The future or end of AP Play?

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

So, a question for those who are of the opinion that card counting is cheating (or "breaking the rules"). I wonder where you would draw the line. Which of these actions are acceptable?

I and another player are the only two people playing. At 3rd base, I start with 7,6 vs a dealer 10. I hit and get a 3. So, 16 vs a 10.

1. I hit! BS says 16 vs 10 is hit
2. But wait! It's a 3-card 16 vs a 10. That's a stand (composition-dependent BS). So I stand
3. But wait! 1st base had 10,10. So it's really no different than me having a 10,6 with 3rd base having had a 10,3, hitting, and catching a 7. So it's like a 2-card 16. So I hit.
4. But wait! I remember that last hand, the dealer drew a 6-card 21 after 1st base and I both stood on stiff totals. So I stand.

Arguably, these are all card counting to some extent, and based on the fact that the index number for this play is 0:

#1: based on the knowledge that the average 16 vs 10 hand leaves the deck in a negative count.
#2: counting only your cards and the dealers card, based on the card that the average 3-card 16 vs 10 leaves the deck with + count.
#3: seeing the cards that are staring at you in the face and realizing that they leave the deck with - count.
#4: having a short-term memory that lasts longer than 30 seconds and realizing that the last 2 hands leave the deck with a + count.

We can keep going, with option #5 that remembers the last 2 hands, option #6 that remembers the last 3, etc, etc.

Basically, out of all the public information out there, I want to know how much of it I am required to ignore, by the unwritten house rules which define fair and ethical play.

After all, I wouldn't want to "cheat".

You do not have to worry about being seen as a "cheater," as the casino will certainly let you know if they have a problem with your play, and they will let you know this. You will know when you are done when the floorman tells you that you are done. In this regard, the casino will have graciously helped you with your dilemma and uncertainty; they will inform you as to your status on this matter.

Card Counting via physical bet manipulation - is a casino no-no. (it's not just mental here, as your hands are actually chuncking up the bets)
Card counting by using strategy mod plays are also a legal, but a casino no-no, and can also get you backed off, or off of a table, if they see fit, too.

If the casino isn't happy with your play, your play is over. They are not required to go into a wagering agreement with you, as it is a mutual agreement to play.

Is States where there is a no-bar clause, the games are so lousy you can't AP them.

Quote: Paigowdan

While some of the casino draw is a night out for ploppies, a huge draw for some is the belief that the games are beatable.

And for some still - it's 100.0% of the draw.
You don't seem to grasp that some people don't care for games they can't win (consistently, not an occasional uptick). Winning is the whole point of going to the casino for them. So the choice is not between a risk of being barred and playing a losing game; the choice is between a risk of being barred and not playing at all.

Quote: Paigowdan

That they're legal beatable by a handful of elite casino killers....yes.

Hardly. Counting at blackjack is much easier than poker at medium stakes and above, for instance. It takes about 100,000 hands to begin reasonably playing poker, rather than just crapshooting chips. That's 3,000 hours of live play. One can start counting at home in 30 hours and learn casino level counting with camo in 300. Between 30 and 300, you can practice online or with zero spread. And in 3,000 hours, you're at the level of earning your bread (but not necessarily butter) anywhere countable games are available.

People are drawn to counting precisely because it's so easy. Of course, people who try to learn it in 3 hours, and that's the limit of most people's attention span... they get burned. There's easily 10x more such people than those who count successfully.
Without the myth of easy counting, blackjack wouldn't be where it is now. It would be just another game, amidst a number of similar and dissimilar others.

Quote: Paigowdan

In the expectation that they are generally truly or easily beatible - no. Otherwise, the casinos' lights would be dark, which is not the case.

Of course.
Even the hours it takes to start casino counting is A LOT more time than most people would ever invest in such training. And unless they plan to make a living doing it, they're right.

And other games... they are usually learned after blackjack. But the risk/reward ratio is much better: casinos are watching out for counters with their 1% edge while being patently blind to a hole-carder in a semi-carnie game carrying chips from them by the rack at 5% edge. And willfully blind to a whale abusing loss rebates to get 20% edge and take millions off their bottom line.

Hey, as long as everyone gets paid. Paranoid surveillance departments wasting $1000's/hour to keep an occasional counter from walking home with $100. Carnie game and side bet owners who'll replace the loss leader with the new best thing next month at just 1.5x the price and 100% guaranteed not countable. Hosts bringing in juicy whales with best-in-business offers. And, at the very least, dealers and beverage servers.

You're right.

I now admit defeat.

I'm going to go this card counting school. I shall be rich.

What was I thinking....

Dan, I'm off to the casino. I will play blackjack, and I will count cards. I will not get rich, but will enjoy myself.

Today I will employ modest spread of 1-10. I will sit at first base, where I'm sure to see a few hole cards. Even better, I will probably know my first card a few times during the session. If I know it's going to be an ace, I will make a large wager. My eyes and brain are my lone tools for the job. And I will not tip any dealer, ever.

If I get really lucky, they will backroom me; and I may "get rich"

Quote: MakingBook

Dan, I'm off to the casino. I will play blackjack, and I will count cards. I will not get rich, but will enjoy mysiself.

Good for you.

Quote: Makingbook

Today I will employ modest spread of 1-10.

No where else in the casino is a modest spread of 1-10 modest. It's a tip-off.

Quote: MakingBook

If I get really lucky, they will backroom me;

It is cheaper than spending $250 for the hour, or $150 for the half.
There are places on Spring Mountain Road that charge the same hourly rates as lawyers.
I would like to think you get lucky because you're reasonably handsome.

Quote: MakingBook

and I may "get rich"

You mean like Eliot?

Quote: Paigowdan

I now admit defeat.
I'm going to go this card counting school. I shall be rich.

Whatever pays your bills, Dan.

And so for everyone else.
People in the huge Game Protection industry will also do whatever pays their bills.
...I wonder, does eliminating advantage play in itself help that goal?

Quote: Paigowdan

It is cheaper than spending $250 for the hour, or $150 for the half.

Contingency fee bro.

It's basically unheard of to litigate these cases on any other basis, especially in NV.
And it's tax deductible, too!

Not the punitive part though. You should play a fine line to trigger the physical clause, maximizing the free component and your deductibles, but still stay around the good part of the risk-reward curve for repeatability. I wonder if there are courses.

The following charts give the AP's edge for a variety of card counting and hole-carding opportunities. I am not including blackjack variants, but the new ones have some striking vulnerabilities. In these charts, I assume the AP only makes a wager when he has the edge, and that his wager is $100.

The variety of opportunities for AP play is steadily increasing. For the card counters, side bets are a very strong play. For the hole-card crew, the games are getting burnt out faster because there are more APs competing. Also, many casinos are learning to watch their proprietary games more closely for hole-card issues.

