Local UTH is broken and I want to know how to exploit
Oh no you would slow down ,Then you are stealing from the taxpayers pockets..Speeders like you are why the casino`s oops I mean the states have to post speed limits.
Quoting the statute (not regs) is one thing -- the language says what it says -- but interpreting it is another. I never claimed to have a perfect understanding of that statute's construction, and at the end of the day it's the court's job (at least in litigation) to construe statutes. My question was really how to draw the line between what is and isn't a fraudulent act. Grosjean's arguments to that point raise many of the same edge cases as the previous few pages have done -- "knowledge not available to all players" can't be something that is customarily not available to all players, like your own face-down cards. However, in context that doesn't even matter because that knowledge has to be "of the outcome of the game or any event that affects the outcome of the game or which is the subject of the bet" and knowledge of your down cards isn't relevant to the outcome of some other player's bet.[1]Quote: PaigowdanI quoted the Nevada Regs via MathExtremist's post.
However, knowledge of the dealer's cards *is* relevant, so my question remains: has anyone ever been prosecuted for passively hole carding under the fraudulent acts statute NRS 465.070(2) (acting on acquired knowledge not available to all players) without actively manipulating the dealer so as to see that hole card? If so, what was the outcome of that case?
[1]Technically, this isn't true for games where collusion strategies are effective. So my second question is whether anyone has been charged under the fraudulent acts statute for colluding in a house-banked game by sharing card information.
If anyone knows of any actual cases on these topics, I'd love to find out more.
Quote: MathExtremist"knowledge not available to all players" can't be something that is customarily not available to all players, like your own face-down cards. However, in context that doesn't even matter because that knowledge has to be "of the outcome of the game or any event that affects the outcome of the game or which is the subject of the bet" and knowledge of your down cards isn't relevant to the outcome of some other player's bet.[1]
In blackjack, insurance would be such a wager. If dealer has an Ace showing and I have 2 hands (each hand has 2 non-ten valued cards), I can use this information to make a +EV insurance wager (from my perspective). The other guy, who has two tens in his hand, knows insurance is a -EV wager (doesn't matter what I have in my hand or not). That player is using information that is not available to me -- and many casinos won't allow a player to show his/her cards to another player.
Quote: PaigowdanSure, 6:5 does relate to card counters. Is it much harder to count? Yes. That was the point.
All the suits say "we have to implement this punitive change just to deal with #$%#@ card counters. They caused it. We would have never done it if it weren't for them. A crying shame."
"The suits say" is like, the worst citation sourcing ever! lol, Dan.
That's very typical of every suit in every profession. If you're waiting for them to say, "we're going to 6:5 because the bean counters say we have to make more money off this game/hour, and that's how we're going to raise our hold", I think you'll be waiting a while. But that's what really happened on it. The AP's are the scapegoats. If it made game protection sense, it would've happened overnight.
Instead, they put it in a table here, a table there, see if anybody noticed. Nope; not one in 100 drunk tourist got up and left because they got a red and a white instead of a red and a pink. Bitch a little, maybe, the first time. So it's been creeping like a bad rash, table to table, casino to casino, red tables, now some green, looking for where it starts to cost them enough in player unhappiness that they can't change it. If the greens don't bitch, black better watch out.
Contrast that with what happened in Atlantic City about 12-15 years ago. New shufflers had come out for PGP (could also be used for 3CP, LIR, CaribStud, etc) with programming. Big and bulky, above the table, lip sticking out as a shelf over the felt, to the dealer's right. I was in the same casino (Showboat) two weeks running. Week 1, nice seat at spot 2, next to the shuffler, play 2 hands from the corner (3rd base). Week 2, faggedaboudit. BIG rounded plexiglass bumper bolted through the felt onto the table, curled around the shuffler, 16" high, more than a foot long. Player spot nearly obliterated. Every table in town had them that had the new shufflers.
Turned out player in spot 2 could put a shiner or lipstick cam naturally on the table (the particular was a ring on a guy's left hand) and HC each packet of cards as it came off the lip of the shuffler. And was beating the house with that info for big bucks. Every house in AC had those shields installed within a day or two, butchering their tables to do it, except those that moved the shuffler back away from the table, where the dealer had to turn sideways to get the cards. Biloxi, I think it was I saw it, cut a huge ugly rectangle on the diagonal into the table to get the shuffler lip down to table level. Point being they all did it like that <snap> as soon as the vulnerability was known.
Not like the dribbling roll-out of 6:5. So I think the suits were giving out a line that benefitted them.
Quote: MathExtremistQuoting the statute (not regs) is one thing -- the language says what it says -- but interpreting it is another....However, knowledge of the dealer's cards *is* relevant, so my question remains: has anyone ever been prosecuted for passively hole carding under the fraudulent acts statute NRS 465.070(2) (acting on acquired knowledge not available to all players) without actively manipulating the dealer so as to see that hole card? If so, what was the outcome of that case?
....Technically, this isn't true for games where collusion strategies are effective. So my second question is whether anyone has been charged under the fraudulent acts statute for colluding in a house-banked game by sharing card information.
If anyone knows of any actual cases on these topics, I'd love to find out more.
I think this is pretty tough: the player would have to have his head laying flat on the layout trying to peek, and on surveillance tape, or get caught using a shirt button-hole camera or a "pinky-ring flat mirror" to be reasonably get nailed on this, especially if Bob N. is on it. If we look at Richard Marcus of American Roulette, I don't know if you'd be able to dig up a case, short of having an inside contact on gaming.
And Stacy, if you hadn't read this book by an outrageously great casino cheat, let me ASSURE YOU that you will spend a full day at your desk, book in one hand, and the other hand just palm-stuck on your scalp.
You, my son, will be flabbergasted. I have opened another window on www.Amazon.com, and am sending a copy to OR....
Right, and because the insurance wager predates the statute, that law cannot reasonably be construed to cover the insurance bet. So what exactly does it cover? That's why I'm asking about prior prosecutions, to see whether NV courts have ever addressed various permutations of how the law could be interpreted.Quote: RSIn blackjack, insurance would be such a wager.
Quote: HunterhillSo PGD based on your above example when the 3cp dealer accidentally exposed the king and you played your queen,When you are driving and speeding if a car were to flash their lights at you ,or if you heard on the radio that a speed trap was ahead you would not slow down,because that is how you normally drive.In this case the house rules are actually posted (speed limit).
Oh no you would slow down ,Then you are stealing from the taxpayers pockets..Speeders like you are why the casino`s oops I mean the states have to post speed limits.
Yeah, of course I'd slow down. Not that I have a radar detector in my because.....that would be illegal. ;)And I didn't take anything from the taxpayers, what, with no ticket to pay, because I pay all my tickets. In fact, I get a lawyer to reduce the ticket to a parking violation, and I pay him, too. So I know what you're thinking right now..."That Dan, pays the ticket and a lawyer and his taxes...what...a...GUY!"
But what if YOU were at a table, all happily counting, and a fellow AP tells you "Psst....Huntah....they're on to us, time to move on, unless you want to have your photo in the surveillance network facebook...so let's go." You'd run like the dickens. So you can continue to fleece legitimate gaming businesses using such things as cover plays, camouflage and false IDs, and all the other needed deceit as your livelihood or pastime or additional source of income. I know that also taught in AP School are the "RUN!" signals to flee when THE HEAT is on....a spotter runs her fingers through her hair, thinking "C'mon, C'mon, we gotta get outta here!..." the big player makes a table minimum bet, or whatever the signal is.
Yeah, accuse me of being a fleecer for going over the speed limit when passing a truck if I don't get a ticket for hitting 67 mph, saying "Oh! you're stealing from the tax payer pockets here, this is an outrage, - you just got away with murdah." That's your argument here to defend fleecing casinos. Are you serious here?!
Edit: ....and oh, speaking of paying taxes, - do you REPORT your card counting winnings on YOUR taxes? I mean, speaking of paying your taxes....considering that it is personal income if you do it for your living, as some do. How is THAT handled.... How dare I talk about counters when I may have had a speeding ticket or two (I have)....
Quote: HunterhillI don't know how everyone else handles their taxes but I file as self employed. Because not paying taxes is against the real rules not imaginary rules.
I totally get it. A "Self Employed" filing. Love it. You, too, eh?
Of course, an AP player who fleeces those evil casinos would never fleece the wonderful IRS on all the cold hard cash he won..
Do you check off the box "Business: Other.. Now there's an AP opportunity for some imaginary or creative accounting....
Occupation: "Self-employed Entrepreneur, Gaming."
Estimated Yearly Income: $19,702.
Actual 2015 Income: $19,703.
Zip Code: 90210.
I suppose when you're up filing with the real IRS, there's no imaginary crap going down.
if the casino is your friend, then so is the IRS. they're kind of close.
I mean, if a card counter would never lie to or deceive a casino floorman or manager over money, then I'd assume that they would also never lie to an IRS agent over money, kind of thing.
Quote: PaigowdanI totally get it. A "Self Employed" filing. Love it. You, too, eh?
Of course, an AP player who fleeces those evil casinos would never fleece the wonderful IRS on all the cold hard cash he won..
Do you check off the box "Business: Other.. Now there's an AP opportunity for some imaginary or creative accounting....
Occupation: "Self-employed Entrepreneur, Gaming."
Estimated Yearly Income: $19,702.
