bigpete88
bigpete88
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 351
August 25th, 2012 at 3:12:04 PM permalink
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?
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
August 25th, 2012 at 3:50:18 PM permalink
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.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
August 25th, 2012 at 6:14:50 PM permalink
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.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
Face
Administrator
Face
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
August 25th, 2012 at 6:20:20 PM permalink
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 opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
WongBo
WongBo
Joined: Feb 3, 2012
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 2126
August 25th, 2012 at 6:37:01 PM permalink
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.
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief. - Proverb.
bigpete88
bigpete88
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 351
August 25th, 2012 at 6:37:48 PM permalink
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.
RaleighCraps
RaleighCraps
Joined: Feb 20, 2010
  • Threads: 79
  • Posts: 2501
August 25th, 2012 at 6:42:21 PM permalink
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.
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back ! Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 124
  • Posts: 12983
August 25th, 2012 at 7:09:03 PM permalink
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.
Vultures can't be choosers.
Face
Administrator
Face
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
August 25th, 2012 at 7:31:18 PM permalink
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 opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
bigpete88
bigpete88
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 351
August 25th, 2012 at 8:13:35 PM permalink
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.

  • Jump to: