Invitation to Paigowdan
I’m going to Vegas Sept 17-20 for four days of casino malfeasance and subterfuge. I would like you to join me. Together we will play advantage blackjack. I have about a dozen casinos on my rotation where we can spread 20:1, occasionally up to 50:1!
Paigowdan, if card counting is not your thing, there are many additional opportunities for malfeasance that we will undertake. How about some hole carding? I have compiled a list of flashing dealers that we will take advantage of. Using various team-play tactics, and a bit of subterfuge, we will enjoy up to a 60% edge!
I’m not done yet, Dan. How about some more malfeasance such as next carding, sequencing, card sorting, and maybe a bit of shuffle tracking. And working as a team, I would be remiss to leave out the many, many steering opportunities that I have uncovered. Indeed, some subterfuge will be required to take full advantage, but the rewards are well worth it.
C’mon Dan, LET'S DO THIS!
EDIT - Nah, I'll go with 30.
Quote: FinsRuleI'll put my money on 7 days...
EDIT - Nah, I'll go with 30.
Suspension? For what exactly?
I would never meet him.....for that reason, maybe more :=)
I'll be in Las Vegas for G2E. I invite you to buy me dinner each night and call me each morning to wake me up in time for the show. I think that's a safer offer than the OP is suggesting. :)
Quote: PaigowdanI'm not interested in either unapproved AP play such as card-counting and hole-carding, or in applying the take-downs on such misguided souls.
Thanks for responding to my invitation. I am disappointed you declined my offer. I sincerely admire your tenacity, although misguided against AP's. I'm certain if you ever decided to switch sides, we would make a formidable team. But for now, I guess we will remain friendly rivals. Good day sir.
While his opinion of AP is unpopular, can you really fault him for it?
Quote: DJTeddyBear
While his opinion of AP is unpopular, can you really fault him for it?
Yes, I can and do fault him for it. I understand that he makes his living from the casino industry and as such, is protective of it. But that doesn't mean he should adopt and accept the industry belief that thinking is a crime. There is behavior that is not acceptable, some criminal such as capping and stunts like that. Hole-carding is a grey area. One could argue that is cheating or come right up to the line. But plays such as card counting do not of that. The player is playing the game exactly by the rules. The rules that the casino has set. Good god, are we to outlaw thinking? The casino gets to set the rules to their advantage. Now they want to hand pick who the players are. ANYONE WILLING TO NOT THINK IS WELCOME TO PLAY. Come on give me a break.
So I don't fault Dan for being supportive of the industry that feeds him. But I do fault him for blindly following, and apparently not being willing to think for himself. It is a matter of right and wrong. I am an advantage player. I support myself through legal advantage play, playing the games by the rules, but using my brain to play a winning game. But that doesn't mean I don't think for myself. Even though I make my living this way, I fully recognize there are some forms of AP that are not legit and I say so.
Quote: DJTeddyBearWhere is this "Attack Dan" attitude coming from?
While his opinion of AP is unpopular, can you really fault him for it?
I can fault him, but I won't attack him. Two separate issues.
Quote: kewljYes, I can and do fault him for it. I understand that he makes his living from the casino industry and as such, is protective of it. But that doesn't mean he should adopt and accept the industry belief that thinking is a crime.
Why not - or at least "wrong" or malfeasance? What is basically advocated by AP's is usually nothing short of Theft-of-services against a legitimate business that AP pretend to patronize.
Quote: kewljThere is behavior that is not acceptable, some criminal such as capping and stunts like that.
Yes, I agree...you're going in the right direction over here...
Quote: kewljHole-carding is a grey area.
No it's not, it's pretty dark. However, Dealer flashing, which is different, is more of a 'white' area for the player.
Quote: kewljOne could argue that is cheating or come right up to the line. But plays such as card counting do not of that. The player is playing the game exactly by the rules. The rules that the casino has set.
No, the player is not, - and the Card-counter darn well knows this via camoflage, disguises, cover plays, all of which indicate the subterfuge that has to be masked. The casino gets to set the rules to their advantage.
So does every business - when it comes to loss prevention and theft of services.
Quote: kewljNow they want to hand pick who the players are. ANYONE WILLING TO NOT THINK IS WELCOME TO PLAY. Come on give me a break.