Actual 2015 Income: $19,703.
Zip Code: 90210.
I suppose when you're up filing with the real IRS, there's no imaginary crap going down.
if the casino is your friend, then so is the IRS. they're kind of close.
I mean, if a card counter would never lie to or deceive a casino floorman or manager over money, then I'd assume that they would also never lie to an IRS agent over money, kind of thing.
Are you accusing HunterHill of tax evasion/fraud?
Quote: RSQuote: PaigowdanI totally get it. A "Self Employed" filing. Love it. You, too, eh?
Of course, an AP player who fleeces those evil casinos would never fleece the wonderful IRS on all the cold hard cash he won..
Do you check off the box "Business: Other.. Now there's an AP opportunity for some imaginary or creative accounting....
Occupation: "Self-employed Entrepreneur, Gaming."
Estimated Yearly Income: $19,702.
Actual 2015 Income: $19,703.
Zip Code: 90210.
I suppose when you're up filing with the real IRS, there's no imaginary crap going down.
if the casino is your friend, then so is the IRS. they're kind of close.
I mean, if a card counter would never lie to or deceive a casino floorman or manager over money, then I'd assume that they would also never lie to an IRS agent over money, kind of thing.
Are you accusing HunterHill of tax evasion/fraud?
No. Of course not! Heavens to Murgatroyd!
Just asking for advice in this, considering it's legal and all that, just want to hear how an AP should do his taxes, for advice and tips and stuff, for some advice for us little AP people and stuff....
kind of thang.
I have actually been audited twice and passed with flying colors. I think full time APs are probably held to a higher standard than your average working person.
Since we deal with so much cash it's inevitable that we face extra scrutiny.
Tax fraud is actually a crime, legally beating casino's is not.
So true. I trust AP's more than most people.Quote: HunterhillI think full time APs are probably held to a higher standard than your average working person
Quote: PaigowdanI totally get it. A "Self Employed" filing. Love it. You, too, eh?
Of course, an AP player who fleeces those evil casinos would never fleece the wonderful IRS on all the cold hard cash he won..
Do you check off the box "Business: Other.. Now there's an AP opportunity for some imaginary or creative accounting....
Occupation: "Self-employed Entrepreneur, Gaming."
Estimated Yearly Income: $19,702.
Actual 2015 Income: $19,703.
Zip Code: 90210.
I suppose when you're up filing with the real IRS, there's no imaginary crap going down.
if the casino is your friend, then so is the IRS. they're kind of close.
I mean, if a card counter would never lie to or deceive a casino floorman or manager over money, then I'd assume that they would also never lie to an IRS agent over money, kind of thing.
Dan,
This reads as an ad hominem attack on Hunterhill and the other AP members; AP activities do NOT automatically indicate that persons' level of dishonesty, tendency to fraud, or illegal IRS filing. I realize when asked about it, you said that it was not an attack (and that denial read very facetiously, FWIW). I am taking that denial at face value, but you MUST stop this shot-taking while having this discussion. It's a worthwhile discussion, and you have valid points to make. Stick to those, please.
ON the topic, IMO, just because of the additional IRS scrutiny a self-employed gambler (AP or not) receives, and their necessary knowledge of pertinent IRS tax law, it's extremely likely that a MUCH higher percentage of casual gamblers are not in compliance with reporting and paying taxes on winnings than those doing it for a living (the exact opposite of your implications).
Quote: beachbumbabsON the topic, IMO, just because of the additional IRS scrutiny a self-employed gambler (AP or not) receives, and their necessary knowledge of pertinent IRS tax law, it's extremely likely that a MUCH higher percentage of casual gamblers are not in compliance with reporting and paying taxes on winnings than those doing it for a living (the exact opposite of your implications).
Three cheers for the UK's HMRC. No tax implications or reporting requirements for gamblers.
Quote: OnceDearNo tax implications or reporting requirements for gamblers.
Yeah, same in my country. I don't really understand how US taxing incomes coming from gambling is fair. Are the people at least allowed to provide proof for their losses and subtract that from the winnings? But how will this practically work?
It seems it is possible to be a net loser for the year and still owe taxes...?
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: PaigowdanI totally get it. A "Self Employed" filing. Love it. You, too, eh?
Of course, an AP player who fleeces those evil casinos would never fleece the wonderful IRS on all the cold hard cash he won..
Do you check off the box "Business: Other.. Now there's an AP opportunity for some imaginary or creative accounting....
Occupation: "Self-employed Entrepreneur, Gaming."
Estimated Yearly Income: $19,702.
Actual 2015 Income: $19,703.
Zip Code: 90210.
I suppose when you're up filing with the real IRS, there's no imaginary crap going down.
if the casino is your friend, then so is the IRS. they're kind of close.
