Warped Roulette, Card Counting or any other Advantage Play...is it fair?

It is well known amongst gamblers, and Casinos, that Billy Walters beat the Golden Nugget for 3 million 25 years ago at a warped Roulette wheel. Recently, at the same Golden Nugget, there were players that beat the mini bacarrat for 1.5 million and the casino is suing. Another thread on this forum has the Casino point of view not to pay and all the players think the casino should pay unless there was ILLEGAL cheating.

My opinion is that the player is ethically bound to himself to play to the best of his ability using every legal means. The casino has a 5.26% advantage on a double green Roulette wheel so if a player can legally Advantage Play, I see nothing wrong with this. What is your opinion and why?

I think in return for the casino taking a 2%-5%, the onus is on them to run the game fairly and on the square. If they veer in either direction, it's their liability, not the players.

The house edge is similar to an admission fee for any business that supplies you some sort of entertainment. No business can function without its costs being covered: movies charge you an admission fee, restaurants present a dining bill, etc. Expecting casino to provide you gaming services for free, and not pay their employees or light bills is not reasonable. Trying to defeat this fee mechanism is like trying to get free services, yet many gamblers feel it is correct to try to stiff the casinos from their house edge, and will openly take this position.

When it comes to the spirit of the game, my thoughts mirror PaiGowDan's. When it comes to morality, I'm not nearly as righteous.

Patrons have a responsibility to learn, excercise and practice their games to maximize their gains and minimize their losses. The level to which they take this is completely voluntary and 100% their responsibility. If one chooses to double down on a 3/3 vs Dealer 10, and another learns every strategy decision for every rule set imaginable, more power to each of them. They are free to do whatever they want, and deserve whatever comes their way, whatever that may be.

I cannot choose to think any different about a casino. If someone tries to harm a joint by legitimate cheating or fraud, then yes, the casino deserves a path of recourse. But if the casino chooses to offer beatable games, chooses to employ weak dealers, chooses to skip on proper procedures and maintenance of equipment, then they, too, deserve whatever comes their way, whatever that may be.

The way GN handled the shuffle deal was appropriate. Had I been in the Director's chair, I might have done the same thing. After all, that's how you expose a cheat team, that's how you mine info, that's how you lock up an air tight case. If it had been a scam, GN would be being lauded about how completely excellent they had handled things. Unfortunately in this scenario, the shadows they were chasing were their own. When they struck out in the dark, they hit their own backs. Even complete adherance to procedure and common sense occasionally blow up in your face. That's life, no more, no less. Deal with it.

I currently have beatable games. I have weak dealers. I see procedural FUBARs that make me wonder what in the bloody hell has happened to game protection. But those are my worries, not yours. You worry about all your ways to beat my game. I'll worry about all the ways to shut you down. If I catch you and win, it's no one's fault but your own for getting caught. Feel free to patronize our many Craps and Roulette offerings. If you evade me and win, it's no one's fault but mine for not catching you. And as always, hope to see you next week!

The house edge exists to capitalize in the long-term, the casino expects to have people win In the short term.
You cannot use the existence of a house edge to equate it with a fee for playing the game for the individual player.
The individual player who emloys his own mental abilities is legally, ethically, morally, justified in doing so.
The biased wheel observer the card counter, the hole carder, the players of unshuffled baccarat are all within their rights to collect.

Dan,

That is correct. We will take this position.

A game offered to the public is like open season :-). Some get their reward and some do not.

As far as a fee mechanism, I do not recall my 100 + visits to a casino that there was a fee posted like your example of a movie. The expected house edge does not always exisit as we all know.

Honestly, I would rather the casino take out every blackjack table than offer to some and bar others. Doesn't that seem more fair?

Does that viewpoint seem to be the best resolve from an ethical viewpoint, the ethics that you have mentioned in so many posts? Forget that I am a blackjack player and you are a company man regarding this post. Let's stick to your position of ethics.

Pretty refreshing take on things, Face. I agree with you 100% on this. When the casino fails to follow procedure, or takes a shortcut, then the blame must lay with them. If they can prove collusion between dealers and players, or between players and the shuffle house, then that changes things to favor the house's assertion of illegality. Until then, I think the gaming commission should require the funds in question be put into escrow, and each player should be given back their initial buy in amount. If the players prevail, they get their money,plus interest. If the casino prevails, the players will probably have legal problems to deal with, and the money would be forfeited.