97% of players are Gamblers, and 3% of players are pros.
Quote: kewljSo I don't fault Dan for being supportive of the industry that feeds him. But I do fault him for blindly following, and apparently not being willing to think for himself.
I thought it out thoroughly, and knowingly violating the house rules going in is a non-starter.
Quote: kewljIt is a matter of right and wrong.
Exactly.
Quote: kewljI am an advantage player.
As a career, it's just foolish. As a pasttime, it is also foolish, in the end.
Quote: kewljI support myself through legal advantage play, playing the games by the rules, but using my brain to play a winning game.
Backed-off, 86-ed, 50% penetration, lousy game rules, CSM's, and flat-betting are all casino Legal advantage plays.
Quote: kewljBut that doesn't mean I don't think for myself. Even though I make my living this way, I fully recognize there are some forms of AP that are not legit and I say so.
It isn't legit if the house doesn't consider it legit or playng by the rules - their rules. Period, end of story.
Saying something is foolish or stupid, just because you don't like it or agree with it, doesn't say much. How about offering a reason for this conclusion.
Quote: Paigowdan
As a career, it's just foolish. As a pasttime, it is also foolish, in the end.
And these people aren't career or amateur AP's - they're doctors, educators, data processing executives, film industry executives, teachers, real estate agents, and the like. Normal people who think that doing anything that may smack of theft-of-services as just unacceptable, and not what they're about as people.
And they are absolutely unfathomable to some professional gamblers.
Do you really think that many people are pros? I would have guessed that number would be much smaller. May be about 1% or less.
On the other hand, the casino has every right to address loss prevention (even though the loss opportunity is built into the game itself), and therefore I don't have issues with backing a player off, CSM's, 50% penetration, etc. I think some of these countermeasures will eventually hurt the bottom line instead of helping it, but it's still within the casino's right if they so choose.
who can play.
They have a long line of potential players and they go down
the line saying, idiot: you're ok. Moron: ditto. Clueless:
you're in. Uninformed: we love you. Big Dope: come on
in. Informed Player who Uses his Brain: Oops, nope, sorry,
move along.
The casino not only rigs all the games in their favor, they
cherry pick who can play. Or at least they try too.
Quote: PaigowdanNo, I can see how people can find fault with my views - it makes absolutely no sense to some. Some others come around and say, "yeah, I can see breaking the rules concerning loss prevention being an issue for any business." Most of the players we have come in for a clean game, don't take money they didn't legitimately win, and tell the dealer - "You overpaid me - here it is back - I didn't have a flush," etc.
And these people aren't career or amateur AP's - they're doctors, educators, data processing executives, film industry executives, teachers, real estate agents, and the like. Normal people who think that doing anything that may smack of theft-of-services as just unacceptable, and not what they're about as people.
And they are absolutely unfathomable to some professional gamblers.
Dan... I always appreciate the high morals you live by and you certainly do a great job of explaining your viewpoint. I can also understand that the casino gets to set the rules for people who want to come inside and play. Obviously, I agree that if a person is doing something underhanded it's out-of-bounds. I am not an AP and probably don't have the aptitude for it. I'm more of an EP (Entertaining Player... I enjoy a full table that's joking around and having a good time).
Now the "However". However, I am intelligent enough to notice when the house over-serves someone and lets them keep playing while they're drunk off their ass. I've seen dealers routinely point out some of the worst bets on the layouts as "smart plays". I've had dealers suggest how to tip. And so on.
We all grew up knowing that sneaking a cheat sheet into an exam was blatant cheating, but I don't believe someone with a gift of simply remembering what they read or studied is cheating in a testing situation. I'm not sure I can distinguish that kind of ability from someone who can keep track of the count. I'm not sure that using that ability is cheating. If it is considered cheating by the house it feels a little like having your cake and eating it, too.
You mentioned several legit things the house can do to "foil" AP's... 50% penetration, CSM's, lousy pay tables, etc. As somone who plays simply for enjoyment when I encounter those things I can see why people think poorly of the industry and the people who make the rules.
EDIT: I remember when Texas Hold'em Bonus first came out. They paid the Ante bet on a winning player STRAIGHT or better. I guess the house felt like they were paying out too much money because everytime I've seen it since the felt states they pay the Ante on a FLUSH or better. That's the kind of thing that makes my wife mutter, "We're not at a big enough disadvantage already?"