I mean, if a card counter would never lie to or deceive a casino floorman or manager over money, then I'd assume that they would also never lie to an IRS agent over money, kind of thing.
Dan,
This reads as an ad hominem attack on Hunterhill and the other AP members; AP activities do NOT automatically indicate that persons' level of dishonesty, tendency to fraud, or illegal IRS filing. I realize when asked about it, you said that it was not an attack (and that denial read very facetiously, FWIW). I am taking that denial at face value, but you MUST stop this shot-taking while having this discussion. It's a worthwhile discussion, and you have valid points to make. Stick to those, please.
ON the topic, IMO, just because of the additional IRS scrutiny a self-employed gambler (AP or not) receives, and their necessary knowledge of pertinent IRS tax law, it's extremely likely that a MUCH higher percentage of casual gamblers are not in compliance with reporting and paying taxes on winnings than those doing it for a living (the exact opposite of your implications).
Fine, I do grant that.
But....Can it be seen that, - in the eyes of the business owner:
a) that doing something deliberate to defeat the house edge of a game (Blackjack), which is needed to operate the business
b) clearly disallowed if caught (and few things are as noticeable as being told to leave a table),
c) to effect taking needed revenue away from that business owner, in order to place it in one's own pocket for personal gain instead,
d) and arguably against the rules of game play (which is why your told not to play).
So, I'm comparing:
a) taking revenue away from an entity that is arguably entitled to it, to....
b) taking revenue away from an entity that is arguably entitled to it.
And in both cases, it is personally and intellectually justified as a good, decent, and righteous thing to do, or at least acceptable and normal thing to do.
And I didn't discuss the casual gambler, nor did I imply they're any better. I do not think the casual gambler would be any better.
If you file as a professional you can deduct losses as well as business related expenses. Unlike other businesses though you can't carry over a loss from the previous year and use it against future winnings.This has never been an issue though as I have never had a losing year.Quote: rawtuffYeah, same in my country. I don't really understand how US taxing incomes coming from gambling is fair. Are the people at least allowed to provide proof for their losses and subtract that from the winnings? But how will this practically work?
It seems it is possible to be a net loser for the year and still owe taxes...?
If you are a casual gambler rules vary depending on which state you pay taxes in.
Indeed some gamblers have losing years and still end up owing state income tax. Hardly seems fair, it's like double taxation.
And if that is the case, running a business as an AP I'm "entitled" to my edge also.
Quote: IbeatyouracesCasinos are not "entitled" to anything, period.
This is the general premise here.
Quote: IbeatyouracesAnd if that is the case, running a business as an AP I'm "entitled" to my edge also.
Yes. This is the assumption for all income producing enterprises from the POV of the one carrying it out. Doing any line of work runs on the premise of entitlement if not forced to do. If people felt something was truly improper, they'd do something else.
Quote: PaigowdanSo, I'm comparing:
a) taking revenue away from an entity that is arguably entitled to it, to....
b) taking revenue away from an entity that is arguably entitled to it.
One is clearly legal and the other is clearly illegal.
Quote: Paigowdan
And in both cases, it is personally and intellectually justified as a good, decent, and righteous thing to do, or at least acceptable and normal thing to do.
Please, stop.
Quote: Paigowdan...
Fine, I do grant that.
But....Can it be seen that, - in the eyes of the business owner:
a) that doing something deliberate to defeat the house edge of a game (Blackjack), which is needed to operate the business
b) clearly disallowed if caught (and few things are as noticeable as being told to leave a table),
c) to effect taking needed revenue away from that business owner, in order to place it in one's own pocket for personal gain instead,
d) and arguably against the rules of game play (which is why your told not to play).
So, I'm comparing:
a) taking revenue away from an entity that is arguably entitled to it, to....
b) taking revenue away from an entity that is arguably entitled to it.
And in both cases, it is personally and intellectually justified as a good, decent, and righteous thing to do, or at least acceptable and normal thing to do.
And I didn't discuss the casual gambler, nor did I imply they're any better. I do not think the casual gambler would be any better.
The house sets not only the rules of the BJ game, but the min/max on the table. Setting a min/max means you can vary your bet within those limits. For what you said to be true and fair, the house should be required to set the min/max the same (a single value) on every table, whatever that value is.
Instead, they will allow a Martingaler or anybody else using uncorrelated (to the count) bets full range while flat-betting a counter (or throwing them out), who's doing the same exact thing but more intelligently. How is that not selective and unfair enforcement based on skill level of 2 players playing the game just as it's presented?
