The future or end of AP Play?

Quote: 24Bingo

You're trying to trick them into allowing you to play a game in which you have violated the implicit understanding, that just like a hedger making sucker bets in the futures market pays not to gamble, you are paying to gamble, inasmuch as someone has to. It doesn't matter that they'll probably get the money elsewhere - there, on that table, you mean them to provide a service not just for free, but to pay extra for providing it.

What I agreed to do, by sitting down, is to play the game by the posted rules, making wagers within the posted minimums and maximums. You folks that work for the industry seem to think that I have agreed to some mysterious, unwritten, unposted rule or understanding, that I will not think and play the game to the best of my ability. NEVER EVER did I agree to that. You are just being silly.

When the game was introduced, it was thought the game would have a house edge of 4-5%, same as all other games. They never envision such a slim edge of less than 1%. The basic strategy player is gaining a big edge over what the initial house advantage of the game was supposed to be, also simply by thinking, so there really is no difference between card counting and playing basic strategy. Each player is employing a strategy that enables them a better chance of winning than intended. One cuts the house edge substantially, while the other removes the edge altogether. Both involve no use of any device other than the players brain, why is one tolerated while the other isn't? If thinking is to be disallowed completely, why is their a tower at the roulette game displaying all the previous numbers. They are encouraging the player to think and employ some sort of betting system. You can't have it both ways, either people are allowed to think or they aren't.

Just stop all this nonsense about the service being offered. The casino is offering games of chance. That means they win some and lose some. But the odds are stacked in their favor, so they win more than they lose. THAT is their advantage, and that is rightfully so. But that is not enough. They want to try to disallow people from thinking. They want to pick and choose and only accept wagers from losing players. They are nothing more than they bully kid on the block who will only play if he gets to be on the winning team. You should be ashamed of yourself for defending such non-sense.

Quote: kewlj

...Just stop all this nonsense about the service being offered. The casino is offering games of chance. That means they win some and lose some. But the odds are stacked in their favor, so they win more than they lose.

And so that means:
1. With the odds staked in their favor, it then acts as some sort of an admission charge for the goods/services/products/action/experience - even if "on average" - and for whatever it is they give you, - that you just insisted on coming in there for, - because a) you certainly came in for something, and; b) they have workers attending to you, and they are obviously paying light bills. You certainly go into a casino for some sort of service or experience, - otherwise, why go there?

And so, because it is variable (as you can even still sometimes win), therefore it must be some sort of 'honor system,' eh?

This brings FIVE interesting but hagging questions that I have trouble answering, for the problem I have; maybe a sharpie at this board can chime in:

Q1: If the casino makes its money from the house edge, even if "just overall, or on the average," then the House Edge - and ONLY the house edge, is really the "admissions chage." It's an admissions fee - like an admissions fee at the movies, or a bill at the restauarant, of sorts - that I went THERE for something, also. It MUST be the admissions fee that covers the workers, the lights, etc - I mean, there are works in their employ, and light bills they're paying.

Q2: If you willingly and happily play with a "slight enough" house edge, you rest in the knowledge that you've paid your share of the admissions charge to be there, and you know you'll never be asked to leave or 86-ed, even though you may leave at your own will and "ahead" - on occasion enough.

Q3: If The house edge is 0% - no bias either way, the house breaks even, but loses on salaries and lights, and so folds. Was I freeloading? Hmm. Especially if I manipulated the admissions fee that is supposed to be there.

Q4: Now the house edge is your edge - in your favor, even thought it's supposed to be slightly in their favor as an admissions fee. Was I freeloading? Even worse, was I stealing? Especially if I manipulated the admissions fee that is supposed to be there. Even beyond theft of services, which happens at 0%, Instead of paying, I did something to take their money! - AND IT FEELS SO GOOD!!!

Q5: But Casinos aren't providing a service! They're providing nothing! I go there for nothing - and those workers and light bills - you see - are all props - they are all smoke and mirrors! They don't really exist, like Paigowdan, he's a supressive person - and it's all phantasm. There are no workers, or light bills to pay, you see....

Now, imagine if the New York City Subway had an honor system to help us get around. Instead of unbeatable turnstyles that you can't easily sneak through, and fare boxes, and all that jazz, they set up "Salvation Army' like cash bucks where, on the honor system, you must put in $2.25 every time you enter to get where you're going.

