The future or end of AP Play?

Quote: Paigowdan

All, or almost all Business have written documents generally called Internal Controls, which supervisors and managers follow and implement. In the cases of casinos, floor supervisors and above follow and implement these controls for table games, with items covering Advantage Play to include handling card counters. Likewise, in the food service side of the casino, the food service manager or Buffet Manager has guidelines to prevent patrons from sneaking in additional guests, or handling people who pack their own doggie or "take-out bags" of Buffet food using Tupperware containers. Customers who violate these controls are considered to have committed "Theft of Services" - stealing or cheating from our point of view, if you will. Now, since these Internal Control documents and procedures are not a part of the State Legislature or State Law, these "theft of services" acts may be legal - the offender gets no arrest or jail time - but at the same time we may also legally use our business guidelines to deny entrance or access to services for anyone who violates our Internal Controls, especially when it concerns Loss Prevention. Somebody sneaking in extra guests may be escorted out of the buffet or premises, and someone who counts cards may be escorted out of the casino or premises. All legal, and for all parties concerned.


No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that there are Internal controls in place to stem losses on the basis of valid Loss Prevention guidelines for the business. And customers don't have "to guess at" that whatever they may be doing is wrong. If they do something, anything, with thought and intention that scams the house, - carries out theft of services - then the premise is that they knew what they were doing along! (And they cannot respond with, "Okay - Now SHOW me were it is written THAT I cannot commit theft of services in such a way!") All the business has to do is show you the door. This is particularly true with card counting, which has extensive practices on camoflage and deception against casino personnel, along with its base method of mathematical counting that is very deliberate and elaborate.
And to use more polite language, we can refer to someone who took a shot at the Buffet as "committing theft of services" instead of stealing food, and the same can be said in the casino pit: a card counter or cheater or anyone who breaks the "house rules' - "Loss Prevention Guidelines" - as committing Theft of Services instead, if that sounds better, regardless of how it is viewed by state law, as the law also allows for expulsion of those who commit theft of services.
Now since the house edges on tables games are required by gaming law (a game's house edge is a part of game characteristics for gaming, although blackjack may clearly predate the Gaming Commission in that case), house edges must be defended by the Loss Prevention Protocol of a casino business. Anything the breaches the House edge (capping and pinching bets, marking cards, hole carding, and yes, even card counting can destroy a casino's house edge on a game), is considered "theft of services" against the business, with the right of expulsion, regardless of its legal status by the state.

This is an extremely long-winded way of saying that the casino has the right to kick you out if they don't like the way that you are playing, whether or not you are breaking any publicized rules. I agree.

That doesn't make it cheating, though.

Quote: thecesspit

Okay, where is it written you can track the cards in bridge?

Absolutely Everywhere. In every Bridge text book on play that I have ever read the topic of discards is discussed in detail, - along with the reading of subtle clues in the bidding sequence of the game, and the complex bidding systems to help decern player holdings that are used as well, when discussing the bidding process.

Every single piece of available information in an active game of bridge can be used to determine what each player is holding from all clues and information provided, - just short of reaching over to another player an pulling his hand back to see his cards. This is how proper bridge is supposed to be played - a game of clues and discernment.

But unfortunately, Contract Bridge has a completely different premise than Casino Blackjack, with completely different game rules, - and completely different house rules. If you are at a Bridge club, and mentioned that you blew a few hands because of poor tracking of discards, you'll be told to go home and practice up on the tracking of the discards - just like at a card-counting seminar. And learning to track discards at a Bridge seminar will get you applause and salutes from the Bridge club manager.

But the problem is that the Blackjack card-counting seminars, and the learning to count Blackjack, is that it is learning to commit an act of "Theft of Services" - not against a bridge team, but against a casino house - which is against a recognize business establishment, and NOT against a fellow bridge or poker player, - that's different.

For this reason, Casinos may expel a card-counting player off of the property on the basis of theft of services, - and they do that ALL THE TIME. And they have a legal right to do this. This is actually the case in today's casino world.
In cases where it the player may always stay and play if not drunk or disorderly, then you're looking at a CSM, or a 50% penetration shoe, with lousy rules - and in those casinos, the AP Apocalypse has already happened.

I think the door is closing on AP play. +EV play may disappear. Just as it has gotten harder to use counterfeit transit passes for free rides, or sneak extra people into Buffets, it is also getting harder to go mathematically +EV against casinos.

This gets back to the topic of "what are we AP-er's going to do when the Kingdom is over?"
I should have added Bridge to the list.
I heard a shift manager add - "Get a real job." That was cold.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Quote: Paigowdan

.......What I am saying is that there are Internal controls in place to stem losses on the basis of valid Loss Prevention guidelines for the business... This is particularly true with card counting, which has extensive practices on camoflage and deception against casino personnel, along with its base method of mathematical counting that is very deliberate and elaborate.....

This is an extremely long-winded way of saying that the casino has the right to kick you out if they don't like the way that you are playing, whether or not you are breaking any publicized rules. I agree.

That doesn't make it cheating, though.

1. It was long winded, but it was clear and detailed on a complicated issue. My Point of view (which is shared by casino execs - "the game protection of the house edge") is hard for some gamblers to accept, respect, or understand. I know this. I wanted it very atomized, - as only tiny fragments of shrapnel can be recieved by some souls.
2. I wouldn't worry about the nomenclature, and meant nothing personal to anyone; even Theft of Services is rough, but that's how it is viewed when a customer breaks the house rules or loss prevention rules for a grab at some ill-gotten cash against a business establishment. Every business has these guidelines, but only gaming has a whole Advantage Play population fanbase. Indeed, the anti-casino operator fanbase is actually an entire industry of AP play: books, websites, game protection consultants, seminars, - and forums.

You scare the crap out of me sometimes, Dan... It has to do with your gung-ho fixation on "clamping down on those evil doers" attitude. Seems to me that if the casinos could have themselves enough Dan clones, they would be emptier than they are becoming now due to competition and the proliferation of casinos in recent years. The Dan clones would scare off anyone left frequenting casinos using gestapo tactics to "rough up" anyone that wins sort of thing. You are not exactly a "live and let live" sort of guy, let's face it. Do you fret at night over the thought of someone getting a dollar more than they SHOULD have got? If they brought back that old series, "The Twilight Zone" I have an excellent idea for an episode, that's for sure!