Of course, there are many other ways to beat these games.

============================================

deleted

Grey-AP: legal but unethical, and against the house rules: card-counting, taking advantage of a newbie “flashing” dealer; claiming; accepting wrong payouts in one direction, as opposed to rejecting all “wrong” money.

Huh? Show me any casino house rules of blackjack that says "players are not allowed to use their brains to play the game of blackjack." Players are allowed to use their brains (and often encouraged to do so). Tables have limit signs with a min bet and a max bet and players are encouraged to bet whatever they want. Players are not responsible to protect the dealers hands. I don't know of any casino that says if a dealer accidentally exposes a card that players are to ignore it and pretend they didn't see it or can't utilize the information.

Regarding payoffs, it is not illegal to accept them if the player and dealer are not in cahoots and the player does not realize the payoff was incorrect. Again, it is not up to the player to provide quality control for the math skills of the casino employees.

Grey Area??? My Ass!

Quote: bigplayer

Grey-AP: legal but unethical, and against the house rules: card-counting, taking advantage of a newbie “flashing” dealer; claiming; accepting wrong payouts in one direction, as opposed to rejecting all “wrong” money.

Huh? Show me any casino house rules of blackjack that says "players are not allowed to use their brains to play the game of blackjack." Players are allowed to use their brains (and often encouraged to do so). Tables have limit signs with a min bet and a max bet and players are encouraged to bet whatever they want. Players are not responsible to protect the dealers hands. I don't know of any casino that says if a dealer accidentally exposes a card that players are to ignore it and pretend they didn't see it or can't utilize the information.

Regarding payoffs, it is not illegal to accept them if the player and dealer are not in cahoots and the player does not realize the payoff was incorrect. Again, it is not up to the player to provide quality control for the math skills of the casino employees.

Grey Area??? My Ass!

Welcome to the WoV forum. I'm sure you and PGD will be best buddies within the week :).

Quote: bigplayer

Huh? Show me any casino house rules of blackjack that says "players are not allowed to use their brains to play the game of blackjack." Players are allowed to use their brains (and often encouraged to do so). Tables have limit signs with a min bet and a max bet and players are encouraged to bet whatever they want.

The old "use your brains" line. Tell me, if it's not against the house rules, then why are you counting so inefficiently? When the shoe's on your side, you're betting so little, and why are you even once betting more than the minimum when it's not? And why are you making those terrible plays? Oh, right, because you don't want to be caught. If you're trying to conceal your behavior, then you know it is against house rules, by definition. Not only that, but as much as you pride your ability to add and subtract one, (I hope) 95% of what you're "using your brain" for is pulling the wool over their eyes, because you, as do people who've never set foot in a casino, know that what's forbidden is not "using your brain," but correlating your bets to the count.

Quote: bigplayer

Players are not responsible to protect the dealers hands. I don't know of any casino that says if a dealer accidentally exposes a card that players are to ignore it and pretend they didn't see it or can't utilize the information.

Seeking out such dealers, however, goes against the basic assumptions of any card game. It is simply not ethical play to take action to make yourself more likely to see cards that are meant to be concealed, in any circumstances, and the fact that the game is slightly in favor of the people hosting it, who in it take no other direct source of revenue, does not change that.

Quote: bigplayer

Regarding payoffs, it is not illegal to accept them if the player and dealer are not in cahoots and the player does not realize the payoff was incorrect. Again, it is not up to the player to provide quality control for the math skills of the casino employees.

"Illegal," "illegal," "illegal"! Uncle Sam will hold your hand and give you every detail of how to live, until he takes you off to be slaughtered. How much agreement do you think you'd get defending taking as ethical - not forgivable, but ethical - money given to you erroneously in any other context, illegal or no?

I have always wondered: - why casinos do no offer regular backgammon games ? (since tourneys, it can be offered as regular game)

Who wants a 10hph game that involves skill - one thing casinos want you to check at the door? They even balk at their own poker rooms.

Quote: 24Bingo

The old "use your brains" line. Tell me, if it's not against the house rules...

The gaming industry remains unique in that it's the only place I can find where using your brain is against the rules in a particular game. To date, no one has provided any other legitimate examples of where this occurs: the best PGD could do was cite some prop bets and a flaw on a game show someone exploited.

Quote: bigplayer

Grey-AP: legal but unethical, and against the house rules: card-counting, taking advantage of a newbie “flashing” dealer; claiming; accepting wrong payouts in one direction, as opposed to rejecting all “wrong” money.

Huh? Show me any casino house rules of blackjack that says "players are not allowed to use their brains to play the game of blackjack."

Again, this line. "Show me where it is written THAT....[yada, yada, yada]."
A casino doesn't have to show you squat, except for the door, if they see fit.

So it's not about using your brains, but the actions that stem from using your brain.
Using your brain is fine, it's your actions that may be called into question. And your counting actions may be obviously discernable by floor and surveillance.
You can literally justify carrying out ANY action on the premise of "using my brain."
(I've heard it argued that One can argue that both Lucifer and the Christ are equally brilliant - when chosing to ignore the deeds and the resulting action.)

The fact of the matter is this:
1. No one - including casinos - are compelled to enter into a wagering agreement.
2. Casinos set the house rules. Not you. A fact.
3. All a floor supervisor or pit boss has to say is: a) "You may play," or b) "You are done playing, Goodnight."

Quote: bigplayer

Grey Area??? My Ass!

Yup, exactly. As in "your ass got backed off, flat betted, or 86-ed," - and at the casino's discretion. Happens all the time. There's "your ass" in the parking lot after getting 86-ed from a casino. Duh. (Good link here!)

And that's exactly where the Grey Area comes in: The casino likes your action, - you get to play. They don't, you get to go home.
And not knowing when you'll get backed off, or flat betted, or 86-ed - is the Grey Area. Because you don't know it until it happens. That's how it happens in the real world.

Casinos have every right to protect the house edge on any game they offer, because it is the admissions fee, the mandatory charge, and it pays the bills. Do something demonsterable to erase that house edge - like card counting and hole carding - and they have every right to say, "no more action for you." You see, when your hand is caught chunking up bets on a +9 count that a "little more than just using my brains here" comes into play. Your actions and intent comes into play - even though you may have thought of using it - using your brains, - and your hands, and your chips. Cterianly, if you are using your brains to count, then your brains also know the house rules against it also, whether or not your brains are also deliberately using camoflage and concealment from the floormen, - lie it is an "out in the open Okay thing to do, in accordance with the house rules."

Apparently, the floormen and pit bosses can also be accused of using their brains, too, - in the handling of any threats to their business operations, and in violation of the casino game procedure rules of the property, and during their work shifts, as they are paid to do. Certainly, the casino management had used their brains also, if they had spotted you, and in decerning what your actions and intentions were also - while you were suing your brains.