I think that the effort to be a card-counting Blackjack AP player is not a Holy Grail goal in gambling, and hasn't been since the 90's, when it look like this door would remain open at least somewhat, for a while. I don't think this is the case, and the effort is better spent pursuing more legitimate careers and pasttimes, such as game design or poker play, if you're in the business. I don't use "nominally legal by the state's statutes" as a basis, I use the local house rules of acceptable/unacceptable to guide my behavior, and if I don't like the house rules, I go elsewhere or play something different.
As for counting being an advantage of the game, this was NOT widely known before Edward O. Thorpe widely revealed it, and by then, the game was entrenched, and so had to be limited to "non-pro's" who wouldn't try to stomp it, to the wails and complaints of the pro's. At one time, the New York City transit system was pretty easy to defeat, fare-wise, until the advent of the MetroCard. And various "beat the system" scofflaws lamented the closing of this slug usage loophole, saying, "we were just using our BRAINS here, so why are they PUNISHING us??"
And of course Blackjack play from pro's versus gamblers cannot work on the "Honor system," - so shallow penetration, bad rules, CSM's, and the like were instituted, and example of where AP play just drives up the cost of action, and hurts table games in general.
I have designed a side bet for a shoe game for which I had an AP protection report and a "count-ability" report done. The house edge was adjusted, and it was also discussed to leave a tiny and "seldom experienced in play" counting opening - as a lure, bait if you will, for AP players as a Siren lure. Get them to say, "Wow, this is [nominally] beatable! Such a deal, everyone must play it!" We know if the side bet gets out, then Steve How of discountgambling.net may write an "attack piece" on how to properly AP-play it. Fine. So also gone are the days when a game designer designs a good game, fun to play, and gets some installs, only to receive a team attack that dumps it and gets it uninstalled and killed.
I think it's quite obvious that he needs no help defending his position.Quote: buzzpaffCome on Teddy. I admire Dan for not preaching to the choir. And he is more than capable of defending his positions. !
I just don't think this thread served any purpose, except to stir the pot and set Dan off.
Quote: WoldusDan... I always appreciate the high morals you live by and you certainly do a great job of explaining your viewpoint. I can also understand that the casino gets to set the rules for people who want to come inside and play. Obviously, I agree that if a person is doing something underhanded it's out-of-bounds. I am not an AP and probably don't have the aptitude for it. I'm more of an EP (Entertaining Player... I enjoy a full table that's joking around and having a good time).
Now the "However". However, I am intelligent enough to notice when the house over-serves someone and lets them keep playing while they're drunk off their ass. I've seen dealers routinely point out some of the worst bets on the layouts as "smart plays". I've had dealers suggest how to tip. And so on.
Thanks! And remeber, there are lot of knuckleheads in the gaming industry. But my point is is that players aren't responsible for bad dealers, but they are still responsible for their own behavior. Nobody else sets my bar level. The argument of "Little dealer or player 'Johnny' down the street is doing such-and-such - why shouldn't I?" must be resisted.
Quote: WoldusWe all grew up knowing that sneaking a cheat sheet into an exam was blatant cheating, but I don't believe someone with a gift of simply remembering what they read or studied is cheating in a testing situation. I'm not sure I can distinguish that kind of ability from someone who can keep track of the count. I'm not sure that using that ability is cheating. If it is considered cheating by the house it feels a little like having your cake and eating it, too.
There are some tips offs on its status:
1. Being told, "Sorry, Sir, you can no longer play blackjack here" is quite clear. Being Backed-off, 86-ed, flat betted, and the like are all very clear, and issued to players to let them know what "cheating" is, regardless of State rules on its legality. I'm sure there are many things that are legal which are also unacceptable in your house, as well as in mine, - regardless of the state statutes. Besides, needing to camoflage, cover, or disguise your play, or purpose for playing, indicates that something is clearly going on with that player. No need to conceal anything legit.
2. It is not "having your cake and eating it too." Casino House rules of game protection and loss prevention are in effect for all games, and for all employees and players.
Quote: WoldusYou mentioned several legit things the house can do to "foil" AP's... 50% penetration, CSM's, lousy pay tables, etc. As somone who plays simply for enjoyment when I encounter those things I can see why people think poorly of the industry and the people who make the rules.