Quote: Paigowdan

I think the door is closing on AP play. +EV play may disappear.

Yes, some time before or after wars, poverty, recreational drugs, taxes and gambling do.

The door has been closing on AP play for longer than most people here have been alive. It just moved from white-hat areas like card counting and into more advanced techniques, games other than BJ, and loss rebate abuse.

Quote: Paigowdan

I think the door is closing on AP play. +EV play may disappear. Just as it has gotten harder to use counterfeit transit passes for free rides, or sneak extra people into Buffets, it is also getting harder to go mathematically +EV against casinos.

Keep dreaming. It's getting easier. All the time, there are new carnie games that the casino doesn't really understand, and more excessively countable side bets. These things are increasing, not decreasing.

Actually, allow me to rephrase.

It's not really "easier". There are just more opportunities. It used to be that you could just learn to count cards at blackjack, and that was it. Now you need to keep your eyes open. Maybe you will see an opportunity that you haven't read about. You need to be able to do some ballpark analysis on the fly, and play with an edge from what you are given. In other words, you need to be smart.

Going to be a lot more empty blackjack tables if enough people give much heed to what Dan is saying. Dealers standing there twiddling their thumbs and watching the television screens around them means shutting down tables eventually... a sea of empty blackjack pits... as far as the eye can see... it's not like the casinos are too loyal to their dealers to cut them loose and send them to the unemployment line, either. Be careful what you wish for, Dan.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

It's getting easier. All the time, there are new carnie games that the casino doesn't really understand, and more excessively countable side bets. These things are increasing, not decreasing.

Axiom, while you pointed some good things, take note of kewlj's post. His BJ counting income dropped drastically, and he too had turned to other sources such as side games and side bets.
Side bets ARE increasing, but so is the game protection and design of these side bets. This is because we know you are there.
I have a Baccarat side bet with a distributor, and while I designed this side bet as a "Pure Baccarat type side bet for Baccarat," I also worked on making it uncountable by adding some suit criteria, and by adjusting the house edges on some paytables, - and with the Baccarat shoe going out to 400 cards of its 416 card shoe. I used an excellent mathematician who is himself exceedingly AP knowledgeable. We ran separate reports and simulations to know for sure that it was mathematically safe from counting. And I am not the only game designer doing this.

Quote: Axionofchoice

Keep dreaming.

No - keep working instead. Let me explain:
I can assure you that all new carnie games and side bets being considered for real casino installation undergo game protection and AP review now. I mean everyone from the original designer, to the distributor, to gaming approval boards, to cut out AP attacks on games considered for placement.
I have shown the math reports - including the "AP Analysis Reports" - to distributors and casino executives as part of the game kit. They were impressed.

The math reports calculate the effect of card removals on the mathematical house edge, showing which card removals move the game's base HE away from it's "infinite deck" house edge, and in which direction: towards a player's advantage, or towards an increased house edge. Then, if the game needs to be adjusted ("adding suit criteria," "increasing the house edge by lowering the payout tables," etc.), then these game's parameters get adjusted, to include adjusting the paytables to include suit criteria, or lowering the paytable's specificly vulnerable payline items, etc.

When the final game design or side bet design is now properly tailored, simulation runs will substatiate that a player's edge is now unobtainable, or so ridiculously rare (so many deviations), that it is impossible to count.

The same mathematical methods used to show when and how a game is countable - are now being used to design AP-proof games. The new game is AP-proof and count-proof as of its very first install. This is a fairly recent trend in game design, but I assure you, it is here now.

So I will say that I, too, am helping to close the door on AP play to help this industry in the real world.

Do these calculations assume the dealer's hole cards are face up?

Quote: IvanYerkanoff

Going to be a lot more empty blackjack tables if enough people give much heed to what Dan is saying. Dealers standing there twiddling their thumbs and watching the television screens around them means shutting down tables eventually... a sea of empty blackjack pits... as far as the eye can see... it's not like the casinos are too loyal to their dealers to cut them loose and send them to the unemployment line, either. Be careful what you wish for, Dan.

I think not that much.
1. The vast majority of casino patrons aren't on BJ, but are now on other games: Pai Gow Poker, Three Card Poker, Ultimate Texas Hold, slots, etc.
2. The vast majority of Blackjack players are not AP players, so only the Blackjack AP Players will be lost, which is not a great loss for the casino, as they were attacking the casino anyway. To look at it in an unkind way, it is like using an antibiotic where only the parasites go away.

Let's say that 5% of the players go away from BJ, assuming 5% of the players were counters, and they left for good, instead playing other games or slots. As a pit boss, I'd rather lose 5% of my blackjack players, (which represents losing only 2% of the total pit players) - and have a more trouble-free pit, then adding 2% of the "players" back into the pit, only to have 50% more trouble and loss prevention issues in the pit.

3. Many AP players will still play "safe BJ games," if there is also a gambler inside of them. They'll just now be playing in accordance with the house rules (within loss prevention guidelines), and so will never have an altercation with a pit boss, be backed off, or thrown out. But an AP ejection scene looks like an ugly scene to every player in the casino, and it will be a thing of the past. AP players will now play without paranoia or of the pit personnel of the pit phone ringing, a big adjustment to them.

Quote: Paigowdan

1. The vast majority of casino patrons aren't on BJ, but are now on other games: Pai Gow Poker, Three Card Poker, Ultimate Texas Hold, slots, etc.

Same as where modern AP is moving.

Quote: Paigowdan

3. Many AP players will still play "safe BJ games," if there is also a gambler inside of them.

Online for 1 cent a hand probably. Yes, you can. Gambling is moving online as it is.

Of course there's plenty more of AP opportunities online already... Live deck games, comp points exceeding theo for a BS player, all that. Just have to weigh it against the risk of being stiffed.

Quote: Paigowdan

Axiom, while you pointed some good things, take note of kewlj's post. His BJ counting income dropped drastically, and he too had turned to other sources such as side games and side bets

Sure, there are better sources than counting BJ. So what? That doesn't mean that AP opportunities are disappearing, it means that they are evolving. This is probably not good for the casinos. It's moving from something that they understand (counting blackjack) to something that they don't.