I see this every night at work: "Sir, you are now flat betted." "Sir, you may play Roulette." "Sir, you are done for the night," and even "Raymond, if you enter this premises again, you will be wearing cuffs, - and try me if you think I'm joking" - as he was walked off by security. This is what players are That last quote was from my shift manager to a Blackjack player when I was dealing a Pai Gow table next to the BJ table this player was on.

I am also a game designer, and my own mathematician often stays at the casino hotel I work at when he is in Las Vegas. He often stays at the hotel I work at. And the casino management loves this guy to death, as do I, this counting-knowledgable individual, and they don't care that he is a counter, but they can't give him an inch on this issue. And I agree.

I was pulled aside before one of his visits, and was told, "Danny, do inform your associate Mr. XXXX that he is flat betted from jump street when he sits at a BJ table, except for the CSM, table BJ-20. He's extremely welcome here, and may flat bet BJ all night long, and play the sh]t out of dice, but if he jump bets on a pitch game, he gets a movie comp and will be told to use it." I said "He already knows this, and he is not a problem." (Do you see any backrooming going on here??!!) Mind you, this is the casino management I work for as a dice dealer, and they treat him as the gaming VIP that he is - and as the card counter that he is, too. And the casino management does NOT take a "war approach" to him or this subject - it's JUST business. And he never has a problem as a card counter because "He gets It" in a way no "warrior militant card counter in fantasyland" does. I dealt to him myself when he was here, - but he was doing a come bet progression at max odds at the time. AND he is easy to deal to - AND a George! (In fact, I had to talk to a fellow dice crew member who got greedy and began to pitch him for even more tokes. His behavior was more gracious than a gambling hall's dice crew, - my point - which is rare for a counter.)

Look, I actually do work in the gaming business, and I will say that casino operators and gambling halls find all these arguments of "Well...it is technically legal to card-count - ah-Hah!!!"...and the "where is it written that I cannot card count....Ah- HAH!!!" to be nonsense, and is generally countered by: "Listen Buddy, you're done for the night playing blackjack, so go play Roullete or go just go up to your room..." instead of some Internet chat room description of a back room beat down where the threat is now "Ah-Hah - Wait until we sue your asses!!!!...Card Counters RULE, dude!"

I will argue that you were indeed using your brains while counting cards, - in the sense that you were burning off some glucose in your grey matter while doing so - but that you were NOT using your brains very effectively - if you got your brains got you backed off of a game by a florman or surbeillance worker also using his.

As a matter of fact, if you do not absolutely have a fully lucrative, financially rewarding, and very secure career OR pasttime in gaming from the counting of double-decks Blackjack games in some gambling hall, as glamorous as it is - then your brains may need to consider this Grey Area. And I know that most above-average people either don't succeed in it, or even consider it. A few however do, Like Natheniel Tilton, a leader salmon. I read his fine book.

Quote: Paigowdan

Grey-AP: legal but unethical

Quote: Paigowdan

And that's exactly where the Grey Area comes in: The casino likes your action, - you get to play. They don't, you get to go home.

Yes, Dan. This is true. The casino likes you, you stay. They don't like your action or your shoes or your color (used to be a few decades ago), you go home.

But that doesn't make wearing brown shoes with a blue suit, or brown skin in a white town, or playing skillfully, or doing anything else that the casino doesn't like, but which isn't otherwise wrong, unethical.
You used the word "unethical". Not your opponents.

You keep flaunting casinos' ability and propensity to engage in any behavior they please. But that's a matter of force, and it only reflects on the casinos, not their patrons.

OK, here goes.... I was just playing Asia Poker, a game where a player can be CLEARLY better than the dealer (but still will likely loose due to many copy hands which go to the dealer). I was dealt a monster hand, and as I was pondering where to spend the $10 I was about to win, the dealer turned over a more monstrous hand, with the joker, and all high cards. The dealer sets his hand in a way that will win 99.9% of the time, but not house ways, and actually will lose to mine. In a rare PaiGowDan moment I tell the dealer that he misset his hand. He looks at it, says it is set properly, calls over the pit boss who agrees. They then take everyone's money and pay me, and I ask the pit boss if I can rearrange the dealers cards, and if they then agree with me, they will not take my $10 back. They decide to 'humor me', as they 'know' they are correct. I show them the right way... they say... wow... we didnt see that! They stand by their word and let me keep the $20. There were multiple other such dealer errors, I am not sure if enough to make the game +EV, but I played 3 'sessions' and ended up + on each one. On a previous trip I played this game at Paris and the dealer was so bad it was like sitting down at a printing press.
Also, on one hand the dealer was about to pay the player to my left on a losing hand, he caught himself, and corrctly took the players money, and said, "I almost paid you on a loss." The player asked what should she have done if that happened. The dealer, without hesitating, said "you keep the money if I give it to you." That dealer works in the gaming industry, too, Dan!

You know,

It doesn't even matter if it fully ethical to get money this way. The Question is, "does it really work in my gambling life in real casinos, or am I just arguing and debating a point of "card counting is wonderful, and a human right, on some Internet forum that comes into my life through a computer tube in my den?"

It matters if it really works as some sort of occupation in one's life - especially if serious about becoming exceptional or distinguished or ultimately successful in gaming at a high level - either as a player or executive. I think the honest answer in no, and that it is played out

In the gaming business, it is looked upon as a low-level annoyance to be dealt with, handled, and managed, as people run into that waterfall as a wonderful thing to seek doing as casino workers go to another day of work dealing with it.

Casino directors and shift managers will say, "we had an additional twelve mor*ns trying to run BJ games on us this past week, and we lost a small amount of money, and so we're reducing the shoe deck penetration to xx%, and alerting floor and surveillance to back off more quickly. We're also petitioning Corporate to remove the more countable side bets, and use use less countable side bets, based on intelligence on side bet countability from the AP sites www.apheat.com, and www.apheat.net and www.discountcountgambling.net. Item Done. Let them get a real job or something. Next item."

Is this you they're talking about?

There aren't many Ian Andersons, Max Rubins, Nathaniel Tiltons, or the like, but a hell of a lot of wannabees.

Quote: SOOPOO

OK, here goes.... I was just playing Asia Poker, a game where a player can be CLEARLY better than the dealer (but still will likely loose due to many copy hands which go to the dealer). I was dealt a monster hand, and as I was pondering where to spend the $10 I was about to win, the dealer turned over a more monstrous hand, with the joker, and all high cards. The dealer sets his hand in a way that will win 99.9% of the time, but not house ways, and actually will lose to mine. In a rare PaiGowDan moment I tell the dealer that he misset his hand.