If you put in $2.25 and go in, you've paid your admissions fee to the subway syste,
If you put in $0, you've freeloaded.
If you reach in and take some money - you've stolen!
But what does it matter, they provide nothing! I go in with what I have, and leave out the other side with what I have, so they've provided nothing. And if I leave with less, then I was robbed, and they should have PAID for some cops!

Obviously, the honor system doesn't work with back-offs, lawsuits, expulsions, AP losses, and a ridiculous "open season / fair game" attitude and practices being used as attacks on this honor system, for whatever it is we get from them.

Love it.

Quote: Paigowdan

Q4: Now the house edge is your edge - in your favor, even thought it's supposed to be slightly in their favor as an admissions fee. Was I freeloading? Even worse, was I stealing? Especially if I manipulated the admissions fee that is supposed to be there. Even beyond theft of services, which happens at 0%, Instead of paying, I did something to take their money! - AND IT FEELS SO GOOD!!!

Why doesn't the casino clearly define their "house rules" at each table, to include something like "No Card Counting..." ?

I don't card-count, but if I did and saw this rule, it would be pretty clear who was in the right and who was in the wrong.

Quote: TheBigPaybak

Why doesn't the casino clearly define their "house rules" at each table, to include something like "No Card Counting..." ?

I don't card-count, but if I did and saw this rule, it would be pretty clear who was in the right and who was in the wrong.

BINGO!!!!!!

Quite the OPPOSITE---- they post upper and lower limits as to how much you can wager, then if you choose to use those limits....... you know the rest of the story......

deleted

Quote: TheBigPaybak

Why doesn't the casino clearly define their "house rules" at each table, to include something like "No Card Counting..." ?

I feel they should. But it would be like posting a "no doggie bags" sign at a Buffet. So a defense is: Now - show me WHERE it is written I cannot take more than I am supposed to!

So, certainly, if you are card-counting, then you already know about THEIR position. Could not have gotten to card-counting membershiphood otherwise...

Quote: TheBigPaybak

I don't card-count, but if I did and saw this rule, it would be pretty clear who was in the right and who was in the wrong.

I agree, because without that sign, its absence can generate a lot of fantastic theories and justifications that theft of services is oh-so-righteous, apparently....

deleted

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

When the count in bj is high and I have the advantage, SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE AT THE TABLE!

Yeah, but they're flatbetting, not deliberately researching the true count to manipulate betting amounts to take advantage of a situation that is supposed to be unknown.
For that matter, in a Baccarat game, the next hand may favor the banker, and we don't know this, and are not supposed to know this. Yet ALL positions betting on banker will ALSO have an advantage, but also unknown. Anything that tips you off - from card-counting, to seeing the marked card next-to-come tells you what to bet. Fair players simply don't know it, or attempt to know it, in order to deliberately manipulate their betting amounts at advantageous times.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Yes, even the flat minimum bettors have the edge in high counts. I just happen to realize when they are and raise the bet all within the limits posted at the table. I suppose during these times they also are "stealing services."

Perhaps, rabbit.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

All they have to do is dramatically lower the max bet amount. Solves many issues.

Yes. I mentioned this in the first post, using narrow ranges, or even flat-betting. Casinos can do this.

Quote: kewlj

What I agreed to do, by sitting down, is to play the game by the posted rules, making wagers within the posted minimums and maximums. You folks that work for the industry seem to think that I have agreed to some mysterious, unwritten, unposted rule or understanding, that I will not think and play the game to the best of my ability. NEVER EVER did I agree to that. You are just being silly.

You keep saying it's some "mysterious, unwritten rule," and maybe it is unwritten - but you know it's there. Everyone knows it's there, even if they've never been inside a casino in their lives. A lot of people would be surprised it can't get you jailed, or your winnings confiscated.

(I suppose you think US Uncut work for the IRS, also?)

Quote: kewlj

When the game was introduced, it was thought the game would have a house edge of 4-5%, same as all other games. They never envision such a slim edge of less than 1%. The basic strategy player is gaining a big edge over what the initial house advantage of the game was supposed to be, also simply by thinking, so there really is no difference between card counting and playing basic strategy. Each player is employing a strategy that enables them a better chance of winning than intended. One cuts the house edge substantially, while the other removes the edge altogether. Both involve no use of any device other than the players brain, why is one tolerated while the other isn't?

