Casinos' Attitude of Skilled Winners of Tables Games

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

No different in blackjack. I'm only winning money lost by other players. Casino gaming will always be profitable for the house as long as demand is high. The MIT guys didn't even dent MGM's profits and they took millions from them.

Money won by luck is won from the other players; money won by changing the rules that guarantee an edge is won from the house. Only because most people accept that counting is forbidden can they withstand counters. If people could count openly, everyone would, and the game would be a loser.

Dan, you are just not credible here. You are doing a lot of double-talking and flip floping to meet your needs. I know you are searching for an acceptable explantion, but you are really just embarrassing yourself each time you flip flop and stretch to find an answer to make your case.

case in point: You occasionally conceed that card counting is not illegal (one of the few things you've gotten right). You often follow up this thought with some sort of reference that while it's not illegal, it is against house rules. So the natural response is where are these rules? Why aren't they posted?

To which you reply and I quote "Casinos do not post signs regarding ANYTHING of that nature: No signs are posted on card-counting, nor marking cards, or on hole carding, on past posting, or what have you. They also do not post signs about not sticking light-wands or coat hangers into slot machines, or using counterfeit money; all sorts of things are tried in casinos regardless or not of signs. There are no signs in restaurants about "not being a walk-out," etc. NO business does this, aside from some signs at dollar stores about "shoplifters will be prosecuted."

Ok, now do you see the problem here? I'll bet you don't so let me tell you, yet again. Each and every one of these activities that you use to make you case are illegal. Well, Hole carding is still up in the air, but marking cards, past posting, sticking light-wands/coat hangers into slot machines, counterfeiting, even your examples from other businesses of shoplifting and walking out on restaurant bill are all illegal. Again card counting is not illegal! Thinking is not illegal. Raising bets is not illegal, nor against the rules of the game.

Please you can't have it both ways. You can't acknowledge that card counting is not illegal and then continue to compare it to things that are. It just gives you no credibility. You look silly and desperate and just are pretty much embarrassing yourself.

The bottom line is card counting is not illegal. If thinking is against house rules it should be posted. If raising and lowering bets is against house rules it should be posted. Oh wait there is a posted rule about altering bets. It's allowed! They clearly post table minimums and table maximum, so you are allowed to wager anywhere in between these amounts.

I understand you wanting to defend the hand that feeds you, but you just can't flip flop all over the place like this. You completely lack any kind of credibility.

Quote: kewlj

Ok, now do you see the problem here? I'll bet you don't so let me tell you, yet again. Each and every one of these activities that you use to make you case are illegal. Well, Hole carding is still up in the air, but marking cards, past posting, sticking light-wands/coat hangers into slot machines, counterfeiting, even your examples from other businesses of shoplifting and walking out on restaurant bill are all illegal. Again card counting is not illegal! Thinking is not illegal. Raising bets is not illegal, nor against the rules of the game.

Please you can't have it both ways. You can't acknowledge that card counting is not illegal and then continue to compare it to things that are. It just gives you no credibility. You look silly and desperate and just are pretty much embarrassing yourself.

The bottom line is card counting is not illegal.

I'd always wondered what Jimmy Carr's accountant must be like.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

No different in blackjack. I'm only winning money lost by other players. Casino gaming will always be profitable for the house as long as demand is high. The MIT guys didn't even dent MGM's profits and they took millions from them.

In the poker room you're taking some other player's money, and paying a vig means you're a winner. (Player Banked.)
In casino banked games, you're taking the casino's money, which is supposedly protected by protecting the house edge. Not that that is a cause for concern.

Quote: Paigowdan

In casino banked games, you're taking the casino's money, which is supposedly protected by protecting the house edge. Not that that is a cause for concern.

If it is not a concern, then what is this 11 page thread and the many others that you have started about???

If it is not a cause for concern, why I am I occasionally told I can't play???

If it's not a cause for concern then why did a pit member and security guard at El cortez follow me into the Men's room and tell me no more blackjack, while I was using the urinal?

If it's not a cause for concern, why at Valley Forge did an 18 year old, security 'dude', follow 10 feet behind my from the moment that I entered until I exited.

If it's not a cause for concern why was a card counter kicked out of his hotel room at Hard Rock (vegas) last month at 3am, after being told no more blackjack? A hotel room that he paid for, btw. Oh and they should be concerned about that. By the time that one 'settles' it will probably will cost them six figures to have stopped a card counter who might have made a couple hundred bucks. lol

M resort is so unconcerned with card counters that they have reduced penetration on their 6 deck games, from better than 5 decks cut off to now less than 4 decks cut off. Additional shuffle time is costing them tens of thousands of dollars a month, which is likely far more than they were losing to card counters. Apparently they are concerned, although they would be far better off to have not been concerned. lol

Seems like an aweful lot of people in your industry running around doing stupid things. I mean for a bunch of folks that are unconcerned. lol

Quote: kewlj

If it is not a concern, then what is this 11 page thread and the many others that you have started about???