I am very impressed and pleased by your action, and I salute you, Scott! Really. And I am being very serious here, very few players have this level of protocol or gumption. The dealer set his hand to proper play, probably because he also plays himself, yet he must always follow the weaker and quicker house way, and happily pay the players who win. I do not know how many times I used to sit in a DEQ office and say, "I'm Glad you sold EZ Pai Gow to casino xxx, Steve - but are you serious that this is their house way??!! @#$%^ @!" - And Steve would say, "f**k it Dan, it's a sale, it'll still hold xx%, and if we demanded they retrain their dealers to use the optimal house, you lose the sale. Shaddup! WTF." You follow the house way as a house rule, no matter how much better your own play is.

Quote: SooPoo

Also, on one hand the dealer was about to pay the player to my left on a losing hand, he caught himself, and corrctly took the players money, and said, "I almost paid you on a loss." The player asked what should she have done if that happened. The dealer, without hesitating, said "you keep the money if I give it to you." That dealer works in the gaming industry, too, Dan!

1. Until Surveillance calls down on the dealer, and he takes a stroll to the shift office. Busted.
2. Yeah, that dealer works in the gaming industry. For that matter, Johnnie Cochran worked as a lawyer, Bernie Madoff as an investment expert, and Joseph Megele as a medical doctor. Jimmy Carter was also president. Pick a role model to justify your position. We're talking: "Trust him - he's a professional here!" This later comment detracts a tad from your initial sentiment and action, above.

Quote: Paigowdan

You know,
It doesn't even matter if it fully ethical to get money this way. The Question is, "does it really work in my gambling life in real casinos,

Yes. Get off your high horse. It's your tendency to argue ethical issues, and, when lacking ethical grounds to stand on, misrepresent realpolitik as ethics that annoys people.

Quote: Paigowdan

I am very impressed and pleased by your action, and I salute you, Scott! Really. And I am being very serious here, very few players have this level of protocol or gumption.

And at the same time, let's be real, if the wager was $500 or $1000 instead of $10, would the same behavior have occurred? (To be clear, this is not directed at SOOPOO, but just a rhetorical question on the subject in general).

No.
Integrity - in casino play and business - is an issue. As it is in every other discipine and business. It costs, it wastes time and money.

Take a bribe or questionable pay if you want to. Or bribe yourself to your own stisfaction by counting cards, or by using an expired transit pass, taking an overpayment in change at some drive through ("well....the clerk/dealer just handed it to me!") - what have you.

There was once a HUGE industry in getting free phone calls as a counter-culture righteous industry, in the computer industry in its early days. In fact, many of the computer industry's initial mainstream experts came from reformed hackers and practioners, kind of like Teliot or Max Rubin et al, - when things changed, and being able to see the writing on the wall. And the Casino Advantage Play sub-industry closely parallels it. AP players will justify it to no end, saying "No - it is still alive, it is still viable," even when things in the industry are changing for real.

The nature of live casino play is going to change. Technology, and standards, and the hiring of ex-AP players (and pro-game protection guys like me) work to see to it. You know have to pay your phone bill, and be happy to do so, to pay for your "Pay for Play." From Bangkok to las Vegas, people will pay to play, and attempts to arguably "freeload" on it - like phone phreaking - or the AP play of the 1970's - will be a thing of the past as the door closes.

This is not my opinion. This is what is actually being done, but it is here called "Dan's opinion," for simply pointing out the changes to come.

Quote: TheBigPaybak

Quote: Paigowdan

I am very impressed and pleased by your action, and I salute you, Scott! Really. And I am being very serious here, very few players have this level of protocol or gumption.

And at the same time, let's be real, if the wager was $500 or $1000 instead of $10, would the same behavior have occurred? (To be clear, this is not directed at SOOPOO, but just a rhetorical question on the subject in general).

That's the test on Soopoo, ask him. He certainly passed it, - if it were to be viewed that way.

There is an old saying in many variations, "Thief for a dime, thief for a thousand."

But the reverse is not true. One may be clean everyday for petty amounts, but succumb - and yield - to the mother load when it is presented, in the sense that "Everyone has his price."

No, Dan.
APs are not freeloaders. They are not out to get entertainment for free.
They are out to get money. Win at a game you want everyone to lose at.

If you win in your struggle to eliminate legal, white-hat APs - as long as there is gambling, there will be people extracting money from it, and it won't be just the casinos. They'll just have to move to gray hat and black hat methods.

Oh. I see....

Question for anyone (including Paigowdan) in regards to this thread: If one is milking gold from his cow and he knows that sooner or later his cow will not give gold any longer, but only milk instead as it was supposed to, he should ever miss miking this gold miracle ?

Quote: Paigowdan

Quote: TheBigPaybak

Quote: Paigowdan

I am very impressed and pleased by your action, and I salute you, Scott! Really. And I am being very serious here, very few players have this level of protocol or gumption.

And at the same time, let's be real, if the wager was $500 or $1000 instead of $10, would the same behavior have occurred? (To be clear, this is not directed at SOOPOO, but just a rhetorical question on the subject in general).

That's the test on Soopoo, ask him. He certainly passed it, - if it were to be viewed that way.

There is an old saying in many variations, "Thief for a dime, thief for a thousand."

But the reverse is not true. One may be clean everyday for petty amounts, but succumb - and yield - to the mother load when it is presented, in the sense that "Everyone has his price."

It really is a rhetorical question, as those who have gambled with me know, I rarely make a bet over $50 at any time. I am pretty sure if I had bet $500 I would never have said a thing and just kept the 'ill gotten $1,000' as Dan would refer to it as.
I guess the EV to me, which was NOT in dollars and cents, of being able to show the 'sure' crew that they were wrong, exceeded the possible loss of the $20 they were paying me.

Quote: PlayHunter

Question for anyone (including Paigowdan) in regards to this thread: If one is milking gold from his cow and he knows that sooner or later his cow will not give gold any longer, but only milk instead as it was supposed to, he should ever miss miking this gold miracle ?

If a man is milking gold from his personal property - a cow, as per your example - he'll probably won't milk it and kill it to death as he wants or see fit, but treat her reasonably for best lifetime performance. Likewise, if he owned a car, he'd maintain it and not run it into the ground; or "steal" from it, as then he'd just be cheating himself. However he certainly would milk it and rape it to death if it were someone else's cow, and without concern. A slaughterhouse barbeque, in fact, if he could ly possibdo so, if not his own cow.

No one does an oil change or a tune-up on a rental car.

If his own cow, he may also nuture it and care for it too, and do nothing abusive of the sort. So, this question does has some ownership boundary issues, as it really concerns how we behave in an external public business, and not a business casino operation of our own ownership, - as THAT would be different (it would be MINE) - when one is not milking his own cows here, as when someone card counting or hole carding in an MGM, Boyd Gaming, or Harrah's casino, clearly.

