you.Those are just a few examples out of many.
People are always quick to think it's collusion,but many times it's just incompetence.
Quote: HunterhillI have to disagree with that,I have played with so many dealers who did not know the game.
I played Mississippi stud, with a dealer who if you folded did not take your ante, 3 card poker where you didn't have to make the play bet to still be in the hand.,
Blackjack where if you surrendered you got your entire bet given vack to you.Those are just a few examples out of many.
People are always quick to think it's collusion,but many times it's just incompetence.
Maybe so, very possible, too, but for that to go on (either way, theft or incompetence) - then the floor and surveillance are also incompetent - so, still sad to hear. And a bit scary, too.
They're either crooks, or just very incompetent.
And there is no other scenario.
Quote: WizardofnothingDid I miss something? Was this Scarlett pearl?
The mention of the casino would produce some phone calls....maybe some "get into the office NOW" kind of things....
Quote: chrisjs87So I was passing by a Mississippi Stud table the other day and was blown away by what I saw. Player seated at third base, sitting in front of thousands of dollars in black and purple, is betting the following: An ante bet of $30, followed by a 3rd street bet of $10, followed by a 4th street bet of $10, and finally, he makes his hand on 5th street and proceeds to bet $90. I sat there and watched him repeat this simple process for about 20 minutes to make sure I wasn't imagining it, or if it was some kind of fluke, but sure enough, this is how the game was being dealt to this guy.
I'm not in interested in plays that could be construed as outright cheating, but that "dark" side of me really wanted to walk up behind this guy and whisper "give me a stack of those purple right now, or it's game-fucking-over."
Instead I just laughed and walked away.
1st, you should've jumped into the game.
2nd, you should've NEVER mentioned this situation here!!
3rd, a lot of speculation going on in this thread.
Quote: MathExtremistHere's what I really don't understand. Nobody has stacks of purple on the table from betting red/green, it just doesn't happen. A "stack" of purple is 20 x 500 = $10,000. If I did the math right, he had a +$23 EV/hand, so he's only expected to win $914/hour. (Only, heh.) But misdealing notwithstanding, nothing changes about the card probabilities and you only have a 1/4 chance (per hour) of hitting anything bigger than trips and therefore of winning more than $500 at any one time. So at $914/hour, it's still hours of play to get to stacks of purple. What were the bosses thinking as he slowly and continually took their money? How does a casino let something like that go on for longer than four hours, for example?
That's what I was thinking also, so it seems likely that he hit some big hands.
Quote: MathExtremistHere's what I really don't understand. Nobody has stacks of purple on the table from betting red/green, it just doesn't happen. A "stack" of purple is 20 x 500 = $10,000. If I did the math right, he had a +$23 EV/hand, so he's only expected to win $914/hour. (Only, heh.) But misdealing notwithstanding, nothing changes about the card probabilities and you only have a 1/4 chance (per hour) of hitting anything bigger than trips and therefore of winning more than $500 at any one time. So at $914/hour, it's still hours of play to get to stacks of purple. What were the bosses thinking as he slowly and continually took their money? How does a casino let something like that go on for longer than four hours, for example?
I figured the game pays odds on winning hands, and he may have hit a few. He could also be coloring up as he goes.
1) he was allowed to bet less than his ante
2) he was allowed to past-post:
Quote:he makes his hand on 5th street and proceeds to bet $90
Normally the final bet must be placed before the last community card is revealed. As described, the final bet came after the last community card was revealed.
Surely the past-posting provided the bigger advantage.
Quote: JBSurely the past-posting provided the bigger advantage.
I missed that. I'm not sure the OP meant to indicate past-posting as it's not emphasized.
Quote: JBUnless I'm missing something (wouldn't be the first time), this guy had two advantages:
1) he was allowed to bet less than his ante
2) he was allowed to past-post:
Normally the final bet must be placed before the last community card is revealed. As described, the final bet came after the last community card was revealed.
Surely the past-posting provided the bigger advantage.
I should have just said he was allowed to spread $10-$90 on the street bets with a $30 initial ante. I think that should clear up any confusion.
Ahh, I did my rough EV/hand analysis based on the 30/10/10/90 pattern (or 30/10/10/0 if he missed a straight/flush draw, and also assuming he never folded.) In the case where he's betting 30/90/90/90 or 30/10/90/90 when a pair is already in the hand, the EV/hand is going to be higher. I don't have the time to crunch it right now though.Quote: chrisjs87I should have just said he was allowed to spread $10-$90 on the street bets with a $30 initial ante. I think that should clear up any confusion.
Quote: MathExtremistI'm wondering why most gamblers don't have a problem sitting there and getting overpaid in a situation like this, but then they'll go shopping and correct the grocery store clerk who undercharged them for bananas. Morally, what's the difference between a casino dealer and a grocery clerk?
This is me exactly. I have been overpaid/mispaid plenty of times and never thought twice about except to think how I would react if it was corrected. I have also seen the cashier skip something and promptly pointed it out. I think these are not accurate comparisons because of the nature of gambling. It's simple. A grocery store puts out bananas for 99c/lb with assumption the register will collect how many pounds they have in stock multiplied by 99 cents. They then can plan the rest of their business accordingly. It's a fair trade that you both agree to. You have 99 cents and the grocery store has a pound of bananas. You each want each others goods, so you trade.
A casino however simply offers a game that, when played many times should come out in their favor but nothing says that it will. Both parties are trying to do whatever they can to come out ahead. As long as it's legal I don't have a problem with it. If grocery stores operated like casinos, then one day when you buy bananas you would pay 99 cents. The next day you would pay $5 and the day after that you would get them for free. There is no set amount that the casino makes everyday. Luck and skill affects them too.
A gamblers objective when playing should be to win by playing fairly. Also, follow the rules and have a good time.
The casino doesn't cheat players and players should not cheat the casino.
Quote: PlayYourCardsRightThe casino doesn't cheat players and players should not cheat the casino.