I was proving a point. It can be a non-issue, or it can be a real issue - depending on how the casino sees card-counting, hole-carding, etc.
A one-off or a streak of legit casino losses is not a concern - if a 7-card straight flush is hit, or a Royal on UTH is hit, or someone rolls the dice for two hours - a by-the-play clean play loss, - even huge - it is a concern for only the casino. THAT is never the player's problem here. The casino's problem in this case.

Quote: kewlj

If it is not a cause for concern, why I am I occasionally told I can't play???

If it's not a cause for concern then why did a pit member and security guard at El Cortez follow me into the Men's room and tell me no more blackjack, while I was using the urinal?

If it's not a cause for concern, why at Valley Forge did an 18 year old, security 'dude', follow 10 feet behind my from the moment that I entered until I exited.

If it's not a cause for concern why was a card counter licked out of his hotel room at Hard Rock (vegas) last month at 3am, after being told no more blackjack? A hotel room that he paid for, btw. Oh and they should be concerned about that. By the time that one 'settles' it will probably will cost them six figures to have stopped a card counter who might have made a couple hundred bucks. lol

You see, it is a bit like being a fugitive at times, - and TRULY being treated like a cheater. It is because casinos do look at it as a pilferage scam, cheating, a threat to business, - what have you. And it's all "reactive game protection" - which really isn't gaming protection.

Quote: kewlj

M resort is so unconcerned with card counters that they have reduced penetration on their 6 deck games, from better than 5 decks cut off til less than 4 decks cut off. Additional shuffle time is costing them tens of thousands of dollars a month, which is likely far more than they were losing to card counters. lol.

One can argue this is the cost that card counters impose on us all in the business and on the entire playing population, - or one can argue not really fixing Blackjack is the cause, and that there is NO enforceable "gentleman's agreement" by players on BJ. It's expensive and inefficient either way, either being lose with card counters, or tight on card counters. It's expensive having countable games, and expensive making countable games non-countable once in the pit.

Block shufflers (6-deck/eight deck block shufflers) are super-fast even with low penetration, and CSMs are no re-shuffle loss systems that aren't recountable. Electronic tables with the models on the screen, too. What if there were no countable BJ games, and nobody but ploppies played Blackjack, and game protection were as serious an issue for it as it is for Pai Gow Poker. Would people be upset? Feel denied of something? People would actually and finally have to simply gamble now.

Quote: kewlj

Seems like an aweful lot of people in your industry running around doing stupid things. I mean for a bunch of folks that are unconcerned. lol

Yup, you're preaching to the choir on how I feel the gaming industry handles BJ protection! The whole thing is a balancing act, and a charade. NONE of this stuff happens with dice, Roulette, PGP, UTH, etc.

Quote: rainman

I chose my example carefully. It has nothing to do with the game. It has to do with how the player is paid at the end of the game. And how casinos choose to deliberately use confusing wording.

Yep, industry standard terminology that's been in use as long as there have been casinos would certainly qualify as deliberately confusing. Or... not.

Quote: rainman

So your advice is to consult A dealer for instruction on the proper way to play?

Nope, not what I said, you chose your example very carefully... remember? No, what I said was that if you don't understand something about the game you could chose to consult various sources. Nice attempt on your part though.

Quote: rainman

IF you poll the membership if they have seen anyone given, or have been given terrible advice from a dealer themselves it may prompt you to reconsider this advice.

LOL. I wouldn't poll the membership here on whether the sun is going to come up tomorrow. Day in and day out the membership here demonstrates what it doesn't know about the gaming industry.

Quote: rainman

I appreciate you giving it to me but i"m going to have to turn it down.

Whatever dude, you're the one walking around confused. If you'd like to remain that way it's certainly your business but you can't in all honesty blame the casino if you chose to remain ignorant.

Quote: rainman

Casinos know most players don"t have the time or aptitude to figure out how to best play a game. So in good faith they add a bunch of confusing wordage amongst other things to help them out. :)

And Proctor & Gamble knows most consumers don't have the time or the aptitude to figure out that Tide and Gain are the same thing in different bottles, what's your point, that business for profit is bad? There is nothing stopping casino patrons from getting the answers they want/need. And further, where I work when a bet if "for 1" it also says: Original wager is NOT returned. It makes it very clear how it works. I'm going to guess since it's a Shufflemaster game that all of them probably have the same explanation. Not the voodoo, smoke and mirrors experience you describe by a long shot.