EDIT: I remember when Texas Hold'em Bonus first came out. They paid the Ante bet on a winning player STRAIGHT or better. I guess the house felt like they were paying out too much money because everytime I've seen it since the felt states they pay the Ante on a FLUSH or better. That's the kind of thing that makes my wife mutter, "We're not at a big enough disadvantage already?"
In the case of Texas Hold 'em bonus, that was a game design or "game audience" issue. It actually has a low house edge where very fine poker players can play that game hard and well, often taking it down. I've dealt that game when it got slammed for thousands, - and I was fine with that, as it was clean expert play by the house rules, and we made our money back at other times. The quirk of that game is that the low house edge (still low with the flush or better payout) applies only to expert poker players, and is too easy to misplay as a social gambling game.
The casinos that take good action and don`t sweat the games are usually the most profitable,coincidence I think not.
Quote: Hunterhill....When they have a strong player on the game then take action....
The casinos that take good action and don`t sweat the games are usually the most profitable,coincidence I think not.
I agree. But taking good action and rejecting the action from pro's is the cause of complaint against the casinos.
I agree more with casinos using CSM's or impossibly shallow penetration, as it avoids the back-off scenes and the resulting wailing from the AP community about back-offs. The edge is the same on a CSM or shallow shoe whenever non-pro gamblers are playing, so it hurts nothing or no one, except the pro's.
CSM's and shallow penetration gets rid of the whole "double standard/why can't I play/"Where is it written"/ "- and well, it's LEGAL, you know" arguments. Expert Card counter? Sure, play on our CSM's or 50% penetration games, or go elsewhere. "Our BJ table hold is 20%+ and we plan to keep it that way" is an argument I heard from a gaming exec, and it makes fiscal sense to me.
The Golden Nugget AC Baccarat debacle shows that skimping on shuffling time or game protection is costly.
I may not always agree with Dan, but seriously....
This is just weird.
But like many others, I cannot accept labeling individuals who play within the legal confines of the game as cheaters or theives. I have always been interested in finding the correct LEGAL plays to get the house edge to a minimum or even turn it around, and if the casino offers such a game, I don't have any moral reservation about taking advantage of it.
Quote: MidwestAPFor someone who practices AP (but certainly not for a living, only recreationally), I don't at all find it galling that casino's implement countermeasures. In many cases I think it's foolish as I believe they will end up costing themselves more money than they would have lost, but if they choose to, it's their call to make business decisions.
But like many others, I cannot accept labeling individuals who play within the legal confines of the game as cheaters or theives. I have always been interested in finding the correct LEGAL plays to get the house edge to a minimum or even turn it around, and if the casino offers such a game, I don't have any moral reservation about taking advantage of it.
Your view is fine, but remember, it is not the State's "nominally legal" rules that is considered here, but the house's game protection rules of what it acceptable and what is out-of-bounds, that sets the house's action and point of view.
What an AP views himself as, and what a pit boss views him as, may be two entirely different things in terms of "acceptability." I'm sure pit bosses don't care what AP players call him, and Lord Knows casino operators have been called "parasites," "cheap bastards," "money-grubbers," - as well as "no good, lying, cheating, conniving, low-life, sacks of stinkin' money-grubbing sh-ts who should be beaten to death with metal pipes in a dark alleyway..." yada, yada, yada.
As far as AP players are concerned, either accept how you are viewed by the side you actually you think even worse about, and say even worse about them, or change your pasttime. I mean - why in the world would you even care what casino operators may view you as, IF you're going to AP...it can't be a "but I want them to LIKE me!" kind of desire....
This is aside from AP saying the very same things about the casino operators. We've heard this here.
Who said I actually think worse about them ? I just consider the source and let it go. As do many who read your and my postings.
Quote: MidwestAPFor someone who practices AP (but certainly not for a living, only recreationally), I don't at all find it galling that casino's implement countermeasures. In many cases I think it's foolish as I believe they will end up costing themselves more money than they would have lost, but if they choose to, it's their call to make business decisions.
But like many others, I cannot accept labeling individuals who play within the legal confines of the game as cheaters or theives. I have always been interested in finding the correct LEGAL plays to get the house edge to a minimum or even turn it around, and if the casino offers such a game, I don't have any moral reservation about taking advantage of it.