The HE is developed based on Optimal play; how is it not the HOUSE trying to manipulate the game's HE to increase it against those playing the game well, by getting rid of or negating the best legal moves? The net effect of 86'ing people who play optimally (or even are lucky enough to win without counting) is to change the HE, because the house edge is calculated with both wins and losses; they're supposed to make money on the net effect, in the long run, but there are supposed to be both winners and losers. I concede that they have the right to refuse service to anyone, but what does it say about them if they say "come and play our games" and there's an unpublished caveat of ("unless you know how to play")?
Not saying its right, but tax fraud is everywhere and at least the IRS rules ARE posted compared to casinos who just want to have it both ways. Take the saps money but be all bitchy when someone is smarter than you. By "You" I mean the casinos, not Dan.
That said, no one is changing their mind here, so my advise is for AP's to keep taking all the money you can from casinos. Knowing it pisses them off beats arguing with Dan on here.
Quote: beachbumbabsThe house sets not only the rules of the BJ game, but the min/max on the table. Setting a min/max means you can vary your bet within those limits. For what you said to be true and fair, the house should be required to set the min/max the same (a single value) on every table, whatever that value is.
Yes, - with one exception - if the bet sizes follow or parallel the count. That's the issue.
Blackjack initially came to be as a game thought safe, and where people played without awareness of the count practice, which is an added mathematical examination of card depletion history to adjust current play. It was basically Thorpe who spotted, defined, and proselytized this process.
Now, casinos had a mix of players who counted and didn't, and for a game designed to be used exclusively without counting, in order to operate properly from the casino's POV. So they basically implemented two rules over time; a) bar counters from playing, and b) make rules to thwart counting, such as 6:5 BJ payouts, CSM machine usage, and shallow penetration.
Quote: BBBInstead, they will allow a Martingaler or anybody else using uncorrelated (to the count) bets full range while flat-betting a counter (or throwing them out), who's doing the same exact thing but more intelligently. How is that not selective and unfair enforcement based on skill level of 2 players playing the game just as it's presented?
They are not doing the exact same thing; one uses or applies a running count, which is a deliberate and concrete mathematical process that is detectable, to thwart the needed house edge, and the other does not. If they can distinguish between card counting and martingale-ing, then they are not the same thing.
Quote: BBBThe HE is developed based on Optimal play; how is it not the HOUSE trying to manipulate the game's HE to increase it against those playing the game well, by getting rid of or negating the best legal moves?
The house edge is basic on optimal basic strategy play in the absence of counting. When counting occurs, the needed house edge is eliminated, and there is no functioning house edge. That's the problem, the house edge is removed by the process of counting.
Quote: BBBThe net effect of 86'ing people who play optimally (or even are lucky enough to win without counting) is to change the HE, because the house edge is calculated with both wins and losses; they're supposed to make money on the net effect, in the long run, but there are supposed to be both winners and losers. I concede that they have the right to refuse service to anyone, but what does it say about them if they say "come and play our games" and there's an unpublished caveat of ("unless you know how to play")?
The effect is to limit the game to non-counters, if possible. The acknowledgement and handling of counters is published internally and is generally handled by surveillance, with the assumption that you may play if you don't count, or take excess advantage of the game's game-protection flaw. They don't want to remove Blackjack, they want to limit the game to non-counters by removing the card counters, so that the non-counters may play safely for the casino. Trying to take advantage of a disallowed flaw is not optimal play, it is a breach of the procedures of the game and the house that enable the required house edge, hence the back-offs and 86-ing.
The position of the casinos is breaching the procedures of the game or the house is not gambling per se, as it falls outside of the procedures of the game or the house, and is barred. I see and agree with this view.
Quote: BozDan better go out and yell at that waitress who served him breakfast this morning, because odds are she did not report all of her tips today.
Not saying its right, but tax fraud is everywhere and at least the IRS rules ARE posted compared to casinos who just want to have it both ways. Take the saps money but be all bitchy when someone is smarter than you. By "You" I mean the casinos, not Dan.
That said, no one is changing their mind here, so my advise is for AP's to keep taking all the money you can from casinos. Knowing it pisses them off beats arguing with Dan on here.
Some contractors request cash from me for various jobs instead of checks or wire transfers, and I give them cash in exchange for a receipt. Couldn't care less what he does with the money or how he reports it.
Same with waitresses and waiters. If I have a $400 steak house dinner with friends, I'll pay for the food on the card and tip a c-note, and be done with it.
In sport competition, rules are EQUALLY applied to all competitors. But, in gambling or casino games, there is a thing called house edge, which automatically give the house an UNFAIR advantage to begin with. Yes, the house has many expenses such as Dan & Zcore13’s salaries, interest payments, water & electricity, marketing & player’s comp, game leasing, etc., and therefore, such house edge is necessary. The house has every desire to make money; just as its customers have every desire to win. Can the house and its customers’ desire co-exist? The answer is yes, if there is no greedy factor on the house side. Right? How much profit is enough? For the player side, greed factor is the illegal cheating; and for the house side, greed factor is the LEGALIZED form cheating.