Quote: rainman

I don't think I will try any of the avenues you listed above they don't seem to be in my best interest.

Well then I guess you should tell the Wiz, JB, or Mission to terminate your account because you're using one of the ways I listed right now.

Quote: kewlj

Dan, you are just not credible here. You are doing a lot of double-talking and flip floping to meet your needs. I know you are searching for an acceptable explantion, but you are really just embarrassing yourself each time you flip flop and stretch to find an answer to make your case.

case in point: You occasionally conceed that card counting is not illegal (one of the few things you've gotten right). You often follow up this thought with some sort of reference that while it's not illegal, it is against house rules. So the natural response is where are these rules? Why aren't they post]ed?

I'm not flip-floping: 1. If it is disallowed by the house, you may not do it, so its legal status by the state is immaterial. 2. I lumped together all actions disallowed by the house. The {set of disallowed casino procedures} doesn't = {set of state laws.}

Quote: kewlj

...
Ok, now do you see the problem here? I'll bet you don't so let me tell you, yet again. Each and every one of these activities that you use to make you case are illegal. Well, Hole carding is still up in the air, but marking cards, past posting, sticking light-wands/coat hangers into slot machines, counterfeiting, even your examples from other businesses of shoplifting and walking out on restaurant bill are all illegal. Again card counting is not illegal! Thinking is not illegal. Raising bets is not illegal, nor against the rules of the game.

It is not up in the air. Legal Status by the state is totally immaterial. House status of an action is fully material and all of them are disallowed by the house alone. Look at it this way: it is NOT illegal by state law to have a pork-rib barbeque at a Mosque during Ramadan, (as it is also having a barbeque in Las Vegas during the "Fourth Tuesday in ordinary time and a Feast day,") - harmless enough sounding to you; it is also illegal to have a Meth party at a mosque. However, that particular "house" may elect to trespass you, as they may consider your actions to be completely out of bounds in both cases. The argument that "Gosh Darn it, - cooking pork is legal in Nevada, and it's my right! - can't you GET that!" - as some sort of a differentiation, is absolutely immaterial. If it's unacceptable to the house, it's a disallowed action. Subsequent criminal charges may be optional or impossible or not sought, but a trespass may go down.

Quote: kewlj

Please you can't have it both ways. You can't acknowledge that card counting is not illegal and then continue to compare it to things that are.

When you take it from the criterion that all of these actions are disallowed by the house, then they are ALL in exactly the same catagory: disallowed by the house. I list the actions that you may not do in a casino house, period. Then it is pointed out to me - kind of like comparing a pork barbeque at a Mosque versus a Meth party at a Mosque - that one is TECHNICALLY LEGAL to do by state law and the other is ILLEGAL. Immaterial, but given with a big "gotcha." But my point is that ALL of these will get you trespassed by the property, and that its nominal legal status has nothing to do with it.

Quote: kewlj

It just gives you no credibility. You look silly and desperate and just are pretty much embarrassing yourself.

My arguments make me look stupid around here, they make no sense, I know.

Quote: kewlj

The bottom line is card counting is not illegal.

No, the bottom line is that card counting is disallowed by the house, and is a trespassable offense. And it is legal.

Quote: kewlj

If thinking is against house rules it should be posted. If raising and lowering bets is against house rules it should be posted. Oh wait there is a posted rule about altering bets. It's allowed! They clearly post table minimums and table maximum, so you are allowed to wager anywhere in between these amounts.

You are allowed to wager within the table limits. You are not allowed to card count.
1. If you raise and lower your bets based on winning streaks, or martingale, or randomly, you are not necessarily card counting, and are okay.
2. If you raise and lower your bets based on the count, you are indicating that you are now introducing and using a disallowed casino procedure - card counting.

Quote: kewlj

I understand you wanting to defend the hand that feeds you, but you just can't flip flop all over the place like this. You completely lack any kind of credibility.

Flip-flopping?
1. The house rules dictate what's allowed in the house. I've been very steadfast on this.
2. I can't always defend the industry; when they're wrong, they're wrong. In fact, they're wrong on this issue in how they handle it.
3. I explain what this issue is about; see #1.
4. My credibility varies by the observer.