You know the answer to this. Those games are not free. Ignoring promotional loss leaders, either an even (pai gow, baccarat, certain craps bets, etc.) or a competitive game is offered with a commission, or a losing game is offered with none. Either way, someone has to pay.

So the difference is in that great number, 0. Clearly blackjack, at its reduced edge with a substantial number playing basic strategy (especially at higher limits) is still profitable. You can say that's in part because of counters, and you'd be right, not the counters themselves, but the romantic image they've given the game. But what's the difference between a small edge and a negative one? I'm reminded of a soda commercial, with the customer thinking a bottle of soda was free because it was marked "[calorie] free":

"...but if it's free, how do they make any money?"
"Volume! You don't know a lot about marketing, do you?"

Because blackjack is so popular and so fast, the casino can make up for the small edge in the hold. If counting were an accepted strategy, this would only drive them deeper and deeper into the hole. That's the difference.

Quote: kewlj

If thinking is to be disallowed completely, why is their a tower at the roulette game displaying all the previous numbers. They are encouraging the player to think and employ some sort of betting system. You can't have it both ways, either people are allowed to think or they aren't.

It is not "thinking" that is disallowed. It is misrepresenting oneself as one who understands what a banking game is and how it manages to exist, accepts this, and wishes to try one's luck, when one means to grind luck out of the equation, expecting to be paid for rightfully claiming usufruct rights to another's tables, dealers, and equipment. This answers the previous question - it is only in your mad "Rain Man Hood" paradigm that it becomes a question.

Quote: kewlj

Just stop all this nonsense about the service being offered. The casino is offering games of chance.

And a restaurant offers meals, and a shoe store offers shoes. No services there!

Quote: kewlj

That means they win some and lose some.

There are two different things at work here - their primary purpose is to provide games of chance. Some of these come with a banker, a robot following simple rules designed to make it a losing game. That robot will win some and lose some, but as long as the wins outpace the losses, no commission needs to be charged. Any game that doesn't come with this robot - what do they all have in common? That's the ultimate rule: nothing is free.

Quote: kewlj

But the odds are stacked in their favor, so they win more than they lose. THAT is their advantage, and that is rightfully so. But that is not enough. They want to try to disallow people from thinking. They want to pick and choose and only accept wagers from losing players. They are nothing more than they bully kid on the block who will only play if he gets to be on the winning team. You should be ashamed of yourself for defending such non-sense.

"The odds are stacked in their favor, and rightfully so. But that is not enough. They want to disallow the odds from being stacked against them."

It's not that they'll only play if they get to be on the winning team; you have to understand that in actuality they're not playing at all. For all games, they're there to host the game, and they get a cut. In a few, this is intrinsic to the game itself, so it can look like they're playing along with you, but in reailty, it's set up so that with enough bets variance will be swallowed up in the edge and the whole thing adds up to a de facto commission. That's how you get "the ploppies' money"; don't participate, and you're taking the house's, however insignificantly or "righteously."

deleted

deleted

Quote: Paigowdan

Was I freeloading? Even worse, was I stealing? Especially if I manipulated the admissions fee that is supposed to be there.

Again with the admission fee or charge?? You guys with your implied admission fee and implicit understandings that I will not think. You seem to be in some fantasy world, where there are rules that no one is aware of but yourself that you seem to make up as you go along.

You can make me out to be the bad guy if it makes you feel better, with your theft of services non-sense, but the fact is you work for a rather dark industry that takes advantage and preys on people. Their profits come from taking advantage of those less fortunate. It's a predatory business. Legal, but predatory. You and the industry can try to justify it by saying the irresponsible action of individual people is not your responsibility. But that argument flies out the window, when you engage in such practices as offering incentives for the working man to cash and spend his payroll check before he ever gets home to feed his family. You enable and encourage distructive behavior that ruins people lives and families. So yeah, I am the bad guy here. lol

You can continue to try to justify the actions of the industry that employs you and deny that your participation is wrong in any way, but I suspect, that come judgement day, your justifications will carry little weight.