Winning by exploitation within rules, regulations or statutes is very normal, and should NOT be discourages. But the sad truth is there are rules, regulations or statutes that give one side an advantage over other side, instead of establishing a fair play or promoting civilized and friendly conducts (statutes can be established to prohibit and/or deem certain actions as illegal. But history is full of legal BUT UNETHICAL and IMMORAL LAWS. For examples: Slavery, apartheid, child labor, mistreatment of woman, and the current political lobbying laws. And IMO, the current lobbying activities here in the U.S. is nothing more than a form LEGALIZED bribery).
Looking for pattern in card counting is no different than team A looking for team B’s “play book” via combination of observed plays during game or prior games. In sports, there are miscalls (honest referee mistakes) and lucky bounces incidents. And in gambling, there are marked cards (non man-made) and accidental exposed cards incidents. These are all legal, but do you see anything immoral or unethical here?
Read every word of entire thread.
Understood most of them.
Going to take a nap now.
You go on conversing.
After nap you will all be at the same stand-off.
And I'll be more rested.
Quote: 777The relationship between a gambler (recreational, casual, advance or professional) and a casino is an adversary relationship....
This is a choice. Players play against the results of the cards or dice, whatever they may give, not against people. The dealer isn't the enemy to be tackled, the contents of the cards drawn are. The dealer doesn't care who wins or loses, he just cares what the cards say. The dealer may be more pissed off at this boss, and like some players better. Cards have no teams, they have pips.
Quote: PaigowdanThis is a choice. Players play against the results of the cards or dice, whatever they may give, not against people. The dealer isn't the enemy to be tackled, the contents of the cards drawn are. The dealer doesn't care who wins or loses, he just cares what the cards say. The dealer may be more pissed off at this boss, and like some players better. Cards have no teams, they have pips.
When I play a game at any casinos, it is me vs. the house but NOT the casino’s employees. I observed that the dealers and pit bosses that I had interfaced with always want the players to win through their facial expressions. There are few occasions that dealers and pit bosses appeared cocky or unhappy, but despite these unprofessional attitudes of the employees, I never consider my plays as being me vs. the employees, but rather it’s always me vs. the house.
Nothing about marking up the cost of providing a good or service is unfair. If you don't like the pricing, shop where it's cheaper. That's true for clothes, cell phone service, and slot machines. Some people are okay with spending $6000 on a suit at the Zegna store at Crystals, while some think that's overpriced so they shop at Men's Wearhouse four blocks off the Strip. Some people are okay spending $200/month on cable while others think that's overpriced so they spend $8.99/month on Netflix. Some people are okay playing 8/5 Jacks or Better at Wynn, some think that's overpriced so they play 9/6 Jacks or Better at a casino four miles off the Strip.Quote: 777But, in gambling or casino games, there is a thing called house edge, which automatically give the house an UNFAIR advantage to begin with.
Some things are more expensive than others. If you don't like paying the price, don't. But don't suggest that charging a lot for something makes it unfair.
And if you think that the entire concept of house edge is unfair altogether, well, that's just as nonsensical as the suggestion that all goods and services should be sold at cost with no profit margin at all. That's not the way capitalism works.
Quote: darthxaosIf you REALLY wanted to disallow counting you could simply make it impossible by making every table a flat bet. No fancy rules or surveillance required. Simply "This table is $5 bet only, this table is $10, this table is $20, etc..."
Very few people would play. People want to be able to bet more when winning or bet more to catch up when losing. Your idea would kill blackjack.
Interesting post. Thanks. Of course I wouldn't play there. Would anyone?Quote: darthxaosIf you REALLY wanted to disallow counting you could simply make it impossible by making every table a flat bet. No fancy rules or surveillance required. Simply "This table is $5 bet only, this table is $10, this table is $20, etc..."
Give me a $10 min/$1000 max table, decent rules, and you have a new friend that follows you around like a newborn puppy. I don't have to win, long term. I need the adrenaline, give me 2 threes gainst dealer 2, max bet out 1K. I'll split every time. It is so close in the math it's hardly worth worrying about.
IT IS A LOT OF FUN, JUST A LOT OF FUN TO PLAY AT TIMES..... win or lose.
Pls don't gamble with your rent money, win or lose that should not be fun. Go stare in the mirror..Nuff said.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLInteresting post. Thanks. Of course I wouldn't play there. Would anyone?
Give me a $10 min/$1000 max table, decent rules, and you have a new friend that follows you around like a newborn puppy. I don't have to win, long term. I need the adrenaline, give me 2 threes gainst dealer 2, max bet out 1K. I'll split every time. It is so close in the math it's hardly worth worrying about.