Quote: Paigowdan

1. If it is disallowed by the house, you may not do it, so its legal status by the state is immaterial. 2. I lumped together all actions disallowed by the house. The {set of disallowed casino procedures} doesn't = {set of state laws.}

Actually, different casinos adopt a wide variety of approaches to card counting. Some operators don't care at all, knowing that the aggregate theo from their clientele is maximized by taking no countermeasures. Others recognize that there are too many counters to ignore and adjust their games accordingly. Even others don't properly know how to handle the issue. But those are all business decisions made by individual operators, and it is absolutely false that "card counting is always disallowed by the house and is always a trespassable offense," or you'd have been evicted from most casinos by now. Card counting is nothing more than applying a better playing strategy to the game, using information that is fairly obtained to vary one's bets within the published house betting limits. None of that relies on any illicit or unfair actions by the player. It is nonsensical for you to suggest that playing that way is unethical.

The bottom line is that in any strategic game, there is a distribution of theoretical player outcomes based on the strategy employed by the player. Contrasted with roulette or craps, where any individual bet has a fixed theoretical return, the return of games like video poker, pai gow poker, blackjack, and let it ride are all dependent on player strategy. In some games, the player strategy can move the return from slightly negative to very negative (pai gow poker, let it ride, etc.) In other games, the player strategy can move the needle slightly positive (blackjack, certain VP games). You seem to be arguing that there is a quantifiable element to ethical player behavior such that if the player's strategy still yields a house edge, the player is ethical -- but if the player's strategy is different and moves the needle slightly to the player's favor, somehow that also moves the needle to being unethical. That simply does not follow.

There are plenty of tactics that APs employ in their quests for making money from a casino. Hole carding, for example, is a clear case of taking advantage of a poorly-trained employee who is failing to operate their game properly. So is attempting to confuse newer dice dealers with strange bet amounts and relying on overpayments. Edge sorting is worse, involving the surreptitious manipulation of a deck of cards, and is probably illegal to boot. But card counting is none of those things. It involves neither profiting from dealer mistakes nor surreptitious manipulation of anything. It wouldn't be unethical for a player to vary his bets if the dealer announced the count before each hand, and as you've admitted, many blackjack players intuit the count almost as easily as if they were told.

Quote: Paigowdan

My arguments make me look stupid around here, they make no sense, I know.

No, they are well reasoned. My contention is that they start with a flawed premise, that being against the house rules makes counting cheating. It doesn't. It makes it against the house rules. If you want to draw a different analogy, it is against the house rules in the same way "no shirt/no shoes/no service" is. It's harder to detect, but regardless; the penalty is the same. No one goes to jail, no one gets fined. They get tossed.

Let's just examine this whole card counters are hurting the casino's bottom line premise to begin with.

A card counter walks up to a empty 6 deck, $10 minimum table here in vegas, offstrip, local type property. He's excited because he wants to play heads up with the dealer as most counters like to do. Now guess what. He doesn't get that opportunity. In the time it takes the dealer to exchange our hero's <- lol, intital buy-in to chips, before a single card has been dealt, two more players join the table and a short time later yet another 4th player. That's just the way it is. A table can be empty for half an hour. No one will join, but as soon as someone does, other players do. So first of all, casino's used to pay people (shills) to do this very thing. Walk up and play at an empty table and then move on once others have joined. They don't do so as much anymore. So our hero has done the casino a service by placing this table back in action.

Ok, our hero is spreading $10-$80 on this 6 deck game, dealt to 4.5 decks (75% pen...very mediocre and about average). With an average dealer, and other players at the table and mediocre penetration, meaning more shuffle time, and table fills (hey a number of players just bought in), we aren't talking about 100 hands per hour that many of the BJ books like to reference. We are talking 60 rounds per hour. With the count going positive such a small number of hands in this mediocre pentration game, our counter has an avaerge bet of just about 2x minimum, or $20. 60 hands @ $20, he places $1200 in action over the hour.

Ok now card counters at low limit games, with crappy rules (higher house edge to over come) are not getting the 1-1.5% advatage that all the books talk about. They are probably well blow 1%, closer to .5%. With a spread like this, our hero is lucky if he is playing at a .6% advantage. So his expected win is $7.20 per hour. lol Now he probably employs some sort of cover plays, which all have a cost. Lets knock 10% off his winnings....He is making $6.50 an hour, And this is ONLY, if he plays near perfect, doesn't chicken out throwing out his big <- lol $80 wager, when called for. Doesn't chicken out doubling his A8 vs 5 when called for, etc. AND only if he is properly bankrolled. Because even if he does everything right but is underfunded, he is a long-term loser. Our hero is doing everything right, small cover, NO TIPPING, and is properly funded. His expectation is $6.50 and hour.