One final word. I have to believe these cards were not coming out in sequential order by suit. 99% of the morons in the casino would be able to see that! The players either detected the order of the cards through lots of observation, OR, they had inside information about what the order of the deck would be. The former IS the fault of the casino, and the players prevail. The latter is collusion, and the player's get to see the inside view of our legal system.
When Michael Larson figured out that electronics board in the game "Press Your Luck" was not truly random, but had a discernible pattern, he took them for $110,000 in 1984. CBS immediately declared he was cheating, but then decided it was their fault. They decided they had to let him play until he lost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Larson

So, prove collusion, or pay the players.

Quote: WongBo

The house edge exists to capitalize in the long-term, the casino expects to have people win In the short term.
You cannot use the existence of a house edge to equate it with a fee for playing the game for the individual player.
The individual player who emloys his own mental abilities is legally, ethically, morally, justified in doing so.
The biased wheel observer the card counter, the hole carder, the players of unshuffled baccarat are all within their rights to collect.

I would say that I slightly more favor this than Dan's position, but reiterate my opinion that Dan's position that casinos are in the right to back people off/"read the trespass act," if they so choose.

There are counters, and if the casino doesn't want them, then it is their job to catch them. I don't want people having ten people in the room, (which is perfectly legal, provided they are not staying, then it is breach of contract) so if there are noise complaints, I might go up there and ask them to quiet down and ask for the extra people to leave. If they say, "Well, we don't want to stay if we can't have all of our friends here," then I would respond that they have the option of checking out within fifteen minutes for a 50% refund. They'll argue this, of course, but I'll point out that the other people (non-registered) aren't paying anything to be there, nor were they paid for, so I can do whatever I want with them just as though they were hanging out in my lobby (for whatever reason) and making noise.

If they pop off at the mouth to me, then they'll leave with $0.00 refund or I will call the police. I actually had one guy (not the registered guest) try to take a poke at me once, that didn't go so well for him. I thought I was in serious trouble when all of his friends stepped in-between and grabbed me, but none of them hit me, they just thought that I was going to pounce on him after knocking him down. The couple who rented the room was apologizing profusely for the whole thing, so I went ahead and let them stay provided everyone else left.

The best part was that the friend (who took a swing at me) went outside and called County. They came over and he claimed I got mad because he insulted me, so I hit him. The best part was when he called his friends in the room who told County...the truth! That he swung at me first and I was simply defending myself.

Sorry about going off on a tangent, the point is a business can ask whoever it wants to to leave. If they offer games that can be beaten, good for the players that beat them, if they ask one of these players to leave, then that player needs to leave. Both sides are playing fairly, in my opinion. The casino shouldn't feel compelled to give away money by allowing someone who is simultaneously a counter AND good player beat them constantly. The counter AND good player shouldn't feel compelled to go to a BJ game and lose. Every party looks out for its own interests. Simple enough.

Quote: RaleighCraps

Pretty refreshing take on things, Face.

Thank you. It seems pretty cut and dry to me. I'm very familiar with the "Press Your Luck" episode you referenced, and I think it's a good comparison. You want to offer a random game. You look at Game X and say "Yup, that looks good to me". Some guy comes along with a penchant for patterns and proves you wrong. Why should he be punished? He should be congratulated! You might be pissed at him, pissed at yourself, or pissed at your distributor, but all you can (and should be able to do) is walk away with a learning experience and up your game.

Same goes for casino games. It's up to them (me) to make sure everything is as it is supposed to be. Wheels balanced, cards shuffled, shufflers in working order, all cards accounted for (and take the damn tens out of Spanish 21!), dice balanced, pay tables proper... if they're not, why not?

Only one of two reasons. Either you did it, or I blew it. And what follows from there should be word for word what you said: Prove it was you and toss you in the clink, or prove it was me and pay them out.

The existing lawsuit against the players regarding the Atlantic City Golden Nugget fiasco offers both sides the tools of deposition, requests for admissions and interrogatories which should reveal everything about those 3 hours at mini baccarat. I work for 5 lawyers so know the process all too well.

Mission,

I understand your point on backing someone off and the trespassing act as I have experienced both. However, I respectfully disagree that the casinos should be allowed to. It is not allowed in New Jersey unless done to everyone at the table. To me, it just seems unfair to allow squares and bar sharps at the exact game at the same table.

I would not have any problem seeing every blackjack table carted off and burned rather than casinos treat some differently than others. That is my viewpoint and fair to all.

Quote: bigpete88

Mission,

I understand your point on backing someone off and the trespassing act as I have experienced both. However, I respectfully disagree that the casinos should be allowed to. It is not allowed in New Jersey unless done to everyone at the table. To me, it just seems unfair to allow squares and bar sharps at the exact game at the same table.