IT IS A LOT OF FUN, JUST A LOT OF FUN TO PLAY AT TIMES..... win or lose.
Pls don't gamble with your rent money, win or lose that should not be fun. Go stare in the mirror..Nuff said.
You know, I went gambling, getting the itch, and I played on a $25 double-deck game at a Boulder Highway casino, just flat-betting one spot. The thing is, so was everyone else. I thought I was at a Pai Gow table or something...they celebrated their wins, lamented their losses, real ploppies, and an inconceivable sight to behold for the AP player.
Quote: PaigowdanYou know, I went gambling, getting the itch, and I played on a $25 double-deck game at a Boulder Highway casino, just flat-betting one spot. The thing is, so was everyone else. I thought I was at a Pai Gow table or something...they celebrated their wins, lamented their losses, real ploppies, and an inconceivable sight to behold for the AP player.
Isn't it fun to talk to me...
After all those guys that talked to you....
And about you, and your thoughts and positions and sometimes what they called nonsense!
You're welcome..
feathers
Quote: PaigowdanYou know, I went gambling, getting the itch, and I played on a $25 double-deck game at a Boulder Highway casino, just flat-betting one spot. The thing is, so was everyone else. I thought I was at a Pai Gow table or something...they celebrated their wins, lamented their losses, real ploppies, and an inconceivable sight to behold for the AP player.
I hate the term "ploppies". I always refer to them as Blackjack Bobs. Seems everytime I ask one his name, it is Bob. Those Bobs are what allows casinos to offer 3/2` instead of 6/5. I vehemently disagree with the statement that AP's are cheating the house. But when they WONG in, it's the Bob's that ate the negative count hands, now the AP steps in, spreads to several hands , and guess who just got cheated ?
Quote: muleyvoiceI hate the term "ploppies". I always refer to them as Blackjack Bobs. Seems everytime I ask one his name, it is Bob. Those Bobs are what allows casinos to offer 3/2` instead of 6/5. I vehemently disagree with the statement that AP's are cheating the house. But when they WONG in, it's the Bob's that ate the negative count hands, now the AP steps in, spreads to several hands , and guess who just got cheated ?
Bob.
The criminal case in Illinois against Mississippi Stud hole-carders Christopher Yaldo and Isam Kejbo just came down on the side of the players with a directed verdict of not guilty on all counts. Hopefully the resolution of this criminal case will help you reconsider your radical views.
http://www.cdcgamingreports.com/commentaries/mississippi-stud-hole-carding-case-sides-with-players/
Quote: teliotDan,
The criminal case in Illinois against Mississippi Stud hole-carders Christopher Yaldo and Isam Kejbo just came down on the side of the players with a directed verdict of not guilty on all counts. Hopefully the resolution of this criminal case will help you reconsidered your radical views.
http://www.cdcgamingreports.com/commentaries/mississippi-stud-hole-carding-case-sides-with-players/
Nice article Teliot!
Quote: teliotDan,
The criminal case in Illinois against Mississippi Stud hole-carders Christopher Yaldo and Isam Kejbo just came down on the side of the players with a directed verdict of not guilty on all counts. Hopefully the resolution of this criminal case will help you reconsidered your radical views.
http://www.cdcgamingreports.com/commentaries/mississippi-stud-hole-carding-case-sides-with-players/
Awesome!!!!!!!!!
I hope they each get six figures more from that POS company!!!
Quote: beachbumbabsDo you ever wonder whether LifeLock and/or similar companies finance the thieves' activities to drive more clients to their services? I do.
Most thought provoking post in this thread. not sure if it's tinfoil hat time, but there's a chance.
Quote: teliotDan,
The criminal case in Illinois against Mississippi Stud hole-carders Christopher Yaldo and Isam Kejbo just came down on the side of the players with a directed verdict of not guilty on all counts. Hopefully the resolution of this criminal case will help you reconsidered your radical views.
http://www.cdcgamingreports.com/commentaries/mississippi-stud-hole-carding-case-sides-with-players/
Eliot, good for them, I really do mean that. The players weren't hole-carding, the dealer was flashing (too incompetent to deal.) the house was wrong to press charges when their own dealer was at fault. I see that, really.
And my "radical" view is that players should play clean by the house rules and game rules, and not just by "x is technically legal and y is technically illegal."
Eliot, 99% of players play by what is acceptable to them and the house and never have a problem, and 1% attempts to use a casino as a personal ATM machine as their juice and as their game play method. And you're right, Eliot, this is a radical view, but it is with the qualifier "around here." We are the one-percenters here.