Now our 3 other players, are all wagering between $10 and $40 per hands. Not raising and lowering by the count but just random varying as players do. So they all also have an average bet of $20 and all are also putting $1200 into play, that's $3600. Now the house edge for this 6 deck h17 game is .63%. This means with perfect basic strategy, the house wins .63%. Few players play perfect basic strategy. Some are reasonably close, just chickening out on hitting their 12's vs dealer 2's an 3's, Some don't want to hit their 16's vs the dealer 10. Some don't want to split their 8's vs the dealer 10 or double their 10 vs the dealer 9. Some want to insure the 20's and most want to take even money on BJ vs dealer Ace. BS says no insureance, even when you have BJ....No even money. Ok so my point, our three other players are not playing at a .63% disadvantage. Lets say 1% disadvantage, although poor players and there are plenty of them, are playing at far greater. So each of our non counters are losing $12 per hour, That's $36. So the casino is now making $29.50 from these 4 players, our counter and three other players. Umm before our counter sat down they were making zero at that table...lol

Ok but the house is furious. This guy is taking us to the cleaners. We need to eliminate these counters. So this casino decides to cut penetration, cutting off 2 full decks. This is not an uncommon response. So the card counters stop playing at this casino. Now the result of this brillant move by the casino is that there now is more time spent shuffling and less time playing. Lets just say 10% fewer rounds per hour. Using our previous example of a table with 3 non counter, instead of making $36 from the 3 players, it is cut 10%, They are now making $32 from the three players. But they didn't just do so at this one table. They want to make sure counters won't play at their casino, so they have done so at all tables. Again this is a local type casino. Lets say 8 tables. 8 x $4. They are now costing themselves $32 per hour....PER hour, each and every hour, and thats assuming only 3 players. Lets just talk about the busy part of the day, 8 hours, they are costing themselves $260 per day. And these numbers are based on the $10 table...lol. It's really much greater than this when considering the higher tables, BUT they don't have that evil counter who might have made $6.50 man hour for an hour or two, tops before moving on. This has been the typical response by these morons.

And they wonder why there profits drop month after month after month.

Now interestingly enough, there is one local casino that increased their penetration a while back. I am not going to name them, but it's been mentioned too often for my liking, on several BJ sites, recently. The somewhat reliable, monthly, CBJN report list their 6 deck games at 90% penetration. It's actually 92%. 1/2 deck of 6 decks cut off. A HALF DECK! Now guess what, even with all the chatter about this game and the small time counters that are hitting this place, they are doing fine. They pluck off the big time counters and teams and just ignore the small timers who aren't really doing any damage. And the bottom line: They are doing just fine, folks. Nevada doesn't publicly release information by individual casino's as other states do, but I have been told their numbers on these tables are up. The profit from the increase in rounds far exceeds what a few low limit counters can take. Like by 100-1.

This is the kind of stuff Zender talked about a decade ago, but few in the industry paid any attention.

Quote: MathExtremist

Actually, different casinos adopt a wide variety of approaches to card counting. Some operators don't care at all, knowing that the aggregate theo from their clientele is maximized by taking no countermeasures. Others recognize that there are too many counters to ignore and adjust their games accordingly. Even others don't properly know how to handle the issue. But those are all business decisions made by individual operators, and it is absolutely false that "card counting is always disallowed by the house and is always a trespassable offense,"

Thank you, MathExtemist, for expressing well my thoughts when starting this thread and for your other articulate remarks in your post.

I particularly like your statement about "moving the ethical needle." Well said.

I've indicated before that Dan is certainly not going to change his mind or be persuaded other than what he has posted here. He's not going to persuade me to think differently about card counting or advantage play either.

But as you have said, MathExtremist, I do not believe all casino management think exactly like Dan.

Quote: MathExtremist

Edge sorting is worse, involving the surreptitious manipulation of a deck of cards, and is probably illegal to boot.

As far as I know, edge sorting is legal under Nevada gaming code, unless there has been a precedent-setting court case. You're not using a device, you're not physically marking the cards. If anyone knows differently, please enlighten us :).

Quote: kewlj

They pluck off the big time counters and teams and just ignore the small timers who aren't really doing any damage. And the bottom line: They are doing just fine, folks.

I was curious after reading the many comments being made in this thread, and I talked to two different heads of table games who I know, and this is exactly what they told me as to their approach to card counting.

They do not call such legal activity as "unethical" or criminal or a scam. That is not to say they like it. The better known, "big time" counters and teams will be excluded. They don't sweat the others.