I would not have any problem seeing every blackjack table carted off and burned rather than casinos treat some differently than others. That is my viewpoint and fair to all.

I agree that your viewpoint is also fair to all, because I think that there are reasonably good arguments to be made for both viewpoints. From my perspective, a business can refuse service to whoever it wants for any legal and non-discriminatory reason. You have pointed out that, in NJ, a casino cannot legally back off an individual from a table without backing off the entire table. In that event, since backing off an individual player would entail the casino operating in defiance of the law, I agree that they should not do that. I'm assuming, of course, that they could order the whole shoe reshuffled whenever they want to, or deal from a CSM.

I would also agree with you that casinos are essentially backing off players who have committed the most grievous infraction of playing the game well. The cards coming out is simply a part of the game, the casino dictates how many cards come out, how many decks in a shoe, the penetration etc. etc.

However, none of this does anything (from my perspective) to detract from the point that both sides are simply doing what is legal. The player may legally count, and the casino may legally back off that one individual player, except in NJ, where the casino may back off the whole table.

Quote: Face

Patrons have a responsibility to learn, excercise and practice their games to maximize their gains and minimize their losses. The level to which they take this is completely voluntary and 100% their responsibility.

...

If the casino chooses to offer beatable games, chooses to employ weak dealers, chooses to skip on proper procedures and maintenance of equipment, then they, too, deserve whatever comes their way, whatever that may be.

Very well said. Thanks, Face.

Lets skip all the bullshit and cut to the chase.

You are welcome to play if you are a loser in the long run.

If you can use your brain and win, get the fuck out of here.

That's the bottom line !!!!!

I think there is a difference between using your brain or skill, and taking advantage of an error or fault in the game.

As an example: if I am paid too much for a craps bet, or incorrectly paid, I will bring it to the attention of the crew and return the money.
If I were at a warped wheel and detected a flaw, I would notify the casino of what I observed. I wouldn't want the casino to use a warped wheel to cheat other players who were not aware of the "warp."

But if I had the ability to count cards, I would use that skill, just as I use skill in video poker. If someone has a skill to influence dice and otherwise followed the rules of the game (dice must fly in the air, bounce on the table, hit the back wall) then they should be allowed to throw the dice.

Unfortunately for all advantage players, the law says the casinos have a right to decide who they do business with. That's the end of the story.

I walk up to an empty BJ table and Paigowdan is the dealer. I bet $100 on 3 spots. It is a SD pitch game. Dan gets an Ace up, and asks if I want insurance. He even tells me I can look at all 3 hands before deciding. All 6 of my cards are little ones.

You do not have to be a counter to know the odds are in my favor if I take insurance.

But if I do, I am cheating per DAN.

REALLY !!!

Quote: buzzpaff

Lets skip all the bullshit and cut to the chase.

You are welcome to play if you are a loser in the long run.

If you can use your brain and win, get the fuck out of here.

That's the bottom line !!!!!

And what's wrong with that?

"In the long run, we'll all be dead." Most of the meat-and-potatoes games (roulette being the most obvious exception) have low enough edges and high enough variances that from an individual perspective they might as well be fair odds. You can see that here in all the people who insist over a couple years they've debunked "the long run." It's only from the casino's perspective, playing against everyone at once, that the edge really matters.

Why should the casino offer losing games against itself? Why should they set up tables on which they pay all the overhead, and then gain nothing but money immediately returned with interest? Why do you swindlers expect something for nothing?

24 Bingo,

The casino does not have to offer beatable games to the public but chooses to. Their choice. The casinos make money on squares and can legally bar the AP in Nevada.

Swindler is not an accurate term for legal play. Let's be fair here.

AP players do not expect something for nothing. It's a lot of work. I spent about 8 hours yesterday working on AP.

Quote: 24Bingo

.... Why do you swindlers expect something for nothing?

Expect? Hardly.

The expectation is that a casino, if it had any brains at all, would only offer games where they have the advantage.

If an, ahem, swindler, were to discover a weakness in the game, that the casino with all of it's resources didn't notice, then more power to that, ahem, swindler.

" Why do you swindlers expect something for nothing? "

Are you and dan related >?

Buzz,

Dan and Bingo wear the same suit...ha ha ha

Quote: Wongbo

You cannot use the existence of a house edge to equate it with a fee for playing the game for the individual player.

No - that is exactly what it is, and exactly how it functions, and defeating it is akin to customer pilferage, something I'm against. I also don't steal towels from a hotel stay, although many people do and justify it. I actually feel I am not entitled to do such things against a business offering me the services I wish to partake in.