What is being said here is that if it is not my own business, then THEY, - the casino and the other ploppies who feed them - are rich enough to support a little bit of my own pilferage, so what the fuck, it's ethical. And that I am taking only from some other people's pockets who are suckers anyway - the ploppies, the greedy casino owners, the shareholders, "them,' "the others," - you know, and so my own behavior is clearly ethical, because I'm Robin Hood. So as long as it is not my own business or own cow.

And all this drives up the house edge costs that the sucker ploppies unfairly pay for, and drives down comps and the facilities for us all, so as long as I can get over anyway I can, and even knowing it is disallowed by the house. Hence I use camoflage, and I also camoflage my play - because I've got nothing to hide, eh?. Clearly that substantiates the ethics of my behavior, Clearly, I am a great guy to the gaming industry.

And that the casinos would be real pricks if they implemented loss prevention and Theft of Services defenses and guidelines, - such as across the board 50% Blackjack penetration and CSMs, as that would really stop me from humping their cows. Sheesh, I'd have to play straight up dice, or Roulette, or Pai Gow, or Three Card Poker, and you know, that just ain't gambling.

Gambling would then become no different than playing dice, or Pai Gow or Roulette, and Three Card poker - and that would stink.

Because that isn't gambling for me, because gambling is not about the roll of dice, or the real play of the cards.

Because for me, Gambling is whatever trick I can pull off or get away with, even knowing the house rules going into their property.


I get it.

" Gambling is whatever trick I can pull off or get away with, even knowing the house rules going into their property."

I don't have a problem with that.

deleted

I'm not the one having a cow. All this is fine with me. In fact, I get paid a lot of money to implement some of these changes.

I'm just letting you know that 2016 and on is going to be a lot different than 2004 and earlier in terms of AP play and pay, and that some AP players and here now are living in the past.
l
If you look at the poll selections, gambling is going to be craps and UTH and Pai Gow Poker, etc.

Is Beatable Blackjack -and other forms of AP play - slowing closing down?

I've heard at this board here that floormen tremble in their pants over card counters. Never seen it. I do know that card counters "play paranoid" at the tables in fear of being shut down or backed off. I've never seen a floorman in camo. I see them in a suit and a name tag, with nothing to hide.

Future AP opportunities that are legal are going to be rarer, more difficult, and beyond the reach of 99% of those who try. Certainly beyond the abilities who spend their time chiming in on this board. The very few who do succeed will be totally invisible, and won't even be remotely seen discussing this topic pubicly.

To get real, who is really controling things in gambling, and who may be struggling to some degree?

1. Are the casinos (MGM, Harrahs, Boyd gaming, etc) really scared of their future in terms of AP players, that AP players are going to take them down, - or are AP players scrambling to find a new and viable niche, worried that "this gig" might not be a thing to really count on?

2. For every 1,000 workers in the casino industry who have steady work, pay their bills, and are secure in their jobs and don't really sweat their jobs, - how many AP players can say they make $50K a year now as a safe career, and with reasonable surity that they'll be making at least the same $50K five years out as a safe career without any sweat? Is it:
a) 1,000 to 500?
b) 1,000 to 100?
c) 1,000 to 50?
d) 1,000 to 5?

If you say "it is under the radar," then:
a) Can you sign a car loan or mortgage by saying to a lender: "Sorry, my source of income is under the radar, and I cannot tell you." Seriously?
b) If their source of AP income from casinos IS under the radar, would the expense and difficulty of being such a good AP player be better spent in terms of effort to advance in some legitimate career, - assuming they have a concurrent legitimate career? Or is AP play being done for just laughs and giggles?

The fact of the matter is this:
1. No one - including casinos - are compelled to enter into a wagering agreement.
2. Casinos set the house rules. Not you. A fact.
3. All a floor supervisor or pit boss has to say is: a) "You may play," or b) "You are done playing, Goodnight."

Fortunately you guys are faced with...

1. The fear of backing off or 86ing an otherwise good customers by mistake
2. Needing a big enough sample size to come to a conclusion about a player to avoid #1 above
3. Being unable to identify hole carders until the damage is already done

I can print off fake ID's and get new players cards faster than you guys can back me off. FYI, I've been an RFB guest in your casino for years (since the day you opened) and you haven't caught me yet smartass despite hundreds of hours of play and a massive cumulative win. Look for me there New Years Eve.

The old "use your brains" line. Tell me, if it's not against the house rules, then why are you counting so inefficiently? When the shoe's on your side, you're betting so little, and why are you even once betting more than the minimum when it's not? And why are you making those terrible plays? Oh, right, because you don't want to be caught. If you're trying to conceal your behavior, then you know it is against house rules, by definition. Not only that, but as much as you pride your ability to add and subtract one, (I hope) 95% of what you're "using your brain" for is pulling the wool over their eyes, because you, as do people who've never set foot in a casino, know that what's forbidden is not "using your brain," but correlating your bets to the count.

Misdirection versus an opponent does not say anything except that I'm trying to get more money out of you by being able to play longer. Nobody has said that you do not have the right to "refuse service". I contend that it is unethical and bad public policy to allow a regulated business like a casino to pick and choose to whom it will deal cards to. Preying only upon the stupid, impaired, or addicted customers is the real "Grey Area". Again point me to the exact phrase in the rules of blackjack sitting in that binder inside the pit podium that says you cannot use your brain to play casino games. It's not there.

Seeking out such dealers, however, goes against the basic assumptions of any card game. It is simply not ethical play to take action to make yourself more likely to see cards that are meant to be concealed, in any circumstances, and the fact that the game is slightly in favor of the people hosting it, who in it take no other direct source of revenue, does not change that.

Fix your dealers. Don't blame the messenger if you disagree with the message. Fix your damned dealers and you will put the hole carders out of business immediately. When someone beats your 6/5 single deck out of a half-million in a few hours you should know something is up. Fix Your Dealers!!! It is not the responsibility of the players to protect the casinos from themselves.

"Illegal," "illegal," "illegal"! Uncle Sam will hold your hand and give you every detail of how to live, until he takes you off to be slaughtered. How much agreement do you think you'd get defending taking as ethical - not forgivable, but ethical - money given to you erroneously in any other context, illegal or no?

Then press charges if it's illegal. The fact that you can't press charges says a lot about the legality. It's not illegal to accept the payoff if you don't realize it was incorrect. Likewise, if the house takes a winning bet by mistake and the player doesn't catch it nobody arrests the dealer because of an honest error. Spot the error and get your money back. If you can't spot the error...well if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there does it make a sound...

Quote: bigplayer

It's not illegal to accept the payoff if you don't realize it was incorrect.

Are you implying it's illegal to accept a payoff that you did realize was incorrect?