Quote: Paigowdan

Side bets ARE increasing, but so is the game protection and design of these side bets. This is because we know you are there.
I have a Baccarat side bet with a distributor, and while I designed this side bet as a "Pure Baccarat type side bet for Baccarat," I also worked on making it uncountable by adding some suit criteria, and by adjusting the house edges on some paytables, - and with the Baccarat shoe going out to 400 cards of its 416 card shoe. I used an excellent mathematician who is himself exceedingly AP knowledgeable. We ran separate reports and simulations to know for sure that it was mathematically safe from counting. And I am not the only game designer doing this.

For the side bets that are out there right now, most are countable. The best that they can seem to do is make the variance so high that the bankroll requirements are too high for it to be a realistic full time job (ie, you would not make enough money to justify the bankroll required). A recreational player can still play with an edge, though.

Quote: Paigowdan

No - keep working instead. Let me explain:
I can assure you that all new carnie games and side bets being considered for real casino installation undergo game protection and AP review now. I mean everyone from the original designer, to the distributor, to gaming approval boards, to cut out AP attacks on games considered for placement.

I believe that. But, regardless:

1. There is more to AP than counting cards
2. Games (even those recently installed) have significant AP opportunities.
3. Protection seems to come only after attacks are well-known and beaten to death. Everything I see is reactive, not proactive. Sure, now, lots of places leave the dealers 3CP hand in the shuffler until the players have acted. How long did that change take after the effects of dealers flashing 3CP was well-known publicly? Imagine how much longer it was known to just a few. Meanwhile, they are flashing cards in other games which give a much higher edge. The incompetence is hilarious.

Quote: Paigowdan

I have shown the math reports - including the "AP Analysis Reports" - to distributors and casino executives as part of the game kit. They were impressed.

The math reports calculate the effect of card removals on the mathematical house edge, showing which card removals move the game's base HE away from it's "infinite deck" house edge, and in which direction: towards a player's advantage, or towards an increased house edge. Then, if the game needs to be adjusted ("adding suit criteria," "increasing the house edge by lowering the payout tables," etc.), then these game's parameters get adjusted, to include adjusting the paytables to include suit criteria, or lowering the paytable's specificly vulnerable payline items, etc.

When the final game design or side bet design is now properly tailored, simulation runs will substatiate that a player's edge is now unobtainable, or so ridiculously rare (so many deviations), that it is impossible to count.

The same mathematical methods used to show when and how a game is countable - are now being used to design AP-proof games. The new game is AP-proof and count-proof as of its very first install. This is a fairly recent trend in game design, but I assure you, it is here now.

So I will say that I, too, am helping to close the door on AP play to help this industry in the real world.

Sounds like you are making the game so bad that ploppies won't play it either.

One day the casinos are all gonna be standing around wondering why they have few patrons and their doors are about to close. I wonder if they will figure out its because they offer such crappy games people don't even want to play anymore.

Quote: rainman

One day the casinos are all gonna be standing around wondering why they have few patrons and their doors are about to close. I wonder if they will figure out its because they offer such crappy games people don't even want to play anymore.

Even though the primary reason is greed from the very top positions expecting profits to increase year after year, another issue is the rising costs for base operations. As wages and other expenses go up, you have to remember that casinos aren't really "selling" anything. While Burger King can increase the price of a burger as costs increase to make up the difference, what can the casinos do other than implement rules that increase their edge on their games? They can bump up the prices for food and liquor, but most people expect those to be discounted (or free) anyway when they are playing.

I'm just sayin' it's not all due to AP play. Expect the same to happen in a year when they have to figure out how to cover the cost of offering health insurance for all their employees. It's not like they are going to chop their own CEO-type salaries, nor will the investors be content with a smaller return. (I'm not trying to hijack this conversation with anything political, just giving another reason why the games are getting worse, so don't go crazy AZDuffman/EvenBob/P90). :)

Quote: rainman

I wonder if they will figure out its because they offer such crappy games people don't even want to play anymore.

Crappy? What do you mean crappy, when our latest installment, Chi Shi Joker, combines elements of more than TWELVE different games, offers TWENTY FOUR side bets with HA starting as low as 19.95% counting draws, which happen four out of five times for a comfortable pace, has a maximum aggregate payout of almost TWO HUNDRED dollars per table, and is 100% GUARANTEED not countable?

Quote: IvanYerkanoff

You scare the crap out of me sometimes, Dan...

I'm really a very frendly and handsome guy, who makes interesting observations - with some predictions in the gaming business that are scary only to a very few: Blackjack Card counters/AP players.

Quote: Ivan

It has to do with your gung-ho fixation on "clamping down on those evil doers" attitude.

I stated in the very first post of this thread that I generally consider the card counters the very best of the group of people who do attack casino operating income. This is not gung-ho, and I am not gung-ho. I view this only as a gaming business/industry idea and proposal. I am simply very thorough and detailed on specifics, though. And it is scary because I am viewing card counting as a loss prevention and overhead issue for casino operators which would impact only the AP players cause loss/theft of services, - while having no real other effects. You've got to admit, 90% of Blackjack players don't count - and basically flat bet, anyway. This is what I've seen for years, this is what we've all seen at casinos. The casinos might think of it as both loss reduction, and removing a few undesirables who cause that loss. It might make sense to them. Now THAT is the scary part!

Quote: Ivan

Seems to me that if the casinos could have themselves enough Dan clones, they would be emptier than they are becoming now due to competition and the proliferation of casinos in recent years.

The opposite would happen. I draw people in, as I am considered one of the most friendly and inviting dealers at my place. People come to play at my table, and I know them all by first name. I deal only Poker side games, Pai Gow Poker and Craps, as that is all they assign me. Yet I do not put up with shot takers, and they generally need me for dice, Poker games, and Pai Gow Poker. And if you think I am lying, another member of this forum works with me on my shift crew. Seriously.

Quote: Ivan

The Dan clones would scare off anyone left frequenting casinos using gestapo tactics to "rough up" anyone that wins sort of thing.