Quote: BigPete

A game offered to the public is like open season :-). Some get their reward and some do not.

1. Restaurants are open season. Just discreetly walk out without paying the bill. Cool and righteous.
2. Taxicabs are open season. Just open the door and walk away without paying when you reach your destination.
3. Transit systems are open season. Counterfeit any needed transit pass with a laser printer and a magnetic stripe. Cool.

Quote: Raleigh Craps

Pretty refreshing take on things, Face. I agree with you 100% on this. When the casino fails to follow procedure, or takes a shortcut, then the blame must lay with them.

True, they must be fined if needed to get them to follow procedure. However, this does not mean free money from false winnings for customers; a misdeal nullifies all pays and plays. They are, however, entitled to a full refund of their buy-ins.

Quote: Mission146

There are counters, and if the casino doesn't want them, then it is their job to catch them.

Very true, Casinos must deal with AP play and cheaters and all sorts of threats - AND it is the business' responsibility to implement adequate loss prevention methods. It's not just "catching" counters, though, it is preventing a game from being countable in the first place, like single deck Poker games. It is better to practice preventive measures instead of reactive measures. In card counting, such things as the CSM (continuous shuffler) came to be. Blackjacks paying 2:1 on a dealer's 8, 9, 10, or Ace while paying even money on a 7 or less follows the count, and removes a counting advantage while offering a 3:2 BJ payout overall. Shufflemaster's new I-table, when it goes onto blackjack, will have the ability to follow the shoe count while tracking players bet patterns. Already the I-table for Three Card poker makes it impossible to hole card, even though it uses cards, because the dealer's cards are not dispensed until all players Play or Fold. Such things are coming, and it was because of Advantage Play that these things came to be.

There Dan goes again " AP play and cheaters and all sorts of threats "

Lumping card counters in with cheaters. The nerve of that guy.

Quote: Face

But if the casino chooses to offer beatable games, chooses to employ weak dealers, chooses to skip on proper procedures and maintenance of equipment, then they, too, deserve whatever comes their way, whatever that may be.!

No no NO! According to Dan, its OUR responsibility,
the players, to take up the slack when the casino makes
mistakes and let them know what the weaknesses are,
so they can fix them. Dan says its our moral responsibility
to do this, instead of take advantage of it.

Quote: EvenBob

No no NO! According to Dan, its OUR responsibility,
the players, to take up the slack when the casino makes
mistakes and let them know what the weaknesses are,
so they can fix them. Dan says its our moral responsibility
to do this, instead of take advantage of it.

Wrong again, Bob. You missed it on all counts.
1. I clearly said that loss prevention is the responsibility of the business.
2. I also said that this does not absolve malfeasance or greed on part of the customers. If a warehouse bought defective locks, would this absolve a burglary crew? I mean, their goal too is to "take down the house," eh?
3. Moral responsibility is the responsibility of every individual, even gamblers and casino workers, surprisingly. Gamblers generally DO think that their responsibility flies out the window and they are not responsible for any greed if a casino commits a mistake, malfunction, or misdeal. The Golden Nugget is a great case in point: "Casino had a misdeal or malfunction - pay me millions!" Similar to: "Bank or Brokerage computer or clerk made an error? The money is mine, all mine, be quiet and they will not notice!" is the belief system.

Quote: buzzpaff

" Why do you swindlers expect something for nothing? "

Are you and dan related >?

Dan hates me.

Quote: bigpete88

Swindler is not an accurate term for legal play. Let's be fair here.

Like refusing to tip (incidentally, nearly always a comorbid sin), "but it's legal!" is no defense of anything.

Quote: bigpete88

AP players do not expect something for nothing. It's a lot of work. I spent about 8 hours yesterday working on AP.

You may have put in a lot of effort, but if your AP was at the tables, you just spent eight hours breaking windows.

Dan,

Your response to advantage play is follows:

1. Restaurants are open season. Just discreetly walk out without paying the bill. Cool and righteous.
2. Taxicabs are open season. Just open the door and walk away without paying when you reach your destination.
3. Transit systems are open season. Counterfeit any needed transit pass with a laser printer and a magnetic stripe. Cool.

This will be the last time I respond to someone that uses such a poor analogy.

"Common sense is not so common" Voltaire

Sorry for the thread-jack, but...

Quote: Paigowdan

Already the I-table for Three Card poker makes it impossible to hole card, even though it uses cards, because the dealer's cards are not dispensed until all players Play or Fold.

I don't play 3CP, but...

Doesn't the dealer give all the players cards first, take the next 3 card pack for himself, then hit the 'dump' button if the table wasn't full, and put the stub into the discard rack?