And with that, I am off to relieve your employer of some of his ill-gotten gains. :)

Louzhy gorram 21sh Aminmin.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

When the count in bj is high and I have the advantage, SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE AT THE TABLE! Yes, even the flat minimum bettors have the edge in high counts. I just happen to realize when they are and raise the bet all within the limits posted at the table. I suppose during these times they also are "stealing services."

That's an interesting point: would the point of view then be, one's knowledge is what turns them into a thief?

Quote: TheBigPaybak

That's an interesting point: would the point of view then be, one's knowledge is what turns them into a thief?

Yes that is what it always comes back to. The industry and those who support it, have this whacked out notion that thinking is evil. lol

deleted

Quote: Paigowdan

I feel they should. But it would be like posting a "no doggie bags" sign at a Buffet.

You could still get around that, though, by having printed rules available upon request. You can have a nice sign saying that all rules for each game are available on request in your promotional material so everyone knows.

deleted

Quote: kewlj

Yes that is what it always comes back to. The industry and those who support it, have this whacked out notion that thinking is evil. lol

Right, and it's unique to the industry, per my previous posts. And everyone knows they can "solve" this problem any number of ways, but are afraid to fearing, net everything, their overall profit would be down.

Quote: kewlj

Now back to ethical vs legal. There are many ways to gain and advantage over a game. I think we can all agree that some are illegal.

No, I don't agree at all. Cheating at a game isn't "gaining an advantage". It's cheating. It's not an "advantage play" to mark cards, collude with the dealer, or steal chips from the dealer's tray. Neither is it an "advantage play" to pickpocket the floor supervisor's wallet, make stock trades on insider information, or run a Ponzi scheme. I fail to see how everyone doesn't perceive a bright line between an illegal act, whatever it is, and "advantage play".

The problem with that murky logic, as Eliot has rightly pointed out, is that if gamblers adopt it, then casino managers are more likely to adopt it too. And then you end up with players who are *not* breaking the law, say by counting or hole-carding or even just getting lucky, being subjected to potentially illegal behavior by casino operators who think just like you do.

Draw the bright line. Then you'll know where you stand.

Quote: TheBigPaybak

That's an interesting point: would the point of view then be, one's knowledge is what turns them into a thief?

Okay, I'll bite. Here are two hypothetical situations:

1) A skilled card counter stands behind the players at a full blackjack table and after each hand announces the count (e.g. "plus-four", "minus-two"). The players at the table have no idea what he's doing, and they continue to flat bet. What actions does the casino take?

2) A skilled card counter stands behind the players at a full blackjack table and after each hand announces the count. Two players at the table (who don't know the counter) understand what that means and they start varying their bets according to the count, say using a 1-10 spread. What actions does the casino take?

Quote: MathExtremist

Okay, I'll bite. Here are two hypothetical situations:

1) A skilled card counter stands behind the players at a full blackjack table and after each hand announces the count (e.g. "plus-four", "minus-two"). The players at the table have no idea what he's doing, and they continue to flat bet. What actions does the casino take?

2) A skilled card counter stands behind the players at a full blackjack table and after each hand announces the count. Two players at the table (who don't know the counter) understand what that means and they start varying their bets according to the count, say using a 1-10 spread. What actions does the casino take?

1. None. A casino could not care less if you count cards if you do not alter your bets accordingly. They 'may' get pissed at the non playing counter and ask him to leave.


2. The casino should take whatever action it chooses against the players (flat bet, decrease penetration, 86 them) and also will likely 86 the 'announcer'.

By the way, I like your 'bright line' point.

Quote: kewlj

Yes that is what it always comes back to. The industry and those who support it, have this whacked out notion that thinking is evil. lol

Keep telling yourself that violently ignoring basic economic reality is "thinking."

Quote: 24Bingo

Keep telling yourself that violently ignoring basic economic reality is "thinking."

I tried to stay out of this mess as long as I could, but unfortunately I can't. I agree with almost everything kewlj has stated in this thread. It's not up to the player to ensure the casino maintains it's house edge for every game offered, it's up to the casino to do that.