They seem recognize that applying all the available methods to counter APs has other far-reaching and negative consequences for the casino.

I cannot speak to whether this is the "prevailing" view among most casinos.

Quote: Jimbo

But as you have said, MathExtremist, I do not believe all casino management think exactly like Dan.

The problem is that a lot of these casino management people that are making these decisions, really aren't casino people. They are bean counters...financial people. These things might look good on paper, on a spread sheet, but they don't work out in the real world. In the real world you tighten up the game, table games, VP, slots, and some players stop playing. Not all but some. And they don't even have to understand the numbers behind it. All they have to know is that they don't win as often as they used to. There money doesn't last as long as it used to.

Sometimes these bean counters will tighten up a game like blackjack, not realizing it has greater effect than just blackjack. They decide to change s17 to h17. No big deal. An extra .21% advantage for the house. But reliable customer John begins to realize he doesn't win as much as he used to, and his money runs out quicker. So he stops making his monthly trip to that casino, with his wife, Sally, who plays slots and throws away much more on a 92% slot machine. So this move intended to increase revenue has cost them revenue. And that's just the gaming end. John and Sally aren't there any longer so they aren't spending money in the restuarants, shops, nor seeing a show each visit. All because people that are bean counters and not real casino people are making the decisions. And that's the way it has been for the last decade.

And that's it for me, for today. I have 'work' to do. :)

You're not seeing the forest through the trees; what's done to get rid of the counters they have might not be worth it considering the actual counters' edge alone, but if they don't make it clear it will be difficult to count, they'll make counters of ordinary players, and that will cost them the entire hold.

I will be back next month. Maybe by then Dan will see the light .......................................NOT !

Quote: Paigowdan

Sure, that's all right, we if all saw eye-to-eye on everything, there would be more log-rolling than debate.

I view counting, and dealer flashing as legal but against the house rules, a house offense.

Casinos post their house rules, one usually in/around the Blackjack Pits. I've never seen that counting or viewing a flashed dealer card as against the house rules. You keep saying these types of things are violations of house rules, but it's not true. It's you opinion of what should be a rule. You can't say something is a violation of house rules when it's not even a real house rule.

ZCore13

Quote: Buzzard

I will be back next month. Maybe by then Dan will see the light .......................................NOT !

Glad you popped in! Hope things are well, or well enough, in your life right now.

Quote: MathExtremist

Quote: Paigowdan

1. If it is disallowed by the house, you may not do it, so its legal status by the state is immaterial. 2. I lumped together all actions disallowed by the house. The {set of disallowed casino procedures} doesn't = {set of state laws.}

Actually, different casinos adopt a wide variety of approaches to card counting. Some operators don't care at all, knowing that the aggregate theo from their clientele is maximized by taking no countermeasures. Others recognize that there are too many counters to ignore and adjust their games accordingly. Even others don't properly know how to handle the issue. But those are all business decisions made by individual operators, and it is absolutely false that "card counting is always disallowed by the house and is always a trespassable offense," or you'd have been evicted from most casinos by now.

Good points.
- It is a house-based policy-based situation where tolerance is, let's say, "in the 1% to 99% range tolerance range."
- Games do NOT always get "adjusted accordingly" - and that is a problem. Sometimes, often enough in fact, people get "spoken to" at the tables, and get flat-betted and thrown out (86-ed), causing a cascade of additional issues.
- Casino houses cannot always or adequately "adjust their games accordingly." (This is Easy to say as a consultant, but harder to say and to manage as a shift manager who has to "86" players, kind of thing). Shoe and pitch BJ games cannot fit well to "fine-tuning," even with competent and profressional operators, no less smaller and more typical operators. Many players, from kewlj's accounts and or Eliot Jacobson's ordeal, indicate that simply put, there really is no good, definitive "finely-tuned" middle ground for BJ table parameters: You got counters, then the limits get compressed, penetration goes shallow, and you accept losing money caused by 25% more shuffle-ups, or else you may lose more getting get hard. Or....you got ploppies as players, and the limits widen, and you recoup the money spent from the excess shuffling down time losses, only to have more surveillance to back off a less-frequent counter here and there, - still an additional expense caused by the very nature of the game.

Quote: M.E.

Card counting is nothing more than applying a better playing strategy to the game, using information that is fairly obtained to vary one's bets within the published house betting limits.