If so, why? I mean, why can't the dealer leave his cards in the shuffler tray?

I assume it's because the shuffler's insides needs be empty before it can start shuffling the second deck. That being the case, ALL the card can be left in the shuffler's tray until player's actions are complete. Then the dealer's cards are the bottom three cards.

Doesn't this seem like a very simple fix?

Quote: bigpete88

Dan,

Your response to advantage play is follows:

1. Restaurants are open season. Just discreetly walk out without paying the bill. Cool and righteous.
2. Taxicabs are open season. Just open the door and walk away without paying when you reach your destination.
3. Transit systems are open season. Counterfeit any needed transit pass with a laser printer and a magnetic stripe. Cool.

This will be the last time I respond to someone that uses such a poor analogy.

"Common sense is not so common" Voltaire

And yet, you won't say why it's a poor analogy, other than maybe "Uncle Sam doesn't like those things!"

deleted

Quote: 24Bingo

Dan hates me.

No I don't. Huh??!! I hate no one at this board. I really enjoy all the debate and like all of your contributions. Why would you think otherwise? Because I offer a different view-of-point, a non-gamblers' view point IN a gambler.

Quote: 24Bingo

Like refusing to tip (incidentally, nearly always a comorbid sin), "but it's legal!" is no defense of anything.

Huh? Tip if you want, and stiff if you want. I never asked or cared about a tip, knowing it all averages out, and everyone is different. I do know that 90% of tips come from 10% of the people, and I always thank the tippers as they make a difference. 90% of people are "Parisimonious," and we know that. What's there to trouble yourself about?

Quote: 24Bingo

You may have put in a lot of effort, but if your AP was at the tables, you just spent eight hours breaking windows.

No I hadn't.

deleted

Quote: Paigowdan

Gamblers generally DO think that their responsibility flies out the window and they are not responsible for any greed if a casino commits a mistake, malfunction, or misdeal.

What about the casinos greed, Dan, that thats so
thick in the air of every casino you can smell it.
Casino greed is a science know, there are thick
books that tell them how to design everything
to so confuse and disorient players that they'll
stay for the longest possible time and lose the
largest amount possible. When you enter a
casino, you're entering a very carefully set trap,
invented by greedy little men whose only job
is to seperate you from your money and do it
in the guise of 'entertainment'. Yet all we hear
about is the wascally players greed, how dare
they come into our mouse trap and try and
beat us at our own game.

24 Bingo,

Breaking windows it is!!!!!! From my side as well as the casino (getting their advantage from squares)....ha ha ha

Thanks for the good laugh as I was not familiar with "Parable of the broken window"

Bob, the same could be said about any businesses' need to reduce loss and increase shareholders' return. Say it about the movie industry, the food service industry, car rental companies, any business. Gamblers only moan and accuse of casinos.

To any fool complaining about the pusher-man, kick the habit or befriend him.

Quote: bigpete88

Breaking windows it is!!!!!! From my side as well as the casino (getting their advantage from squares)....ha ha ha

The difference is that the casino has set up the game, and you haven't. They have built, and you are destroying. That game is there for "squares" who want a good gamble because there's no other way it could exist. And it is a good gamble - even with fairly stiff rules, it will be almost 200 hands before your expected loss in blackjack is a full bet, and by then the standard deviation will be about 14 bets. If you want to play to win consistently, play a game that's set up for such players, rather than breaking rules that, while unwritten, you and everyone else know perfectly well are there, and patting yourself on the back for your "hard work."

Quote: Paigowdan

Bob, the same could be said about any businesses' need to reduce loss and increase shareholders' return.

But the casino industry is the only one that
views their customer base as 'greedy', like
you just did. Only the casino is expected to
be greedy, never the players. The players
are just supposed to walk into the spiders
web and get whats coming to them, with
a smile on their face, as they enjoy the
'entertainment' of losing.

Quote: buzzpaff
" Why do you swindlers expect something for nothing? "

Are you and dan related >?



Dan hates me.


That fact would seem to reinforce you are related !

Quote: buzzpaff
Lets skip all the bullshit and cut to the chase.

You are welcome to play if you are a loser in the long run.

If you can use your brain and win, get the fuck out of here.

That's the bottom line !!!!!



And what's wrong with that?


I never said anything was wrong with that. Just don't call me a CHEATER or a SWINDLER.

I have never done " a piece of work", but I deal harshly with personal insults !

Quote: buzzpaff

I walk up to an empty BJ table and Paigowdan is the dealer. I bet $100 on 3 spots. It is a SD pitch game. Dan gets an Ace up, and asks if I want insurance. He even tells me I can look at all 3 hands before deciding. All 6 of my cards are little ones.