I love it when people win, I really do. And it really shows. Yesterday I got an Facebook message from one of our players who won a Royal on my EZ Pai Gow game at work. I can forward this to you if needed, or to a third party at the forum or the administrator, to substantiate this.
She hit a Royal on a Pai Gow table of my game design - with a big bet, and she took down a small fortune. She was so happy she won on my game she PM-ed. I kept the message. And I was very happy that not only she won, but she won it on my EZ Pai Gow game. She's running around telling other Pai Gow players "EZ Pai Gow made me a WINNER!" I could have hugged and kissed her!
Now, Ivan, let me ask you:
1. How many players like their dealers so much, that they email them joyous news! - VERY few indeed.
2. How many game designers LIKE to hear about the winners that their table installs get! One - me, it's fine with me.

You see, I like it When one wins cleanly. Good for the Winner! I never had a problem with a clean winner, and I have always stated that. As an industry worker, I know a win is a loan, a part of the gamble give and take, and I love that aspect about the business. I also report to casino pit supervision on people who try to scam the system, - and I let THEM handle it.

Quote: Ivan

You are not exactly a "live and let live" sort of guy, let's face it.

You obviously don't know me. Happily married Zen master, respected by my casino, my distributor, my players, not troubled what others do or think, so as long as my wife is fine with me, and that I have money in the bank. Life is goood. I'm being to think that my ideas and views are the things scary to many members at this board, and that a Dr. Frankenstein image appears to those my views happen to scare.

Quote: Ivan

Do you fret at night over the thought of someone getting a dollar more than they SHOULD have got?

On the nights I'm not working, I'm usually out with my wife for a dinner and a show, or gambling (UTH, Craps, Three Card, and EZ Pai Gow Poker). I've been off recently because of a pinched nerve in my shoulder, so I'm chatting here.
And No, not at all do I fret at night over the thought of someone getting a dollar more than they SHOULDN'T have got, as I don't spend a second worrying about anyone else's bank account. (Should I?) Like I said, I report to casino pit supervision on people who try to scam the system, - and I let THEM handle it. I've done my job.
Casino cheats and (separately) AP Players are running around town, often getting away with amazing ill-gotten wins. This doesn't bother me. Why?
I'm a not cop, I'm a designer, an Idea man.
I bring forth designs, schematics, ideas, points of view, argument, debates, and the like. I love it.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

For the side bets that are out there right now, most are countable.

Yes, and some of them will be replaced with better, more well designed side bets.

Quote: Axiom

[Dan]I can assure you that all new carnie games and side bets being considered for real casino installation undergo game protection and AP review now. I mean everyone from the original designer, to the distributor, to gaming approval boards, to cut out AP attacks on games considered for placement

Axion:I believe that. But, regardless:

1. There is more to AP than counting cards
2. Games (even those recently installed) have significant AP opportunities.
3. Protection seems to come only after attacks are well-known and beaten to death. Everything I see is reactive, not proactive. Sure, now, lots of places leave the dealers 3CP hand in the shuffler until the players have acted. How long did that change take after the effects of dealers flashing 3CP was well-known publicly? Imagine how much longer it was known to just a few. Meanwhile, they are flashing cards in other games which give a much higher edge. The incompetence is hilarious.

#1: I see are opportunities in many places also. But it will be harder and harder as we go forward.
On #2, new games with opportunities: weaker new games are getting less frequently installed, and new games leave as fast as they come, espescially if they have table-Hold problems due to AP play. I look at this as an opportunity, designing games that are AP resistant. Having both a casino pit and math background, and access to a great mathematician, it makes it easier to design a robust game that are fair to play. Not every protection put into a game affects the house edge, or if it does, it can be addressed gently and competitvely.

On #3: Incompetence and Reactive postures of casinos. That's always been there, and is the reason for the large pool of AP players. What I am saying that the tide is swinging the other way now. The new games offered now have better game protection design in from scratch, and they will be swaping out currently installed games with weaknesses.

Quote: Axiom

[Dan:I have shown the math reports - including the "AP Analysis Reports" - to distributors and casino executives as part of the game kit. They were impressed.

Sounds like you are making the game so bad that ploppies won't play it either.

No. Game design of fair play and of excitement is the first criterion, and games can be designed with both uncountable criteria and play mechanisms, or with countable criteria and mechanisms which are addressed with without killing the house edge.

I only had the time to quickly scan, the thread, but a few things occur to me:

Is there any other game or contest where the use of one's brain is considered against the rules? I can't think of any- can anyone else?

If a casino offered the "red-black-joker" game, a 6-shoe game where the player bet on red, black, or the long-shot joker, if you believe card-counting in blackjack is wrong, would you also say varying your bet in this game would also be wrong, even though it's obvious to most people who would play it to do so?

We all know he'll just wiggle out by saying some sort of "only if Great H-USE doesn't want you to". So let's jump to it - if the house doesn't want you to remember, don't! Be a good boy and bet on joker even after you saw all 6 go out the last three hands.

Quote: TheBigPaybak

I only had the time to quickly scan, the thread, but a few things occur to me:

Is there any other game or contest where the use of one's brain is considered against the rules? I can't think of any- can anyone else?

Yes, and it involves "Proposition bets," as well as the other casino games where multiple rounds also are pulled from a shoe type card dispenser: Baccarat side bets, and number of separate and different side bets for BJ (Lucky Ladies, etc.) There are web sites devoted to this, and they list them. People have been backed off from them also.

In fact, just about any game which pulls multiple rounds from card deck source is countable - as there are almost always different combinations that favor the player or the opponent, and consideration in design must always be applied to answer this effect.

Quite often prop bets encounter situations where clever solutions that were not specificly excluded or anticipated before the bet was made.
One example from our group a while ago: a prop bet was offered that, at a quiet stop sign intersection, that the next car coming to the stop sign would perform a "California stop," and actually roll on through without legitimately obeying the stop sign 100%, more like a yield action. The two parties made the bet, and the one who betted that the car would fully stop simply crossed the street in the crosswalk, - forcing the car to stop. She declared "I win." The other bettor declared "invalid - no action on this bet! You had interfered!" Now, there was no upfront stipulation going into that prop bet that prohibited any participant from using her brain - and without any physical contact with the car in the situation. The lady winner balked at this, but the other party mentioned that there was an implicit "house rule" that was never told to her, that NO interference from any party may be involved, and that came into effect, - canceling her win.