The player's ultimate responsibility and goal is to legally win, period. Therefore I don't all all understand the arguement against this as long as the player is utilizing legal, intellectual means to acheive that goal. It's unreasonable to advocate that the player can only use their intellect to a certain point that approaches a 0% house edge but not continue to use their intellect beyond that.

Quote: 24Bingo

Keep telling yourself that violently ignoring basic economic reality is "thinking."

Basic economic reality is that casinos make money on beatable blackjack games, with the present protections they have in place. If they didn't, those games would not exist. Many businesses do not make money from all of their customers.... but they devise a model so that they do from the sum of their customers... I can assure you that a few years back the 'all you can eat buffet lunch' for $5.99 was losing money when I walked through the door (on ME), but when I brought my youngest son who would take a large bowl of white rice and little else, they were happy we were both there.
Dan can probably answer this better than most of us, but i would assume if blackjack never existed, and a game designer proposed a shoe game now with 'good' rules, it would never see the floor as the analyst would tell the casinos it was easily countable. They would never say---- let it get to the floors, but if you notice someone counting, then throw em out of the casino!

I wonder if Paigowdan has nightmare's of AP's winning money?

I envision him waking up, screaming, in a pool of sweat. Then going to the computer to start one of these anti-AP threads.

Quote: MakingBook

I wonder if Paigowdan has nightmare's of AP's winning money?

No, not in the least. Why should I? Couldn't care less, really. So as long as my wife is happy with me, and my bank account is fine, I'll be enjoying dinner and a show on the strip with the Mrs., maybe some UTH at the Orleans, and Pai Gow Poker at the East Side Cannery. Also see: For relaxing times.....

1. I simply like a good discussion, and felt the topic and the ideas were very thought provoking.
2. I'm out with a plan (that a few find devious) to change the industry, - and I am having some impact, the way few dealers do. Couldn't care less about the Nay-Sayers.

Quote: MakingBook

I envision him waking up, screaming, in a pool of sweat.

Wow, sounds like a wish fulfillment on your part, gotta say. Actually, I sleep like a baby.

Quote: MakingBook

Then going to the computer to start one of these anti-AP threads.

Yeah, Sometimes. Other threads are on game design, - another of my Gaming Interest areas.

Quote: SOOPOO

Basic economic reality is that casinos make money on beatable blackjack games, with the present protections they have in place.

Yes, indeed. Some even push the old "C'mon down - it's so loose, and with great rules - virtually countable! [wink, wink]" connotation as a lure.

Quote: Soopoo

If they didn't, those games would not exist. Many businesses do not make money from all of their customers.... but they devise a model so that they do from the sum of their customers... I can assure you that a few years back the 'all you can eat buffet lunch' for $5.99 was losing money when I walked through the door (on ME), but when I brought my youngest son who would take a large bowl of white rice and little else, they were happy we were both there.

Loss leaders and all. Some work, some don't. I do question how well it works with the "wink, wink" model of BJ, with back-off, law suits, single-digit table holds, table altercation, and surveillance and floor supervision extra overhead. I mean, Eliot's account of a backrooming in this day and age was enough for me. It's like having an honor system of fare payment on transit systems in hopes of increasing ridership; it increases traffic, but does it increase efficiency, profits, and operational integrity? That the question. You can answer "yes, [and I can hear M.E. now] it won't be this way if it didn't work as is," but the same can be said that Hazard dice worked just fine, until real casino craps came along. The "Well, obviously it works, don't fix it if it ain't broken" is not only a stumbling block to revolution (which ain't always good), but to evolution (which often improves things).

Quote: SooPoo

Dan can probably answer this better than most of us, but i would assume if blackjack never existed, and a game designer proposed a shoe game now with 'good' rules, it would never see the floor as the analyst would tell the casinos it was easily countable. They would never say---- let it get to the floors, but if you notice someone counting, then throw em out of the casino!