You do not have to be a counter to know the odds are in my favor if I take insurance.

But if I do, I am cheating per DAN.

REALLY !!!

Dan answered everything else, but this question. I doubt he overlooked it. ????

Wizard,

Please suspend anyone that called us a swindler for AP.

I worst thing that I called anyone is a "suit" and as bad as that is, it is not near as bad as SWINDLER.

Don't expect that to happen anytime soon. Rumor has it that Wiz has gone over to the Dark side . SIGH

This is an ongoing debate in the forum and is seems like it breaks down to this as I see it:

1) Everyone seems to agree that cheating moves like pinching or capping, late betting, dice sliding, card marking, etc. are not really AP plays, but are in fact cheating. I don't think anyone on the Forum has taken up the cause for "if they don't know I am capping my winning bets, it is the casinos fault" but I may have missed that post.

2) What is in question is seeing a casino weakness that allows hole carding, card counting or other methods where an AP can gain an advantage from clearly visible information (I would put extreme slouching @ 1st or 3rd base as the case may be in 1) above), using their brains to determine what advantage this is and altering their play to take advantage of the weakness.

3) Casinos, like most businesses in the United States, should have the right to refuse service to anyone as long as it is not a violation of civil rights. So AP's can be excluded for whatever reason....the fact that they can't individually be excluded in NJ is amazing to me. So be it, close the whole table down if that makes business sense.

4) Casinos seem to be making decisions (consciously or not) to either fix weaknesses in games, equipment, dealing procedures, etc. to combat AP plays. Their decisions should rest in the economics of the implementation of the "fix". In teliot's APheat.com site, he recently posted several pictures of 3CP games with the old tray 3" high above the table shufflers. These casinos have seen fit not to buy new equipment and if they don't implement the "leave the dealer's packet in the tray" because that slows the game/shuffler down to much, it is open season on them if they get attacked by AP's. That is the economic decision they have made not to fix a known problem. The same goes for sloppy dealers & protocols that a property cannot seem to get their staff to abide by to keep games secure....shame on them for not spending the money to protect their games.

I tend to agree with Dan on a lot of things, but I didn't like the three examples used in the thread above. I would add the following to the examples to make them comparable:

Restaurants are open season if they are known to under charge for meals based on their cash registers system, they don't fix it despite the fact that NCR has told them there are issues with computations and they get inundated with customers that are paying 50% of the menu price for their meals.

Taxi Cabs are open season if it is known that Yellow Cabs meters don't always work and frequently get stuck during a trip and passengers end up paying a lot less using them vs. Checkered Cabs. When Yellow Cab gets murdered by their cost of operations vs. fares they are collecting, they are the ones at fault for not fixing their meters, not the passengers.

Transit Systems are open season if....I don't have a great analogy here, but you get the point.

It is up to every business, to set up systems and procedures to protect their profits. If they don't and are taken advantage of by members of John Q Public, that is the price of being in business.

With all that being said, there are going to be people who decide it is their moral obligation to tell the business what they are missing and there are others that feel it is their right to take advantage of the error until it is fixed. That is personal preference and how people operate their lives, but you can't force a person to help other people or a businesses in this case out.....that is up their "Good Samaritan" make up and you can't get all over someone for having a different amount of that characteristic than you do. It is like giving to charitable organizations....some folks give to these and others don't for whatever reason. You can't tell someone they are better or worse than anyone else based on their choice in these personal decisions.

In the same vein, I don't think an AP can argue about individual treatment targeted towards their play. If a casino decides that when they come to play BJ, they are going to get backed off or a shuffle is going to happen at two decks of penetration, don't bitch about it.....just play somewhere else. The property has the right to refuse service or treat individual customers differently....it is their business and again, as long as no one's civil rights are being affected, it should be allowed. For what it is worth, I am assuming being able to play in a particular casino under the same rules as everyone else is not a protected civil right, but I am not an attorney either.


You can't have it both ways, if you think it is the casinos resposibiltiy to protect the game, then AP's have to deal with any and all measures done to accomplish that (barring civil right violations) even if those measures are only implemented towards them.

Casinos have to put in place the protection measures they believe are economically sensible for themselves and then not bitch about AP's if they can't combat their angles. Get smarter, get out of the business or take you lumps. What we have seen is casinos making economic decisions to make their operations more efficient (i.e. let's buy pre-shuffled cards) and then complaining when they weren't minding the store. Unless their is collusion involved, that just doesn't fly for most third party observers.