Quote: TheBigPaybak

If a casino offered the "red-black-joker" game, a 6-shoe game where the player bet on red, black, or the long-shot joker, if you believe card-counting in blackjack is wrong, would you also say varying your bet in this game would also be wrong, even though it's obvious to most people who would play it to do so?

No, if the raising and lowering of your bets did NOT occur in sync with the count.
The way a counter is spotted is to observe play: on a countable game, if the player's bets rise and fall in unison with the count, he's counting. If a player's bet rises and falls randomly, unrelated to the count, he is not counting. At a casino an observing floorman or the surveillance department makes a call on a suspected card counter from watching play, and takes action on it.

Quote: Paigowdan

Yes, the other various casino games where multiple rounds also are pulled from a shoe type card dispenser: Baccarat side bets, and number of separate and different side bets for BJ (Lucky Ladies, etc.) There are web sites devoted to this, and they list them. People have been backed off from them also.

In fact, just about any game which pulls multiple rounds from card deck source is countable - as there are almost always different combinations that favor the player or the opponent, and consideration in design must always be applied to answer this effect.

Quite often prop bets encounter situations where clever solutions that were not specificly excluded or anticipated before the bet was made.
One example from our group a while ago: a prop bet was offered that, at a quiet stop sign intersection, that the next car coming to the stop sign would perform a "California stop," and actually roll on through without legitimately obeying the stop sign 100%, more like a yield action. The two parties made the bet, and the one who betted that the car would fully stop simply crossed the street in the crosswalk, - forcing the car to stop. She declared "I win." The other bettor declared "invalid - no action on this bet! You had interfered!" Now, there was no upfront stipulation going into that prop bet that prohibited any participant from using her brain - and without any physical contact with the car in the situation. The lady winner balked at this, but the other party mentioned that there was an implicit "house rule" that was never told to her, that NO interference from any party may be involved, and that came into effect, - canceling her win.

I probably should have been more clear and wrote:
>>>
Is there any other game or contest *outside the casino* where the use of one's brain is considered against the rules? I can't think of any- can anyone else?
<<<

Any sporting events, board games, other hobbies? Casino gaming seems unique in this respect, in some regards.

Quote: Paigowdan

No, if the raising and lowering of your bets did NOT occur in sync with the count.

That goes against common sense though: if you saw all 6 jokers come out, why would you bet them? In other words, how can you ignore the past history, and still play the game with a straight face?

I dare not voice my suggestions, especially since I'm pretty sure Dan is not that kind of guy, but I think there is a method.

Quote: TheBigPaybak

That goes against common sense though: if you saw all 6 jokers come out, why would you bet them? In other words, how can you ignore the past history, and still play the game with a straight face?

You can't always, but then of course 6 jokers coming out off the top from a six deck shoe would be so rare, that the casino would not worry about a one-in-every One Billionth round opportunity where the shoe may get "hot" for the player. Many casino games that are slightly countable are actually unrealistically countable, because opportunities come along so rarely, that a counter cannot hang by the table for 12 dead hours at a time waiting to strike for a 5-minute window of opportunity, and still hope of make advantageous money. However, unprotected blackjack has many more and frequent opportunities.

Players ignore past history on blackjack shoe games when they are not counting, that is tracking, every thing that comes out.
Many players don't know how to count, so they don't track anything, they just play the current hand as it is without concerning themselves with tallying up any discard information at all.

Note: I did included a actual prop bet scenario outside of the casino to illustrate that there are examples of that, also. Another good example was in a game show, where an obessed fan (Michael Larsen) of the game show "Press Your Luck" discovered a pattern to the winning and losing sequences of the flashing awards, and so he knew exactly when to press his "answer" button at his contestant podium, if he ever got on that show, to never receive a "Whammy." He audition for that show, got on, and made a such a fortune on it that it became obvious that he was counting the sequences, also discussed at this forum. See Press your luck.

Quote: P90

I dare not voice my suggestions, especially since I'm pretty sure Dan is not that kind of guy, but I think there is a method.

Feel free, this is a discussion, welcome.

Quote: brianparkes

The one argument that I think Dan is forgetting is that card counting is technically "illegal". The gaming commission's stipulate that if you are using a device to track the count, it is illegal. Without that proof, there is no way to prosecute since the player could always claim that it was only a coincidence that their wagers fluctuated with the change in the count.

100% false information here. This is absolute non-sense. The casino industry may consider card counting illegal, but here in Nevada every single time any court has had the opportunity to rule whether card counting was illegal, they have failed to do so, in fact, each time, going out of their way to declare it not illegal. Explain to me how you are going to prosecute an activity that the Nevada Supreme Court has said is not illegal. But, I hope you go for it. I can use the settlement money. I am sure Mr N would be licking his chops.

Sounds like you are trying to say that a court has ruled the brain as a 'device' and thinking as an illegal activity. No such ruling and just stop and consider that for a moment. No court would ever rule that way.

I find it hard to believe the gaming commission would rule the brain as a device as well. It would go against the precedent already set by every court in Nevada including the Nevada Supreme court. If you can show me where it is written that the gaming commission considers a person's brain a device, again, I am sure attorney Bob N would be extremely interested. lol

For what it's worth, you mentioned that you enjoy the cat and mouse game. I, myself don't really enjoy the cat and mouse game, but am forced to play it. A part of the game I find interesting, but rarely discussed is respect. I play often at the same rotation of games in Vegas. I try to spread it out and play different shifts, days, and times, but I still see the same faces in the pit too often. Because I play at a moderate level and play very short sessions, sometimes as short as 10 minutes, rarely longer than 30, I feel like they often look the other way. I see the look of recognition when I sit down often, but rarely have any problems. I don't play high limits. I don't spread some ridiculous spread. I don't stay for hours. I feel like they respect the fact that I am just going to play a few minutes at a moderate level and leave win lose or draw. No real problems. I categorize it as respect, but often think maybe it's just the path of less resistance. The easier way out for them, if you will. Do nothing and the problem will take care of itself in short order. Either way it works for me. :)

deleted

For Brian,
Yes, the use of electronic devices in an attempt to beat a money game is illegal, no matter what counting or method it is applied to, and for slots and table games. Pure Card counting is legal, and back offs or ejections for card counting are also legal.