I agree. For that matter, craps and Roulette would NEVER be picked up by a distributor today as a game, again with "reasons."
As for Soopoo's scenario of BJ not being picked up today because it is countable isn't really totally true; what's more true is that the design and the designer didn't account for those game protection factors, at the time BJ came to be.
But, if the designer HAD accounted for it, he would have stipulated a CSM or 50% penetration with a 5x bet range on the game, and it would have taken off just as well - remember, blackjack had been around since ~1910 as a ladies game, and since the '30's as a regular gambling hall game, long before Ed Thorpe's exposure of the games 'trap door' (through IBM mainframe computer modeling of the game) in the 1960's - and THAT's where the problems - and the cat and mouse card counter's game - really started. If not for that, Blackjack would pretty much still be the major, fun-to-play, popular game that it is today, but without the Thorpe and card-counter's baggage. Do note that 95% of its players are non-counters just out gambling.

I don't know about that. Spanish 21 was introduced in the nineties, and it's almost as countable.

Quote: MidwestAP

I tried to stay out of this mess as long as I could, but unfortunately I can't. I agree with almost everything kewlj has stated in this thread. It's not up to the player to ensure the casino maintains it's house edge for every game offered, it's up to the casino to do that.

The player's ultimate responsibility and goal is to legally win, period. Therefore I don't all all understand the arguement against this as long as the player is utilizing legal, intellectual means to acheive that goal. It's unreasonable to advocate that the player can only use their intellect to a certain point that approaches a 0% house edge but not continue to use their intellect beyond that.

It's reasonable to expect that the player not break house rules. It doesn't matter if they're not posted anywhere; everyone knows perfectly well that card counting is not allowed, counters better than anyone. Holecarding as well. Roulette's a bit more ambiguous, but if you're going to insist that gambling against the house is no different from gambling against a human, how much sympathy would you have for someone who did so knowingly using loaded dice, even not themself having loaded them? Especially if they refused to play if they did not know the dice to be loaded? But of course that's not the case. But still, anyone who uses cover play to hide the fact that they know the wheel to be unfair has no excuse; they are a swindler, not a gambler.

I will say that for members of a gambling forum, some people on this thread have very Puritanical attitudes toward gambling.

deleted

Keep up the effort of trying to blur the line between AP and cheating.
I dream of the day I get back roomed for hole carding or counting.
That will be the biggest gain per hour of my illustrious career.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

This is an obvious lie. The fact you would rat out a player whether you were dealing to him or playing next to him prove this. If you really didn't care, you wouldn't have started this thread. You wouldn't care what happens in other casinos. You wouldn't care how we win when its done legally. You wouldn't go to all this trouble to stop them. All you need to concern yourself with is your job and while there your fellow co-workers. Outside of there, its none of your business how I bet my money or play my cards, period. I bet money to win, not this so called ruse you call "entertainment." I've stated before and I'll say it again, If I want to play for fun, I'll stay home and play on the computer.

Freudian slip?

Ruse or not, people do play for entertainment, for the thrill of uncertainty, and have since not only before the mob's hold on Vegas was broken, but long before it was established. Don't like it, you said it, you can play something else. But don't dress yourself up in green and brag how you punish those evildoers who provide this service.

Quote: 24Bingo

everyone knows perfectly well that card counting is not allowed, counters better than anyone. Holecarding as well.

On the contrary, I know full well that card counting and hole carding ARE allowed. The courts have said so, so I know I'm right.

When I see a blackjack table in a courtroom, I'll know you're right, too.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

This is an obvious lie. The fact you would rat out a player whether you were dealing to him or playing next to him prove this.

Oh, really now? If I'm at a table and the dealer pulls out a 6-card hand and thinks it's 17 - but is actually 19 - when she says "Dealer has 17" to start the take and pay process, I will say to her, "No ma'am - you have 19, count again," even if I have an 18. Now I have no problem with this because I have no need for money I didn't earn or win legitimately. I don't play at a table where people are eagerly taking dirty money that wasn't legitimately won. If I'm at a table, what goes on at that table IS my business when my money is there, period, end of story. And if someone else has a problem with, then they can go stick up a 7-11 for some dirty money - if they want to.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

If you really didn't care, you wouldn't have started this thread.

Interest in the subject is more like it.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

You wouldn't care what happens in other casinos.

If I'm not working there or playing there, no. They have their own people working the floor there.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

You wouldn't care how we win when its done legally.

Not only did I say card counting is legal, I also said that back offs stemming from it are legal, too. So, if I say card counting is legal, then you should say that refusing someone to play at a table is legal for reasons such as loss prevention, too.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

You wouldn't go to all this trouble to stop them.