Anyone can call it what you like. I do seek Advantage Plays, although not very actively. There's enough of them in casinos. I'm not properly bankrolled nor do I care to go out of my way to do things like hole card, since that seems a little ridiculous. I also wouldn't want to cost some new dealer their job over a few dollars in EV.
Most of my AP is poker, and even that is hard to confirm as AP, as I could have just gotten lucky so far and never busted with my (very tiny) bankroll.
The point is - I don't think AP is immoral, so long as you don't go to extreme lengths to bend the rules while potentially costing someone their job. Count cards? Fine. (I can see why casinos would prefer to expel counters, but honestly most counters aren't a serious threat) Pretend to be drunk so you can lean over and take a peek at the hole card? Well.... good luck getting away with that. Even if you did, I feel it'd be pretty shameful.
I don't see it as theft. It's still a game of chance, that you may be playing exceptionally well. As far Dan's assumption that it's against the rules, I'd say I only agree 50/50. There is no rule or regulation against counting anywhere that I know of, however casinos should reserve the right to bar or flat bet you. Essentially, if they flat bet you, the rules they set FOR YOU are to prevent you from counting. If they bar you, you simply can't play. So if you get away with it, it's not theft, as the casino can simply stop dealing to you if they prefer. (Except in AC)
I mainly play for fun, but I prefer having games with an edge, so that hopefully there's some small benefit if variance doesn't wipe me out. But I'd rather be playing something I won't get barred for then something I will, given the choice.
You've compared this to individuals who haven't 'paid the fee' for services like movies, transit, etc. I don't think that's a fair comparison. In those industries there is a stated fee for a service ($10 per movie ticket, etc.) In the gaming industry, the casino's use the lure of 'winning money' as the bait to bring people in. And on some games (like blackjack) the 'fee', known as house edge, varies based on the skill of the player. Expecting players to play a game of skill, but only use their skills up to a certain point, while at the same time advertising the opportunity to 'win big' seems hypocritical. I'd rather have the house just tell me that my skill exceeds their ability to make money in the long term, and tell me I can't play BJ anymore. I'd hold nothing against them as that seems like a sound business decision, and I'd hope they would hold nothing against me in case I had occasion to visit again for other activities.
Compare this to a carnival (not the casino carnival games). There is a game where if an individual can toss a softball into a bushel basket, they win a large stuffed animal. For the sake of this comparison, let's assume the cost of the stuffed animal exceeds the fee to play this game. I wouldn't call the few individuals who can 'beat the game' with legal throws as cheaters or theives, only as very skilled players. At the same time the carnival has the right to limit their wins or stop them from playing if they find themselves at a disadvantage.
In both business situations, the operators are luring in customers with the opportunity to go home with something in greater value than what they came with. Both offer games of skill. And in both cases, I can't fault a skilled player for taking legal advantage of it, and don't fault the business from trying to use legal game protection.
Quote: MidwestAPDan - I guess I look at it a little different. I don't like the social implication of being called a cheat or a theif by anyone as I am not even close by any legal definition. At the same time, I don't hold any resentment to casino operators who back off players, use CSM's, use poor penetration, or other techniques to counter the very skilled player. If that's the business decision, it's their business to run as they see fit, as long it doesn't violate any laws (just as the card counters can do)
You've compared this to individuals who haven't 'paid the fee' for services like movies, transit, etc. I don't think that's a fair comparison. In those industries there is a stated fee for a service ($10 per movie ticket, etc.) In the gaming industry, the casino's use the lure of 'winning money' as the bait to bring people in. And on some games (like blackjack) the 'fee', known as house edge, varies based on the skill of the player. Expecting players to play a game of skill, but only use their skills up to a certain point, while at the same time advertising the opportunity to 'win big' seems hypocritical. I'd rather have the house just tell me that my skill exceeds their ability to make money in the long term, and tell me I can't play BJ anymore. I'd hold nothing against them as that seems like a sound business decision, and I'd hope they would hold nothing against me in case I had occasion to visit again for other activities.