Face has the best view of this topic and a healthy attitude coming from the other side of the table. I think Dan does, he just really wants more folks to have the same "Good Samaritan" attitude towards this issue and demand to play in games without angles. That is not a wrong attitude nor is the AP's attitude to take advantage of weaknesses wrong. They just have different opinions about what is required when it comes to helping out a business do what it wants to have happen.....trade entertainment value for eventually losing money in a game you can't win.

deleted

" I think Dan does, he just really wants more folks to have the same "Good Samaritan" attitude towards this issue and demand to play in games without angles. "

I will see what Dan says about my insurance question before giving him the benefit of the doubt. Just like my nephew Police Captain, I hold no malice against either of them for being honest.

Quote: Paradigm

Face has the best view of this topic and a healthy attitude coming from the other side of the table.

Thank you, Paradigm. I can best explain my stance using, of course, a hockey analogy. A team is like a table. Every team has righteous players, those that follow the spirit of the game, those who are there to have a good time, to get away from life, to just enjoy the experience. They're there to participate and to compete, but win or lose, they have a smile on their face. If they're about to run into you, they'll let up and ask if you're ok before skating off. Their analog is the many gamblers that are there only for entertainment. These are the ones most likely to correct an error and rarely if ever take advantage.

Then there's the skill players. These are the guys who train, who practice, who show up to do their best. They can lose and still have a good time, but they must play their best or the experience is a failure. Their analog is the player that knows their BS, rule variations, and how to play every hand in every situation. The guys that can get a positive return on video poker.The game can still be fun, but it's taken seriously.

Then there's the bruisers. They're every bit as good as the skill players, but these guys play to win. It doesn't matter if you're caught out of position, it doesn't matter if you're playing injured, it doesn't matter if you forget and skate with your head down, they're gonna take you out. Their entire being is consumed with one goal - Win. It's the only reason they're here. This is the AP. Location, amenities, entertainment, none of this matters. Only "did/can I win".

They all have their own purpose. The righteous are the majority. Without their masses to fill the seats, none of this could be possible. The skill players give hope. They show what could be and what is possible, bringing new players to the ice and the table. The bruisers... they make it interesting. Without the bruiser to give me the business on the ice, I might as well play softball. Without the bruiser on the table, my job would be suicidally boring and nearly pointless.

Two weeks ago I failed to identify a bruiser on the other team and got knocked out cold. Missed the last 5 games of the tourney, suffered some neurological issues, and am still a little foggy. Is that his fault? Should he be responsible for not hitting me because I was dumb enough to skate with my head down? Hell no. He's playing the game to win, playing within the rules, and I got caught with my pants down. He didn't past post me, he didn't cap me, he didn't mark my cards; I handed him a weakness and he exploited it. It's no one's fault but mine, and I'd surely forgive him if only I could remember who was there that day (or what day it was, or what team...). Years back I ran down a guy on BJ and could find nothing on him. 9 months and $100,000 later, a computer finally said he was a counter and he was backed off. Assuming the computer was right (which I still don't believe), then there's another guy who took advantage of my weakness. He bested me and I lost, and there's no one to blame but me. Hard feelings? Hardly. Much like the guy who knocked me out, the only thing I wish is that I could see him in battle again and have another go.

I think the gripes in the Forum stem from the Bruisers being called Goons. Bellagio Motor Cycle Helmet Guy is a goon. I haven't met an AP here that fits that title. ;)

Mister Face

Might I ask you a question sir ? In Blackhawk at Ameristar ,I saw a poker player backed off on alcoholic drinks as
he was clearly intoxicated. Yet he was allowed to continue to gamble.

Considering he might later be driving down twisting canyon highway 119, I applaud the poker room manager's
action. But allowing him to continue to gamble !

Has your casino a guideline to how to handle a similar situation ?

Friends Don't Let Friends Gamble Drunk

I don't drink when I gamble, at least not more than one beer, Godfather or Martini. I would say that if I absolutely insisted on getting plowed at the casino I would bring a friend along to judge when I was too impaired to gamble and advise me of same. I don't think it is the casino's responsibility to stop someone from gambling, just like I don't think it is a bar's responsibility to forcibly separate a person from his/her keys. I think the bar should ask for the keys.

If an individual gets plowed at your bar, and you allow him to drive, however, the bar can be held liable. That's why a casino would back someone off from drinking. I'm a strong believer in personal responsibility, so I don't think that should be the case, but it is. I think it would be different if the bar did not have a phone with which they could call you a cab, upon request or suggestion of the bar itself, but absent that, I don't think a bar should be responsible for your decision to drink more than you can handle and then drive.

I don't think the casino could really ask someone if they are of a condition to gamble for a few reasons:

1.) They would effectively be admitting, at that point, that the person was not of the condition to gamble and he could try to challenge any future losses. He'd probably lose that one, but better he not try.

2.) He was probably not of the condition to gamble before that, so he could theoretically try to challenge previous losses. This would be an even bigger hardship with poker, because the casino did not even earn the vast majority of the money that he lost!!!

Quote: buzzpaff

Mister Face

Might I ask you a question sir ? In Blackhawk at Ameristar ,I saw a poker player backed off on alcoholic drinks as
he was clearly intoxicated. Yet he was allowed to continue to gamble.

Considering he might later be driving down twisting canyon highway 119, I applaud the poker room manager's
action. But allowing him to continue to gamble !

Has your casino a guideline to how to handle a similar situation ?

Mister? C'mon, buzz =)

My reply may be surprising, I know I was when I learned it. If a person is deemed intox, they're done. No tables, no slots, no Poker, no more drink service, nada. If they're a guest of the Hotel, they are to return to their room and not attend the gaming floor for a period of 12 hours. After 12 hours have passed, they're free to resume gaming.

If they are not a guest but with companions, the companions are to take them off property. If they're not a guest and alone, then country hospitality kicks in. Out-of-towners get a room, free of charge. If there's no open room, they're put up in a local hotel and escorted there by Transportation. If they're local, they're driven home by Transportation or occasionally the on-site Sheriffs. Even when townies attempt to walk home "just down the street", they are stopped and made to accept a ride directly to their front steps. Crazy, huh? This place takes liability seriously.

Any patron excluded for intox has his picture posted at every Security Podium at the entrances. If he tries to get back on, he's reminded to return to his room. If he somehow makes it on, he is pulled back off with a reminder and warning. If it should happen again after the warning, they are excluded for a period of time (30 days to indefinite, depending on how uncooperative/beligerent they become). Once the 12hrs pass, the pictures are destroyed and it's like it never happened.

Face, ( A.K.A. Mr. Face)

Thank you kind Sir for your fair and eloquent posts. You have answered completely and expounded. You get an A+ on your report card.

I might be biased but this was a very interesting thread. This thread makes me want to bank a blackjack team for some reason. I think I shall.

Quote: Mission146

I would say that I slightly more favor this than Dan's position, but reiterate my opinion that Dan's position that casinos are in the right to back people off/"read the trespass act," if they so choose.

There are counters, and if the casino doesn't want them, then it is their job to catch them. I don't want people having ten people in the room, (which is perfectly legal, provided they are not staying, then it is breach of contract) so if there are noise complaints, I might go up there and ask them to quiet down and ask for the extra people to leave. If they say, "Well, we don't want to stay if we can't have all of our friends here," then I would respond that they have the option of checking out within fifteen minutes for a 50% refund. They'll argue this, of course, but I'll point out that the other people (non-registered) aren't paying anything to be there, nor were they paid for, so I can do whatever I want with them just as though they were hanging out in my lobby (for whatever reason) and making noise.

If they pop off at the mouth to me, then they'll leave with $0.00 refund or I will call the police. I actually had one guy (not the registered guest) try to take a poke at me once, that didn't go so well for him. I thought I was in serious trouble when all of his friends stepped in-between and grabbed me, but none of them hit me, they just thought that I was going to pounce on him after knocking him down. The couple who rented the room was apologizing profusely for the whole thing, so I went ahead and let them stay provided everyone else left.

The best part was that the friend (who took a swing at me) went outside and called County. They came over and he claimed I got mad because he insulted me, so I hit him. The best part was when he called his friends in the room who told County...the truth! That he swung at me first and I was simply defending myself.


Sorry about going off on a tangent, the point is a business can ask whoever it wants to to leave. If they offer games that can be beaten, good for the players that beat them, if they ask one of these players to leave, then that player needs to leave. Both sides are playing fairly, in my opinion. The casino shouldn't feel compelled to give away money by allowing someone who is simultaneously a counter AND good player beat them constantly. The counter AND good player shouldn't feel compelled to go to a BJ game and lose. Every party looks out for its own interests. Simple enough.

A more accurate example would be if a casino was offering a discount on the hotel room you refer to. A very wealthy person decides to take the casino up on its discount rate and reserves his room. However, after the person checks in and is comfortably relaxing in his room for a few hours, the casino personnel discovers that the person could actually afford to pay more. As a result, the wealthy hotel guest is informed that he is free to pay for a luxury suite but not allowed to reside in the discount room because he is financially "better off" than the other guests.