As a dealer, we always tell everyone at a table using a cell phone or device that "no electronics are allowed at the table."

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Damn I missed a lot while sleeping. Anyway to answer Dans poll question, if there were absolutely no AP opportunities in a casino, I wouldn't play period. The only reason I play VP where I do is because cashback + comp bring the expected payback over 100% which in turn makes it advantage play. But even if this dried up, I'd quit that too.

As for card counting. I do that about once a week or so. The EV is just way to small compared to other games.

This is key. The question I had was "are there gamblers who would play ONLY IF EVERY SINGLE play opportunity was +EV for them, of if they can make it so, regardless of rules." The answer: yes, some.

Most gamblers are fine with a slight house edge, but only a slight house edge, knowing that there would be NO casinos around if it were not profitable to offer them. A positive EV demand every time from a gambler is the expectation of "I won't do it unless it is in my favor every time - NOT yours," and is a scenario where no other entity would take you up. Casinos and gambling halls wouldn't exit if every player essentially demanded "free money for the action" every time.

Regular gamblers basically accept a small HE as the cost of admissions, - which is it, to make this all possible - and operate on the basis that it is fairly equal at -1% or -2%, and makes the action worthwhile.

Quote: Paigowdan

You can't always, but then of course 6 jokers coming out off the top from a six deck shoe would be so rare, that the casino would not worry about a one-in-every One Billionth round opportunity where the shoe may get "hot" for the player. Many casino games that are slightly countable are actually unrealistically countable, because opportunities come along so rarely, that a counter cannot hang by the table for 12 dead hours at a time waiting to strike for a 5-minute window of opportunity, and still hope of make advantageous money. However, unprotected blackjack has many more and frequent opportunities.

That's an extreme case. But if the game offers a choice of three bets, and anyone can tell which is the best, would anyone take any other?

It's not quite the same as blackjack, though, since blackjack has a "default" bet in a way this game doesn't seem to.

Quote: Paigowdan

Feel free, this is a discussion, welcome.

Why is it that when I speak on point, you seem not to notice it, but you happen to notice the least relevant remarks?

In this case, I know how a method allowing or allegedly allowing its users to keep a straight face regardless of the odds (via the employment of a static mechanical device composed of three or four concatenated spheres of gradually decreasing diameter constructed out of silicone rubber), but more important is the fact that most everyone would have to struggle to knowingly make guaranteed loss bets so as not to violate a "house rule" that players are not to use their brain while playing.

Let's say the game is single deck and the only joker is out.
Or, opposite example, there's 100% p, 50 out of 53 cards have been dealt, and no joker came out yet.

Quote: 24Bingo

That's an extreme case. But if the game offers a choice of three bets, and anyone can tell which is the best, would anyone take any other?

It's not quite the same as blackjack, though, since blackjack has a "default" bet in a way this game doesn't seem to.

Yes, - very easily - it is applicable.

For example, In a Red-Black-Joker card game dealt from a shoe, all a player needs to do is is to track the red-black balance, and the joker balance, high or low probability - based on how many of each came out, and how much of the shoe has been played through.

If more red cards came out than black cards, then you know the remainder of the shoe is black-heavy, and black would be the one to bet on. In many cases, if the house edge was small to start with, then a moderate unbalancing can swing the probabilities towards the player's favor, to +EV, - and he would be in a statisically profitable situation, instead of at a disadvantage.

On such a game, unless the house edge was very high, there'd be frequent swings to the player.

deleted

Quote: P90

Why is it that when I speak on point, you seem not to notice it, but you happen to notice the least relevant remarks?

I'm pretty on point, - and I am also trying to appear NOT like a "Casino Operator Lackey," (which I'm not. I just see their POV, and think it is valid.)

Quote: P90

In this case, I know how a method allowing or allegedly allowing its users to keep a straight face regardless of the odds (via the employment of a static mechanical device composed of three or four concatenated spheres of gradually decreasing diameter constructed out of silicone rubber), but more important is the fact that most everyone would have to struggle to knowingly make guaranteed loss bets so as not to violate a "house rule" that players are not to use their brain while playing.

Let's say the game is single deck and the only joker is out.
Or, opposite example, there's 100% p, 50 out of 53 cards have been dealt, and no joker came out yet.

?!
Keeping a straight face, or not giving off "tells," is something that card counters HAVE to do to decrease suspicion on them while plying their trade.
To use an extreme situation, Card Counters and Poker players routinely handle situations in which they are at a great advantage without popping up like a Jack-in-the-Box yelling "Yes!!! AWESOME!!"
That would be a either "tell," or a false broadcast at a poker game. When there is a cat-and-mouse game going on, subterfuge, discretion, and deception are in full mode. Card Counters practice behavioral subterfuge when in the pit, because if they let their emotions show, they'd really give themselves away.

Quite often, when a shoe BJ is getting very hot and high in the count, there is a often series of low-cards that the allows the dealer to win, and where most regular players would say "Dang! Lost again!" - even though the shoe is on the verge of getting red hot. Obviously, a card counter would be think, "This is great! The count just hit +9! Excellent, time to chunk!"

Seriously, good players are so subtle in behavior that good tip offs on them are rare. These Plus-and-Minus situation are things they see all the time, and handle with aplomb.

Quote: Paigowdan

You can't always, but then of course 6 jokers coming out off the top from a six deck shoe would be so rare, that the casino would not worry about a one-in-every One Billionth round opportunity where the shoe may get "hot" for the player.

My point was, say that after half the shoe, that all Jokers came out: this would influence people's betting- you'd be foolish not to take it into account. People would use the past information and change their betting accordingly, which makes sense to do.

Quote: Paigowdan

Note: I did included a actual prop bet scenario outside of the casino to illustrate that there are examples of that, also. Another good example was in a game show, where an obessed fan (Michael Larsen) of the game show "Press Your Luck" discovered a pattern to the winning and losing sequences of the flashing awards, and so he knew exactly when to press his "answer" button at his contestant podium, if he ever got on that show, to never receive a "Whammy." He audition for that show, got on, and made a such a fortune on it that it became obvious that he was counting the sequences, also discussed at this forum. See Press your luck.