Compare this to a carnival (not the casino carnival games). There is a game where if an individual can toss a softball into a bushel basket, they win a large stuffed animal. For the sake of this comparison, let's assume the cost of the stuffed animal exceeds the fee to play this game. I wouldn't call the few individuals who can 'beat the game' with legal throws as cheaters or theives, only as very skilled players. At the same time the carnival has the right to limit their wins or stop them from playing if they find themselves at a disadvantage.
In both business situations, the operators are luring in customers with the opportunity to go home with something in greater value than what they came with. Both offer games of skill. And in both cases, I can't fault a skilled player for taking legal advantage of it, and don't fault the business from trying to use legal game protection.
That carnival analogy is pretty good.
My whole beef in Nevada is they offer a game to the public and do not allow some players and allow others.
It would fair to all if they made the game unbeatable and the squares would still play. Pay even money on blackjack. Make it fair for all.
Just like slots with a 5% hold. Square bet for entertainment or whatever they think....ha ha ha
Carefull what you wish for.Quote: bigpete88... Pay even money on blackjack.
25¢ ante 3:2 Blackjack seems to be gaining a stronghold. Cetainly 6:5 is doing well. Ugh.
I hear what you're saying but I just do not like things that I do not think are fair. Like barring AP and allowing squares.
I do think the Casino's will try to get away with 6-5 blackjack if they can. I would too if I were a "Suit".
They used to call me the Tax Man as I would also charge what I could.....just business. The only thing is I did not use the Trespassing Act and treated everyone the same.
Even Sheriff Face and Deputy Dan will welcome your action.
I think a pretty good arguement can be made that some of the lengths casino's go to to protect against AP may very well cost them more than they would save. But as long as it's legal, it's their right to make those type of business decisions.
Quote: buzzpaffSometimes I think Dan thinks we do not realize that if BJ lost money for the house, it, not the players, would be 86'd.
Yes I do, Clearly.
If the business operates at a loss, it defaults on its business obligations and its property mortgage/rent, and is itself 86-ed. When push comes comes to shove, decisions are made.
Blackjack, as it is now, is the lowest table-hold percentage game on a consistent basis, is sometimes barely profitable, and is why other games are there.
I've literally been at monthly meetings (happened a years ago), where I have heard the DTG (Director of table games) make a decision and say,
"The 3:2 BJ and $5 double deck BJ games are letting the fleas and grinders bleed the house, and it's getting to the point where it's gonna be us or them hitting the streets."
At that point we brought in the 24/7 CSM game (that is still there to this day), all single decks went 6:5 (still here to this day), and $15 minimum double-deck for 3:2, and 86-ed and backed off many "grinders," as did many other casinos. The director felt then that we just didn't need to provide "welfare office" BJ games, and they, and the grinders they brought, went out the door. This was 2007 or so. It was a business decision, done without apology, and certain game offerings were then simply burried with a "Sorry, this business" decision. People played the CSM and 6:5 or $15 minimums, or else played Roulette, craps, or pai Gow. Table game business and drop increased, and the few people who complained were not missed, or were told to try their luck elsewhere on what they could find. Very quietly, we felt that the AP's were now forced to lie in a bed that they themselves made, and which was no longer offered in our hotel casino on premises any longer.
No one was 86-ed directly by this decision, as they were forced to 86 themselves, or play what was afforded to be offered.
ignorant and not stupid !
Quote: buzzpaffSometimes I think Dan thinks we do not realize that if BJ lost money for the house, it, not the players, would be 86'd.
As it will the minute they stop 86'ing players. It's a choice between getting rid of the most popular game among legitimate gamblers and adding a rule that some people insist doesn't or shouldn't exist, even knowing damn well it's there and has been for decades.
Quote: 24BingoAs it will the minute they stop 86'ing players. It's a choice between getting rid of the most popular game among legitimate gamblers and adding a rule that some people insist doesn't or shouldn't exist, even knowing damn well it's there and has been for decades.
97% of players can't count, and don't spread bets with the count accurately.
So now, who would really be lost to the game? It would still remain the most popular game with 97% of the non-pro players, losing only the threats to the house.
And Blackjack's AP/counting popularity is no longer overwhelming in mature markets; if we consider craps, roulette, pai gow, Baccarat, and poker based games such as Ultimate Texas Hold 'em and 3CP, - (along with non-AP Blackjack play to include 6:5 and CSM's), the casino table games pit would NOT disappear if AP Blackjack diappeared.