Quote: Paigowdan

If a man is milking gold from his personal property ... However he certainly would milk it and rape it to death if it were someone else's cow, and without concern.

Are you a man?

Quote: Paigowdan

Casino directors and shift managers will say, "we had an additional twelve mor*ns trying to run BJ games on us this past week, and we lost a small amount of money, and so we're reducing the shoe deck penetration to xx%

This, right here, shows that the "directors and shift managers" are mathematically challenged, and it's why AP play will always be possible. Anyone who is capable of simple arithmetic can see that reducing penetration will cost the house money, not save it, even if there are a few counters. Only an idiot would reduce penetration in an attempt to save money.

Really, this is what it comes down to. Good APs are smarter than the people who run the casinos, and that's why they will always be able to find an edge.

Quote: PlayHunter

I have always wondered: - why casinos do no offer regular backgammon games ? (since tourneys, it can be offered as regular game)

Quote: P90

Who wants a 10hph game that involves skill - one thing casinos want you to check at the door? They even balk at their own poker rooms.

I love this paranoid fantasy of APs that casinos want the money of every single person who walks in the door. Why would they? What's in it for them? Better to clean out most and let a few leave happy, and games that involve skill are perfect for that. Why else would most larger casinos have poker rooms? If they didn't like them, they'd be rid of them. Why do even small ones have bookies? No, the favorite game of Caesar has simply gone the way of Faro.

Quote: TheBigPaybak

The gaming industry remains unique in that it's the only place I can find where using your brain is against the rules in a particular game. To date, no one has provided any other legitimate examples of where this occurs: the best PGD could do was cite some prop bets and a flaw on a game show someone exploited.

No matter how many times you say it, you will not be breaking the rules by "using your brain." Rather, you are only "using your brain" to not get caught at a feat of mathematics a Neanderthal could do, and that is syncing your bets to the count. Granted, it's kind of a "Lemon test" rule, which is the only reason it's not written up there, but you know it's there, you know you're breaking it, and I hope for your sake most of your brainpower is going to convincing the powers that be you aren't.

Quote: 24Bingo

No matter how many times you say it, you will not be breaking the rules by "using your brain." Rather, you are only "using your brain" to not get caught at a feat of mathematics a Neanderthal could do, and that is syncing your bets to the count. Granted, it's kind of a "Lemon test" rule, which is the only reason it's not written up there, but you know it's there, you know you're breaking it, and I hope for your sake most of your brainpower is going to convincing the powers that be you aren't.

Casinos love me: I play slots and a whole variety of -EV games. And yes, sometimes I do play blackjack although I've never "counted cards". Having not done so, I can't make an informed opinion that it doesn't require a lot of brainpower although from reading the board, it seems like there are various skill levels of counting, which have nothing to do with the aspect of "not getting caught". Aren't there books on this stuff that are more than just about hiding the activity?

Look, I'm not making a judgment call here on the activity but stand by what I say. I'm coming at this from a novice's perspective. If you take anyone off the street who isn't plugged-in to the gaming industry, and explained to them the rules of the game and then said, here's a book that teaches you a strategy to the game, they would of course be surprised to learn that you could employ all the losing strategies you want, just not the winning one. Raising or lowering your bet is part of that strategy, just like raising your bet is part of the Martingale strategy. I've made some posts on this topic because I find it interesting that the gaming industry is unique in this area. I don't begrudge the actions they take as I understand they have a business to run. But let's not kid ourselves: the only reason any of this is going on is because the game is flawed and they need to compensate with ways of detecting certain strategies because they still need to offer the game in a beatable fashion for competitive reasons.

Quote: 24Bingo

I love this paranoid fantasy of APs that casinos want the money of every single person who walks in the door. Why would they? What's in it for them? Better to clean out most and let a few leave happy, and games that involve skill are perfect for that.

Not true.
Have you read about recent conditioning studies?
Negative conditioning - losing - dissuades a behavior.
Positive conditioning - winning - encourages a behavior. Once winning stops, the conditioning disappears after a few trials.
Random conditioning - win/lose - may encourage or dissuade a behavior. This conditioning remains for a large number of trials even after random outcome is replaced with consistent positive or negative impulse.

A game of skill will have good players winning, bad players losing, so in the end bad players leave, for running out of money if nothing else, and good ones are left among themselves. This is what happened to poker. If not for the media craze and then online poker craze, it would be dead. Even today it's already getting tough, though emerging markets still pump in value.

So to provide the best conditioning, you need a game of pure or near pure chance. The result is set as random from the get go; player skill has minimal effect on outcome distribution. Thus everyone is conditioned to return and try again.

That's how some very popular skill-involving games are set. In blackjack, player actions only shift the lose/win ratio by a couple %. In PG and PGP, almost every decision is obvious, so again the win/lose ratio is consistent. The use of skill plays a psychological role.
Note that real poker is still a game with a massive element of chance, but even that is not enough; skill drops the winning ratio too low for players who don't have it.

So what's your explanation for horse racing, or jai alai? Doesn't seem to have slowed down, and I always seem to miss Late Night Bookies.

Meanwhile, the stud and limit players are still filling up tables, still making them money. Not the share of the poker room they used to have (and nowhere near the share of home games), but a fair share. And I have a hard time imagining poker can dissuade the people who flock to sic bo and double-zero roulette, especially with I really can stay up here running on loop through everyone's brain.

Missed this (pretty sure because he meant me to):

Quote: bigplayer

Misdirection versus an opponent does not say anything except that I'm trying to get more money out of you by being able to play longer. Nobody has said that you do not have the right to "refuse service". I contend that it is unethical and bad public policy to allow a regulated business like a casino to pick and choose to whom it will deal cards to. Preying only upon the stupid, impaired, or addicted customers is the real "Grey Area". Again point me to the exact phrase in the rules of blackjack sitting in that binder inside the pit podium that says you cannot use your brain to play casino games. It's not there.

"Nobody has said that you do not have the right to refuse service. I contend that you do not have the right to refuse service."

You're right, that phrase isn't there, because only you have convinced yourselves that's what's forbidden. It's true that what's actually forbidden isn't written there, either, but do you for that reason claim it isn't the rule? Then go right ahead and act as though it isn't the rule. It isn't, after all, is it?

Quote: bigplayer

Fix your dealers. Don't blame the messenger if you disagree with the message. Fix your damned dealers and you will put the hole carders out of business immediately. When someone beats your 6/5 single deck out of a half-million in a few hours you should know something is up. Fix Your Dealers!!! It is not the responsibility of the players to protect the casinos from themselves.

"They should have stopped me!" is no excuse for anything, anywhere. It's not the player's responsibility to police the dealers, but it's not their right to seek out and take advantage, either.