No. It is NOT just a better strategy ( - which it is. It can WORK.), it is also a disallowed "legal" strategy that is very widely known, as you point out. Because it is a discreet and detectable method that is disallowed (well, at at least some casinos, and to varying degrees), it is not just a better strategy; it is also a disallowed strategy that can get you flat-betted, expelled (86'ed), or into surveillance hot sheets, in which case it would not be a "better strategy" result. This is true and undeniable: no one got flat-betted or 86-ed from a joint because they were wearing the wrong hair color, they got 86-ed because they did something in the opinion of casino management that was unacceptable.

Quote: M.E.

None of that relies on any illicit or unfair actions by the player. It is nonsensical for you to suggest that playing that way is unethical.

Let's see.....
1. You KNOW that raising and adjusting the bet amount with the count is against the rules (even though it is not otherwise), and so you use camouflage and concealment plays because...it is a-okay to count or hole card? Stacy, c'mon, this is a crock. You use camoflage and concealment plays precisely because you are doing something verboten, at least at some places. You do not enter a business establishment acting like a customer to pull something off, knowingly breaking their rules, without it being a bit of a scam, a bit unethical. "Do you have your fake ID? Check! Did you study the concealment plays! CHECK...We're hitting the shoe games today!" 100% innocent or clean players just don't do this.

2. So, Willfully and deliberately breaking the ground rules of the house that all parties darn well know (and again, camouflage and concealment plays admit this fact) is arguably an unethical, unacceptable, or wrongdoing action. You simply don't get 86-ed for "right-doing."

Quote: ME

The bottom line is that in any strategic game, there is a distribution of theoretical player outcomes based on the strategy employed by the player. Contrasted with roulette or craps, where any individual bet has a fixed theoretical return, the return of games like video poker, pai gow poker, blackjack, and let it ride are all dependent on player strategy.

No. In games like video poker, pai gow poker, blackjack, and let it ride (your examples) where they are all dependent on player strategy, certain strategies that do NOT breach the house edge (as calculated by optimal play) are okay. Stratgies that breach the nominal and required house edge may be declared verboten. Certainly, when YOU are calculating the house edge of a new game, you calculate the game's math on the APPROVED optimal play strategy that you provide to the game inventor and the casino operator, - as you do not calculate and note to them based on UNAPPROVED strategies unless as extra-cost game protection reports, which I feel must be required now. Have you ever written in a report, "Well, if the players are hole carding Three Card Poker, the house edge is actually a negative 3.48%, and the game will dump." - As in THIS math report on hole-carding Three Card Poker which was absent from all gaming jurisdictions' reviews. I guarantee you, the Nevada Gaming Control Board and the casino operators did not get THIS report when approving and installing Three Card Poker. We had to check a more comprehensive gaming site for that!.

Quote: ME

In some games, the player strategy can move the return from slightly negative to very negative (pai gow poker, let it ride, etc.) In other games, the player strategy can move the needle slightly positive (blackjack, certain VP games). You seem to be arguing that there is a quantifiable element to ethical player behavior such that if the player's strategy still yields a house edge, the player is ethical -- but if the player's strategy is different and moves the needle slightly to the player's favor, somehow that also moves the needle to being unethical. That simply does not follow.

Sure it does. Games are APPROVED, INSTALLED AND TRUSTED in the casino industry based on MATH REPORTS that (we hope to Christ) are 100% accurate, but that generally DON'T show positive player edges unless also how to defeat them, and include additional AP Game protection math scenarios. Typically, these (often) glaring game protection faults are NOT in the reports of the games that prove problematical before approval and installation, - but in the websites of AP players that exploit these games after the games have been hit - and often uninstalled.

Since the house will be actually backing these house-banked games with their money, they MUST be reliable. If these reports are NOT accurate, then what the hell use are they to the NGCB and the casino operators? Do we say, "Opps! I forgot to include that the game is actually fraudible, and left that stuff out, so not only can the games go player positive - you won't know from my reports! But the AP players will, as it will be QUICKLY figured out!" :) How's this for an ethical basis.

And in the games that move from slightly negative to very negative, (pai gow poker, let it ride, etc.), the optimal house edge stated is never breached.

In the games that do go positive, is THAT listed in the reports, along with the "advantage strategies" that cause these games to go positive (or become "fraudable" in the operator's eyes), and are strangely absent in official casino math reports. I believe I was among the first game designers to demand that my mathematician (Charles R. Mousseau) INCLUDE an AP game protection math report as part of the official submission kit - so I wouldn't have to see how the game can be later ripped apart on Eliot's game protection site or Steve How's discount gambling site.