What trouble? I think this is a very thought provoking discussion, and I'm fine with it. Aren't you? Isn't that the reason we're here, to debate gaming ideas at a gaming forum? Since I debate and discuss ideas with gaming executives, I have a bit more puissance and traction; my ideas are considered along with my game designs and game protection ideas. As for stopping card counters, - I deal dice and Pai Gow. I stop past-posters and claimers on dice, and help people set their hands on Pai Gow ("Play the two pairs, not the flush...") It's the suits who stop card counters, and most Backjack dealers couldn't notice a card counter if their lives depended on it - which is why the base game design in use for Blackjack should be unfraudible.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

All you need to concern yourself with is your job and while there your fellow co-workers.

Now tell me, Why exactly should I take gaming career advice from you?

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Outside of there, its none of your business how I bet my money or play my cards, period.

You sure about that? Game protection is the job of everyone in every table games pit and in design and policy, AND a player may indeed discuss a table game error or question with a dealer or a floorman if he wants, - and I will. I design games with great thought to game protection, well, - because how people play their cards is my business. Along with every pit boss, shift manager, casino director, floorman, dealer, the others at the table with money on the line, and with the guys in surveillance.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I bet money to win, not this so called ruse you call "entertainment."

I bet money that I may win cleanly - and I find it entertaining; it's called gambling. I do it often.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I've stated before and I'll say it again, If I want to play for fun, I'll stay home and play on the computer.

You can do that.
It's your life. If you don't like what casinos are doing to tighten down on game protection in the future, then you are under no obligation to gamble by the rules, and yes, you may stay home and play games on your computer.

Quote: 24Bingo

When I see a blackjack table in a courtroom, I'll know you're right, too.

Ok, NOW I understand the confusion.

You think that court rulings are only valid directly within the confines of the courthouse, and that, once outside the courthouse, everyone is free to ignore those rulings.

It turns out that you're wrong about this. You can look it up; it turns out that state law applies to the ENTIRE STATE, not just the courthouse. I can see how that confusion lead you to believe that card counting was not allowed, though. Hopefully this clears things up a bit.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Ok, NOW I understand the confusion.

You think that court rulings are only valid directly within the confines of the courthouse, and that, once outside the courthouse, everyone is free to ignore those rulings.

It turns out that you're wrong about this. You can look it up; it turns out that state law applies to the ENTIRE STATE, not just the courthouse. I can see how that confusion lead you to believe that card counting was not allowed, though. Hopefully this clears things up a bit.

Congratulations. Nowhere in the state of Nevada will card counting in and of itself get you hunted down and shot in the street by armed soldiers. (Counting cards and then pretending you've done nothing wrong being another story.) To those of us whose motives are not entirely dictated by fear of acute lead poisoning, it turns out that's not quite the same as "allowed."

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

On the contrary, I know full well that card counting and hole carding ARE allowed. The courts have said so, so I know I'm right.

You are right. Card counting and hole carding are every bit as allowable as back-offs and removal from property. This is the current situation - and problem - with the game.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

On the contrary, I know full well that card counting and hole carding ARE allowed. The courts have said so, so I know I'm right.

No, courts have said they're not criminal (edit: or tortious). There's a vast gulf between "not criminal" and "allowed".

Quote: MathExtremist

No, courts have said they're not criminal (edit: or tortious). There's a vast gulf between "not criminal" and "allowed".

Stacy, you're the expert on the nomenclature and concepts involved. People think: "Not illegal = is therefore allowed." Not the case.
I basically put it as: that you can get thrown out of a casino, but not thrown in jail, for a particular offense.

Quote: Paigowdan

Oh, really now? If I'm at a table and the dealer pulls out a 6-card hand and thinks it's 17 - but is actually 19 - when she says "Dealer has 17" to start the take and pay process, I will say to her, "No ma'am - you have 19, count again," even if I have an 18. Now I have no problem with this because I have no need for money I didn't earn or win legitimately. I don't play at a table where people are eagerly taking dirty money that wasn't legitimately won. If I'm at a table, what goes on at that table IS my business when my money is there, period, end of story. And if someone else has a problem with, then they can go stick up a 7-11 for some dirty money - if they want to.