Quote: bigplayer

Then press charges if it's illegal. The fact that you can't press charges says a lot about the legality. It's not illegal to accept the payoff if you don't realize it was incorrect. Likewise, if the house takes a winning bet by mistake and the player doesn't catch it nobody arrests the dealer because of an honest error. Spot the error and get your money back. If you can't spot the error...well if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there does it make a sound...

Jegus Vantas - you actually think "illegal" and "unethical" are synonyms, don't you?

I know that must make perfect sense to you as a police officer, but you should know you're never going to get those of us not in blue to agree.

It's tradition to try to beat casinos.

Golf is played by gentleman rules. (if not exactly by gentlemen)

Flea markets, ignorance is used by both buyers and sellers. You don't apoligize if you can get a work of art at a bargain.

Basketball is a game of elbows, fouls, smack talking...

24 Bingo wrote

Jegus Vantas - you actually think "illegal" and "unethical" are synonyms, don't you?

And we all know casino's have the monopoly on "Ethical".

It's not the player's responsibility to police the dealers, but it's not their right to seek out and take advantage, either.

Who says? The player has the right to pick the dealer they feel luckiest against. I don't see any sign on the table that everyone but Mr. XXX can play against this dealer. Casinos seek out the weakest players to play against, sending them bigger comps, better offers, more luxurious limousines, etc. Why shouldn't players seek out the weakest dealers?

Been fun, I'm done with this thread.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

This, right here, shows that the "directors and shift managers" are mathematically challenged, and it's why AP play will always be possible. Anyone who is capable of simple arithmetic can see that reducing penetration will cost the house money, not save it, even if there are a few counters. Only an idiot would reduce penetration in an attempt to save money.

No. Often, there are periods where a house is targeted or hit - an unknown team hits it - and the "win" from less shuffling with deep penetration is shot to hell from the AP play it allows - while at other "quiet" times, the shallow penetration would THEN be a loss. One cannot gamble which scenario a house can face. One size - one answer, one method - "deep OR shallow" penetration does not work by itself; neither does employing both. It is this fault with the game that allows this. Arguing that deep penetration is "best' is from the POV of the AP player, and arguing that "shallow" Penetration is from the POV of the operator. BOTH are, in a sense, wrong, as BOTH FAIL at varying and unknown times. Even having deep penetration is offset with the large hidden costs of having floor and surveillance babysit the games, and ejecting AP players who could sue - all that should be needless. Having gentleman rules on a casino game is B.S., totally ineffectual. Players should be backed off of "any and all" BJ games about as often as Pai Gow Poker, which is essentially never, with the game being about as failable as PGP, but BJ is failable. And the only way to do that is to have a BJ product without holes: CSM BJ, 2-to1 Blackjack variant, quick-shuffle shoe shufflers, an unknown new version - etc.

Quote: Axiomofchoice

Really, this is what it comes down to. Good APs are smarter than the people who run the casinos, and that's why they will always be able to find an edge.

Yes, sometimes yes, especially if a "defective" product of sorts is used. Keep in mind that the vast majority of pit managers come up through the dealing ranks, where the majority is under-educated on the game design faults and issues.
For this reason, a game design has to be foolproof - it has to NOT have holes. And BJ has holes. You cannot have a "defective" product, and a mid-level manager expend extra energy in trying to handle it.

Quote: Buzzard

" Gambling is whatever trick I can pull off or get away with, even knowing the house rules going into their property."

I don't have a problem with that.

This is the problem, allowing an attitude of "any sh]t that I can get away with is okay, - so as long as I get away with it" - as part of a business model, or of a personal values model. It says a lot about a business - or of an individual, - and should not be tolerated goal to strive for.

No business functions effectively with "tolerated or unaddressable corruption." Remember the Phone Industry in the Heydays of Phone Phreaking in the 1970's? Many people were able to get free phone service while the average and legit customer paid large bills for service.

And it is this attitude that is adopted and justified by some members of the general public as a mind set for a common business (gaming), that would be totally unacceptable in any other public or retail business. This used to be acceptable in the phone industry - nobody thought squat about someone else getting some free long distance; indeed, they were viewed as Robin Hoods, until a legit bill came the size of a car loan payment, but people paid because it was a necessary service. Same for other areas. Using counterfeit transit passes? Non-starter. Running out of a restaurant after eating? Obviously a petty theft scam. Shoplifting while also buying some legit items as cover? A lot of people do it, but unacceptable. And business COULD handle it by saying, "Oh, it's the cost of doing business, and other people just pay for it anyway. If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

It is not a question on the nominal legality of doing x, y, or z at some business outlet, - but of business operations themselves. Besides, people have a tendency to operate on the personal basis that it IS acceptable - on condition that I just get away with it. We hear it around here in Spades. The quote above speaks volumes: "Gambling is whatever trick I can pull off." This is what the gaming industry has to face as their clientele. No one questions this. For this reason, uncountable Blackjack might be an industry goal. It might hold better. It would certainly put a dent in the whole sub-industry of AP play.

It is the problem in Blackjack - or any game - that has inadvertent design flaws in it - and that are actually poorly addressed.

Quote: Paigowdan

And the only way to do that is to have a BJ product without holes: CSM BJ, 2-to1 Blackjack variant, quick-shuffle shoe shufflers, an unknown new version - etc.

Hand-dealt pitch games are not going anywhere. The bottom line is that people like them, and casinos make money off them. It would be foolish not to offer them.

Quote: Paigowdan

And the only way to do that is to have a BJ product without holes: CSM BJ, 2-to1 Blackjack variant, quick-shuffle shoe shufflers, an unknown new version - etc.

So why don't you stock that product without holes instead? Why keep offering the beatable version?

I think we all know why. Because it sells. And these bleak shadows of Blackjack don't.

But what makes it sell? Is it the exact rules? But CSM has the same rules, and CSM don't sell. So maybe it's being hand shuffled? But no, hand shuffled cripples don't sell either. So what is it, what is so special about it?

We all know that too. A key feature of this product, a feature that drives a lot of its sales, is that it can be beaten.

Yes, maybe this particular player isn't going to beat it, or even try, but the sale to him depends on implied suggestion that he could.
In a similar vein, your average performance car buyer isn't going to race it on a track, but he enjoys knowing that he could. Keep the styling, strip all of the performance, and it becomes a laughing stock.

You act almost outraged that some players actually use the feature that your product sells on. Like a performance car maker whose product doesn't hold up responding to warranty claims with "Wha-at, you dared turn off the speed limiter? Out, no warranty for you!"
That did actually happen, and it caused a lot of disdain for that maker. No one thought of these drivers as unethical; it's the maker who was. You don't want to deal with the costs of your selling feature being used? Go sell grannymobiles and ploppy games.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Hand-dealt pitch games are not going anywhere. The bottom line is that people like them, and casinos make money off them. It would be foolish not to offer them.