While you provided a few examples, I guess I haven't been clear. What other games or hobbies that regular people play where using one's brain goes against the rules? Soccer, Football, baseball, basketball, Monopoly, Yahtzee, Chess, Checkers...

...it's seems like a unique situation, where one wants to play a game in a casino, that the use of their intelligence is a no-no.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Absolutely. If everyone did what I do then you just couldn't do it. The only game I may play with a slight dissadvantage is PGP (and I prefer your idea better), and that is rare when I do play. Usually its just to bide time waiting on a seat. I've said it many times, "I'm not winning the casinos money, just money the ploppies lost." In no way will I ever make a casino unprofitable.

The problem that this isn't true. ALL of the money in a table's rack is the casino's money, not the ploppies money, once it is in there. Taking it back out to yourself, (via play that violates the house protocols/procedures), is taking the casino's light bill money, - not that one would care.

When you are playing on a house-banked game, you're playing against the casino's money rack, - not against other players' bankrolls, as if in a poker room.

Quote: TheBigPaybak

While you provided a few examples, I guess I haven't been clear. What other games or hobbies that regular people play where using one's brain goes against the rules? Soccer, Football, baseball, basketball, Monopoly, Yahtzee, Chess, Checkers...

...it's seems like a unique situation, where one wants to play a game in a casino, that the use of their intelligence is a no-no.

Yes:
1. Baseball. There was a pitcher named Gaylord Perry, who realized, through thinking about it and using his brains, that if he could secretly use substances such as petroleum jelly on a baseball while pitching, he'd have more snap on his fastball and more curve on his curveball. He devised ways to hide the banned substances without leaving easy clues, and perfected some camoflage techniques to avoid giving away his applications of the substances while doing it on the pitching mound. He though his plan out methodically, practiced it extensively, and spent many years in baseball, and was constantly undersuspicion; he later got caught outright, and discussed his actions.

(You didn't specify "using your brains within the rules" or "using your brains outside of the rules." Did I break a house rule here by using Gaylord Perry as an example? This guy really thought his actions through.)

2. As for board games, (Monopoly, Yatzhee, etc.) you are supposed to use strategy, as in playing Bridge, also.

The prop bet, the game show, and Baseball examples were three good examples of using strategy in games outside the casino, both arguably within the rules, and arguably outside the rules.

Quote: Paigowdan

Yes:
1. Baseball. There was a pitcher named Gaylord Perry, who realized, through thinking about it and using his brains, that if he could secretly use substances such as petroleum jelly on a baseball while pitching, he'd have more snap on his fastball and more curve on his curveball. He devised ways to hide the banned substances without leaving easy clues, and perfected some camoflage techniques to avoid giving away his applications of the substances while doing it on the pitching mound. He though his plan out methodically, practiced it extensively, and spent many years in baseball, and was constantly undersuspicion; he later got caught outright, and discussed his actions.

(You didn't specify "using your brains within the rules" or "using your brains outside of the rules." Did I break a house rule here by using Gaylord Perry as an example? This guy really thought his actions through.)

2. As for board games, (Monopoly, Yatzhee, etc.) you are supposed to use strategy, as in playing Bridge, also.

The prop bet, the game show, and Baseball examples were three good examples of using strategy in games outside the casino, both arguably within the rules, and arguably outside the rules.

But he needed the petroleum jelly, so that example isn't valid.

I'm saying, just using your brain: nothing else. Making your decision based on your thought processes. I don't think you(or anyone) can cite one solid example of a popular game that people play, whether in a social, or competitive environment, that the use of someone's intelligence "breaks the rules" - except where casinos are involved.

It's pretty clear that Dan thinks it's okay to use your brain, just as long as you lose.

He hates winners.

Quote: MakingBook

It's pretty clear that Dan thinks it's okay to use your brain, just as long as you lose.

He hates winners.

I just think it's a unique situation: that you should have to shut down your brain when you walk into a casino versus use your brain. There's no other good example of this that anyone, including Dan, has shown to be case, so it goes against one's natural instincts, which is to try your best to win with the intelligence that you have.

Quote: TheBigPaybak

But he needed the petroleum jelly, so that example isn't valid.

I will point out that Card Counters also use physical physical items as part of their efforts, such as in camoflage: wigs, fake moustaches, etc., transforming their appearance, even though the counting process itself is strictly cerebral.

Quote: TheBigPayback

I'm saying, just using your brain: nothing else. Making your decision based on your thought processes. I don't think you(or anyone) can cite one solid example of a popular game that people play, whether in a social, or competitive environment, that the use of someone's intelligence "breaks the rules" - except where casinos are involved.

I would say:
1. that the "prop bet of the Stop Sign," and the game show contestant "Press Your Luck" were very fine non-physical, non-casino examples.

2. That counting new Side bets for Baccarat and Blackjack are very good casino examples.

3. That Board games (Monopoly, etc.) may indeed have examples of cerebral tricky and espionage that may be considered by other players to be in bad faith, but that they may also consistently produce a +EV. I would also say that board game examples would be hard to find for us, because such disputes are usually resolved privately by family members, and don't become Internet new items.

Quote: Paigowdan

Did I break a house rule here by using Gaylord Perry as an example?

Com' on Dan. You are better than this. Cheating is cheating. Gaylord Perry was cheating. People using an electronic device are cheating. People who cap bets are cheating. People who switch cards are cheating. People who mark cards are cheating. People who count cards are not cheating. Lumping them all together is flat out insulting to everyone's intelligence. People who hole card...well that one is not so cut an dry, so I am not going to go there. But you are a smart, if not reasonable guy. Thinking is not cheating.

Just wonderng if Dan wants to respond to this. So I count..which in my mind is just using ones brain, not cheating. I don't try to see hole cards but it does happen once in a while. I can't unsee the card. So I act on the information I have. Would Dan (or anyone else) suggest I alert the dealer that I've seen his/her hole card and muck my hand?. I hope not, because, I'm not doing that, it's the casinos responsibility to have properly trained dealers. Period. Showing your hole card in BJ is sloppy dealing. Period. As a smart BJ player (i hope); I'd be an idiot to play it any other way. Would anyone disagree with that? I hope not.