Quote: PaigowdanEliot, good for them, I really do mean that. The players weren't hole-carding, the dealer was flashing (too incompetent to deal.) the house was wrong to press charges when their own dealer was at fault. I see that, really.
And my "radical" view is that players should play clean by the house rules and game rules, and not just by "x is technically legal and y is technically illegal."
Eliot, 99% of players play by what is acceptable to them and the house and never have a problem, and 1% attempts to use a casino as a personal ATM machine as their juice from the game play. We are the one-percenters here.
How would the players be hole carding if the dealer wasn't flashing...? What?
Not sure what you mean by "use casino as a personal ATM", because that is certainly not the scenario. There is no "easy money" in the casino.
Quote: RSHow would the players be hole carding if the dealer wasn't flashing...? What?
This was very clear in the article.
Dealer flashing = dealer is taking the steps to expose hole card, - and to include incompetency or an inadvertent display of cards.
Hole-carding (true hole-carding) = player is taking steps above secure dealing to glean card information. And yes, there is plenty of grey area overlap here, which is why it went to court. I agree with this decision as the dealer was incompetent.
Quote: RSNot sure what you mean by "use casino as a personal ATM", because that is certainly not the scenario. There is no "easy money" in the casino.
Never said it was easy work. It may be viewed as easy money, though, easy enough that it is thought worthwhile enough to go after. In any case, the goal or the juice in the game play is not so much the play of the cards but what can be done to adjust the odds.
Quote: PaigowdanThis was very clear in the article.
Dealer flashing = dealer is taking the steps to expose hole card, - and to include incompetency or an inadvertent display of cards.
Hole-carding (true hole-carding) = player is taking steps above secure dealing to glean card information. And yes, there is plenty of grey area overlap here, which is why it went to court. I agree with this decision as the dealer was incompetent.
Never said it was easy work. It may be viewed as easy money, though, easy enough that it is thought worthwhile enough to go after. In any case, the goal or the juice in the game play is not so much the play of the cards but what can be done to adjust the odds.
Easy money precedes hard time
Quote: shrimpboatcaptEasy money precedes hard time
It can.
It is also sometimes very easy to see an opportunity without acknowledging its downsides, the way we want to see it or wish to see it. Everyone has said "it didn't turn out the way I wanted it to, it looked a lot different going in" on so many things in life regardless of particular area. Upsets abound.
Quote: PaigowdanThis was very clear in the article.
Dealer flashing = dealer is taking the steps to expose hole card, - and to include incompetency or an inadvertent display of cards.
Hole-carding (true hole-carding) = player is taking steps above secure dealing to glean card information. And yes, there is plenty of grey area overlap here, which is why it went to court. I agree with this decision as the dealer was incompetent.
There was no "grey area overlap" in this case and should not have even gone to court. The judge dismissed the charges as no reasonable jury could reach any other verdict. To say "this should have gone to court" is ridiculous. Did you read the following part?
Quote:The courts are not meant to be a safety net for casinos that operate their games in ways other than the spirit in which they were intended.
So, where is this "grey area overlap" or whatever?
Quote: PaigowdanNever said it was easy work. It may be viewed as easy money, though, easy enough that it is thought worthwhile enough to go after. In any case, the goal or the juice in the game play is not so much the play of the cards but what can be done to adjust the odds.
It's not easy money, either. "Easy money" implies easy work.
Quote: RSThere was no "grey area overlap" in this case and should not have even gone to court. The judge dismissed the charges as no reasonable jury could reach any other verdict. To say "this should have gone to court" is ridiculous. Did you read the following part?
There was enough grey area overlap for this to go to court. Clearly.
Quote: RSSo, where is this "grey area overlap" or whatever?
None with me. Even if I were on the jury I'd side with the players on this one. But like I said, if it not black and white but instead a grey area - not to me but to one or more parties involved, it'll be argued out in court. And this is exactly what happened.
Quote: RSIt's not easy money, either. "Easy money" implies easy work.
Oh. So people AP because it is challenging and exciting. I just assume it is easier than a day time job, where you have to clock in to work a full forty hours, or answer to a boss who's a real knucklehead, or be told how little vacation time you have and when to take it, that kind of easy.
Things go to court all the time that shouldn't. This should never had gone to court. Because it did, and the players won, this is a huge victory for APs - a victory that would never have happened if these criminal charges were not filed.Quote: PaigowdanThere was enough grey area overlap for this to go to court. Clearly.
There was never consideration that these guys were working with someone on the inside or were engaged in anything other than hole-carding. That allegation was never made, nor was it even implied, at any time. Everyone knew they were hole-carding with signals. The case was never argued in court. The judge threw it out with his directed verdict after hearing the prosecution's side (and without hearing from the defense at all) because there was not any evidence whatsoever of actual cheating.