This is true, pitch is unquestionably popular, with an irreplaceable feel to the game. Some casinos use a "depth penetration dart board," constantly adjusting the depth on it.

Quote: P90

So why don't you stock that product without holes instead? Why keep offering the beatable version?

I think we all know why. Because it sells. And these bleak shadows of Blackjack don't.

But what makes it sell? Is it the exact rules? But CSM has the same rules, and CSM don't sell. So maybe it's being hand shuffled? But no, hand shuffled cripples don't sell either. So what is it, what is so special about it?

The CSM game is our 24/7 game, and gets the most action, though at lower dollar level. Some small casinos are mostly CSM and shallow pitch. (Wild Wild West comes to mind at Tropicana and Industrial, between the Strip and the Orleans.) Shoe games can be shuffled with 'brick shufflers', and I've seen low $2 (!) houses use them. At the end of a shoe, drop in a 6-deck block, pull out a 6-deck block, and cut and deal.

We all know that too. A key feature of this product, a feature that drives a lot of its sales, is that it can be beaten.

Yes, maybe this particular player isn't going to beat it, or even try, but the sale to him depends on implied suggestion that he could.
In a similar vein, your average performance car buyer isn't going to race it on a track, but he enjoys knowing that he could. Keep the styling, strip all of the performance, and it becomes a laughing stock.

I disagree. 95% of players don't notice or care about the "performance" of BJ - all of this H17, DOA, DAS, 60% pen, etc, is the stuff only we know here, really. We see the people at the tables. 99% of the people who play in casinos don't use these types of chat forums. We are now a nation of 4 cylinder car owners for the most part.

Quote: P90

You act almost outraged that some players actually use the feature that your product sells on. Like a performance car maker whose product doesn't hold up responding to warranty claims with "Wha-at, you dared turn off the speed limiter? Out, no warranty for you!"
That did actually happen, and it caused a lot of disdain for that maker. No one thought of these drivers as unethical; it's the maker who was. You don't want to deal with the costs of your selling feature being used? Go sell grannymobiles and ploppy games.

Well, I'm puzzled and exhasperated at some of the counters backed off-ed, as well as earlier casino policy. No where near high-level pros, just shamless shot takers at easy money being pushed back. These were not fine students of the art learning the process, so to speak, but hard-up shot takers wearing signs.

I have disdain for both the driver and car maker here, so to speak, - as no one involved is not a deliberate participant. It's like the hackers that hit the Bell system I talked about earlier; the hackers had to study electronics, build devices, and practice their skill, to become successful, having the ploppie customers and AT&T cover the bill. Likewise card counters had to study a discipline and methodology, (one to attack casinos), practice their skills, and use very defined procedures of tracking and computation with actual bet adjustment that parallels the count. And we all know this to be against casino policy and house rules as part of this skills set knowledge, and camoflage is deliberately used to conceal it because it is known as somehow "wrong". One can argue that "using your brains" here like this is a more of a plot or scheme to attack the casinos than innocently playing some BJ on a pleasant evening after a show with the Mrs.
Indeed, we sophisticates here see at least two camps, "the card counting initiated," and the "ploppies," very much like being a "gear head" on cars, versus "Joe Average" driving a Prius.

Personally, I do not consider Craps, UTH, Pai Gow Poker, Baccarat, or Roulette ploppie games, just good games, and so someone playing BJ just straight up without counting is no fool or evil doer for NOT counting or trying to AP, though is actively viewed as a fool or ploppie by the initiated.

The telecomm industry pretty much covered the Phreaking loopholes, resulting in inexpensive phone service for all, as no one can now game the system. But casinos, distributors, and game designers are not there yet. There is a bit of inertia in the gaming industry, or a lot of: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," to ignore the writing on the wall. The majority of casinos do not try new games, feeling that they'd be guinea pigs instead of a front-runners. Any new game where there are multiple rounds drawn from a shoe or deck must have an AP analysis report on it, but few expect to see it or require such a report.

Backing off counters is a "reactive" position, not a pro-active position. It is a "we will handle the problem" instead of "we will stop the problem" point of view.

Quote: Paigowdan

Backing off counters is a "reactive" position, not a pro-active position. It is a "we will handle the problem" instead of "we will stop the problem" point of view.

Should be 're-active', Dan, but isn't always. I have seen places back off complete "ploppie" players simply because they raised their bet at the wrong time. I have seem' The Sweaty Spaniard' do this a number of times to the complete shock and confusion of the player, some who which weren't even good basic strategy players. The over-paranoid casino ended up backing off a bad player that they held a much bigger advantage over than the half percent house edge, just because the losing player was chasing his wagers and raised his bet at the wrong time.

My example of El Cortez is probably somewhat extreme as they are perhaps the sweatiest of the sweaty, but well respected, longtime pit and even casino boss and more recently consultant, Bill Zender, frequently concludes that the casino counter-measures are more often than not, counter productive to their intent of game protection by erroneously backing off losing players or players that poses a minimum threa,t at a cost, in both time and money that exceeds the benefit of such action. Again, a spend a dollar to save 25 cents mentality.

Quote: kewlj

Should be 're-active', Dan, but isn't always. I have seen places back off complete "ploppie" players simply because they raised their bet at the wrong time. I have seem' The Sweaty Spaniard' do this a number of times to the complete shock and confusion of the player, some who which weren't even good basic strategy players. The over-paranoid casino ended up backing off a bad player that they held a much bigger advantage over than the half percent house edge, just because the losing player was chasing his wagers and raised his bet at the wrong time.

My example of El Cortez is probably somewhat extreme as they are perhaps the sweatiest of the sweaty, but well respected, longtime pit and even casino boss and more recently consultant, Bill Zender, frequently concludes that the casino counter-measures are more often than not, counter productive to their intent of game protection by erroneously backing off losing players or players that poses a minimum threat at a cost, in both time and money that exceeds the benefit of such action. Again, a spend a dollar to save 25 cents mentality.

Yes, exactly - back offs, and the need for back offs, are the problem, and often the innocent player gets caught in the net. Sweat Stinks. I say:

1. Reduce or eliminate back offs, pit paranoia, surveillance hawking, bad will, and all the time, effort, and expense incurred by that crap.
2. By making the BJ games impossible, or next to impossible to count, to include side bets.

The open invitation of having vulnerable games without heavy monitoring is asking for AP trouble.
So is having vulnerable games WITH heavy monitoring, - as backing off a card counter to save the table's rack, also incurs heavy expenses and bad will.

So, it seems that the solution is simply to have no vulnerable games, essentially. And such things as hard to count Blackjack variants such as 2-to-1 Blackjack, and using CSMs, and using shuffler machines do help. The 'balancing act' solution is a poor solution.