P.S. -- as to counting and disguises...I don't do it, I keep my play at a reasonable level and don't usually get much heat. I would agree that trying to play at a joint in which one has been barred is crossing the line. But until I'm barred, I'm playing.

Quote: Paigowdan

I will point out that Card Counters also use physical physical items as part of their efforts, such as in camoflage: wigs, fake moustaches, etc., transforming their appearance, even though the counting process itself is strictly cerebral.



I would say:
1. that the "prop bet of the Stop Sign," and the game show contestant "Press Your Luck" were very fine non-physical, non-casino examples.

2. That counting new Side bets for Baccarat and Blackjack are very good casino examples.

3. That Board games (Monopoly, etc.) may indeed have examples of cerebral tricky and espionage that may be considered by other players to be in bad faith, but that they may also consistently produce a +EV. I would also say that board game examples would be hard to find for us, because such disputes are usually resolved privately by family members, and don't become Internet new items.

No, I'm sorry, the "prop bet of the Stop Sign," and the game show contestant "Press Your Luck" are not good examples. A prop bet is not a game regular people play and nobody plays "Press Your Luck" on a daily basis like they play other games, and even if they did, the technical glitch that allowed for exploitation would be fixed.

Unless someone can prove me wrong, there don't appear to be any games regular people play where the use of your intelligence to gain an advantage is against the rules except in the casino.

Quote: kewlj

Com' on Dan. This is just insulting. You are better than this. Cheating is cheating. Gaylord Perry was cheating. People using an electronic device are cheating. People who cap bets are cheating. People who count cards are not cheating. People who hole card...well that one is not so cut an dry, so I am not going to go there. But you are a smart, if not reasonable guy. Thinking is not cheating.

Didn't mean to insult anyone, really, just questions I'm trying to resolve:

Question #1: when a card counter resorts to non-electronic physical items (wigs, disguises, etc.), in order to ply his trade, when he can't do so without it - does that make "cheating" extend down to card counting? Is that combination a problem? (I say no, they are separate and distinct, even if effective in combination.)

Question #2: On Thinking is not cheating: Is deliberate "thinking" procedures and actions - such as card counting, which is applying a series of fairly elaborate and sophisticated mathematical procedures that are disallowed - but which may in result in different physical changes in the real world (like receiving a larger physical stack of chips from the casino otherwise, as a result), an issue, even though it originally resulted from a strictly mental process? Is there a "carrying it out" process involved here?

Question #3: If someone has a fantasy of murdering his mother-in-law, but takes NO physical action on it, did not carry it out, but seems to get alonger with fine in person - did he commit conspiracy? I say No.

Here is my analogy of the casino industry's handling of card counters:

A guy owns a store, lets say a clothing store. Through detailed accounting practices, he determines that he is losing $40,000 to theft each year, either to employees or customers. He finds this unacceptable, so he hires a security guard, installs security cameras and hires someone to monitor the cameras. Cost $60,000 per year. After the first year his loss from theft has dropped in half to $20,000. In addition the security guard manages to catch a shoplifter red handed once a month on average, and shows up at the owners office where they all pat each other on the back for a job well done. Bottom line, they have spent $60,000 a year to save $20,000. lol

And that is the casino industry's whole response to card counters. They spend way more money 'catching' low/mid limit counters who really are no threat. But every once in a while some pit boss gets to report to his supervisor, "hey I caught and banned a card counter today". Big 'pat on the back' & a "job well done". lol

Quote: TheBigPaybak

No, I'm sorry, the "prop bet of the Stop Sign," and the game show contestant "Press Your Luck" are not good examples. A prop bet is not a game regular people play and nobody plays

Yes we DO! I make prop bets all the time, - ask Mike here at this board, and it IS non casino gambling, BTW - and it is a gaming industry sub-industry that is large: Michael Konic's book The man with the $100,000 breats is an extensive compending of interesting gambling accounts of MANY real-world betting situation where intelligence - using your solely your brains - cause many questions of bet and rules validity.

"Press Your Luck" was a great example - a Nationally Televised game show where a contestant used his brain through great research to implement a MENTAL and learned strategy to win big, with no physical props - also causing great questions about the validity of his winnings.

Quote: TheBigPayback

Unless someone can prove me wrong, there don't appear to be any games regular people play where the use of your intelligence to gain an advantage is against the rules except in the casino.

We don't know. But I am sure there are countless situations when playing family board games where rare game-play situations occur that many players claim some action invalid, even though only thoughtful methods and trickery are used. I don't know how many times playing Scrabble and Monopoly and the like family members claim "foul" over a clever game board response.

I assure you, both board game and gambling result contentions occur all the time over clever, mental-only actions all the time outside the casino. You will hear "No! You can't do that, that's Invalid" - followed by "Oh Yes it WAS!" when board games and prop bets are played. I gave examples of non-casino gambling disputes on "using your brain to win" that were clearly and heavily contested.

And for the casinos, Blackjack isn't the only game that is countable, with purely mental processes used.
The fact of the matter is that many times "using your brain only procedures" in games, especially in wagering games, the results are questioned, and sometimes determined to be out of bounds.

But in casino operations, there is a long history of casinos declaring such mental processes - if disallowed - to be reason to back off players. If you are trying to say "non-casino games don't have that aspect, therefore the casino is wrong!" - then not only are there examples outside of casinos, but that non-casino examples are not applicable to casino business, as they are business who have a right to handle loss prevention through guidelines.

deleted

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Wrong. The casino keeps only a percentage of all money wagered as in a poker rake. I'm doing nothing more than taking some of the losers cut.

No.

The casino only has a right to a variable amount of money won from a house-banked game from individual betting spots - that is statistically based on model that excludes card counting, and on a player-by-player basis, - in an all-push-or-nothing bet result;

Artificially Changing the house edge on a house table game, to a negative percentage for them, and via a disallowed method, is taking the casino's money, not a ploppies.

If you take a ploppy's money in the poker room, they'll say "good for you, the rake is $10" and be fine with it.

If you take house-banked out of the table rack money, by an illicit method unapproved by them, they will back you off or even detain you for arrest, depending on what the questionable action was.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I've been around this business a lot longer than some may think.

What do you do in the gaming industry? Game protection?