I love it when Dan compares a player taking advantage of a dealer error with armed robbery of a convenience store!

I count cards; but I never snatched a purse leaving the casino, stabbed anyone in the parking lot, or robbed a 7-11 on the way home. I guess I'm an outlier.

Quote: MakingBook

I love it when Dan compares a player taking advantage of a dealer error with armed robbery of a convenience store!

That's exactly the advice I give people who try to take money that they are not entitled to, - to make them think. Dirty money is simply that. Some people actually say, "Dammit, she would have PAID us! [even though we're not at all entitled to the money - based on the REAL result of the cards, like that is somehow relevant in clean gambling]. But other people say, "you're right, the dealer does have 19, not 17. I didn't win."

Quote: MakingBook

I count cards; but I never snatched a purse leaving the casino, stabbed anyone in the parking lot, or robbed a 7-11 on the way home. I guess I'm an outlier.

Yes, exactly - that you are an outlier. Not 100%, but more like 3%. It's a relative thing.

Quote: MathExtremist

No, courts have said they're not criminal (edit: or tortious). There's a vast gulf between "not criminal" and "allowed".

No there isn't. If something is allowed by law, then it is allowed. That's all there is to it. The government is the only figure with any authority here.

I can claim that you are not allowed to cross my path without bowing before me and hailing me as a mathematical guru, but that doesn't mean that you are actually not allowed to cross my path without bowing before me. It just means that I'm making up some random crap that you are free to ignore.

Similarly, the casino can make all the unwritten rules that they want. If they are not legally enforceable then they are not worth the paper that they're not written on.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Similarly, the casino can make all the unwritten rules that they want. If they are not legally enforceable then they are not worth the paper that they're not written on.

What if the rules of a business - even a casino business - are enforceable? Like...

if we don't wish to enter into a wagering arrangement with this person, then he gets "no action" from us - he's off our tables. Just as you are not required to play at a particular casino, a casino is not required to take your particular action either, that is, to deny you or back you off.

It's a business establishment, and they can legally deny you service if you do not follow their house rules of play, or so it seems. And these rules ARE legally enforceable - as people get flat-betted, back-off, and ejected from casinos all the time. Legally.

Just because they can't throw you in jail doesn't mean they can't throw you out. They do indeed.

That's fine. Backoffs are legally enforceable. A ban on card counting isn't.

Calling people who take advantage of dealer errors thieves might hold more weight if you hadn't used the same sorts of rhetoric in reference to card counters.

Quote: Paigowdan

if we don't wish to enter into a wagering arrangement with this person, then he gets "no action" from us - he's off our tables. Just as you are not required to play at a particular casino, a casino is not required to take your particular action either, that is, to deny you or back you off.

It's a business establishment, and they can legally deny you service if you do not follow their house rules of play, or so it seems. And these rules ARE legally enforceable - as people get flat-betted, back-off, and ejected from casinos all the time. Legally.

Just because they can't throw you in jail doesn't mean they can't throw you out. They do indeed.

OK, I've never argued that the casino can't do this. They have legal options they can take to 'safe guard' their advantage, not an issue from my perspective. I think it many cases they are shortsighted and AP counter measures will in the end hurt their bottom line more than help it, but I'll agree that they have a legal right to do this.

That doesn't change the fact that AP is neither immoral (in my opinion) nor a form of cheating (in the eyes of the law).

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

That's fine. Backoffs are legally enforceable. A ban on card counting isn't.

Well, that's how they ban it, by banning (backing-off) those who do it. Off the table you go, pretty much, if they see fit to do so.

Quote: Paigowdan

Well, that how they ban it, by banning (backing-off) those who do it. Off the table you go, pretty much, if they see fit to do so.

So, then, the rules are:

1. I'm allowed to count cards.
2. The casino is allowed to bar me.

Which is, of course, very different from saying that I'm not allowed to count cards.

Similarly, I hereby decree that you (Dan) are not allowed to pass me in the street without bowing before me. I will enforce this decree by thinking a lot less of you if you pass me without bowing. So, ask yourself, which is a better explanation of the current state of affairs:

A. You are allowed to pass me in the street without bowing, and I'm allowed to think less of you, or
B. You are not allowed to pass me in the street without bowing?