All of this is true, but as far as I am concerned, if I were asked to leave a casino property, I may have done something that was considered unethical or a wrongdoing by the very people who are providing me the gambling service, and I would strangely accept that at face value, and be done with it.
I wouldn't be saying, "Ohh, the casino is clearly an evil low-life dirt-bag for kicking me out, - clearly! What a great guy....I am! Heavens to Murgatroid, I've dropped my pearls!" So....
Simply put, if I have failed the standards of a gambling hall,, and got my ass 86-ed, I will say, "Hmm.....Maybe I do have some ethical issues [either that, or a problem with public drunkenness, also not good...]" along with "maybe this isn't the best career choice..." I'll also be the first to say, this view is unfathomable here.

Quote: ME

There are plenty of tactics that APs employ in their quests for making money from a casino. Hole carding, for example, is a clear case of taking advantage of a poorly-trained employee who is failing to operate their game properly. So is attempting to confuse newer dice dealers with strange bet amounts and relying on overpayments.

Now THIS stuff you have got to consider unethical, or at least unsportsman-like....

Quote: ME

Edge sorting is worse, involving the surreptitious manipulation of a deck of cards, and is probably illegal to boot. But card counting is none of those things. It involves neither profiting from dealer mistakes nor surreptitious manipulation of anything. It wouldn't be unethical for a player to vary his bets if the dealer announced the count before each hand, and as you've admitted, many blackjack players intuit the count almost as easily as if they were told.

We can argue these grey areas until we fall into the black abyss. I keep it simple: if I have failed the standards of a gambling hall, which I wanted to be in, but got thrown out or backed off, well......

Quote: Paigowdan

I view counting, and dealer flashing as legal but against the house rules, a house offense.

I've wanted to ask this question--especially and respectfully of you, Dan--about an actual hole carding experience I had. In view of the discussion, this seems as good of a time and place as any. Of course, I'd welcome comments from anyone else.

By the way, I understand the definition of "hole carding" or dealer flashing is where one obtains knowledge of cards that are supposed to be hidden from view.

I was playing third base at a high limit blackjack table when the dealer dealt himself an Ace and he asked for insurance.

I never take insurance.

But in this instance, I just happened to see that the dealer had a face card as his hole card. I was not playing in a way to purposefully try to see the dealer's hole card. But this time the dealer was a little clumsy. Certainly no collusion involved (which is clearly illegal).

I took insurance.

As a side note, no one else at the table knew what I knew. But the player to my right, who I've played with before, took notice when I took insurance and immediately concluded something had happened to cause me to do that, and he did the same (without me doing or saying anything).

So, Dan (and anyone else), what is appropriate and ethical here?

1. Should I disregard what I know about the hand and continue to play as I always play and not take insurance--knowing full well that the very large bet I had out would be lost?

2. As is my right, did I act properly by taking insurance?

3. Does the fact that another player took advantage of what I knew of any relevance? Should he also benefit (without any help from me) from what I knew? Does the fact there were two other players at the table who did not pick up on my action and, as a result, did not have the opportunity to protect their bet in the same fashion of any relevance?

[Maybe there is another option (from the perspective of casino management) that a player in my position should have done--call out "mis-deal" due to the dealer's clumsiness and not play the hand at all. Though I would like to have a vote of the Forum on that one.]

I suppose I can guess at your response, Dan, since you recounted your own episode (somewhat hypocritically) as to how you took advantage of your knowledge of the count while playing.

I know what I did was legal. But you, Dan, continue to call hole carding a "house offense" and "unethical."

Good job. You did nothing wrong. It is the Dealer's responibility to protect the cards from beind seen and the Casino's responsibility to train the Dealer and make sure he/she is doing the job properly.

Now for Dan's reply, which will be the exact opposite as mine...

ZCore13

How I wish we could stomp this subject out lol. In an attempt to try, I’ll yet again post the same thing I posted the last 12 times we’ve had this argument.

Holecarding, counting, and all that jazz is inarguably unethical. You simply cannot argue that these actions are against the spirit of the game and how it is to be played. BUT! The level of said “unethicalness” is very low indeed.

Society has already established a sort of sliding scale of ethics. Again, I will use football as an example. As a defender, it is my job to break up a pass, typically by contacting a receiver. Now, if I’m in the backyard, give my 4yr old son a shoulder bump and knock him to the ground, that’s a complete asshole move. If I’m playing with men my age in a friendly game, the same bump is probably the perfect play. If I’m playing with men my age in a competitive league, that same bump is much less than what was required. And if I was playing pro with millions on the line, that same bump is downright garbage, not close to the aggressiveness needed. Every one of these examples covers the exact same game, with the exact same rules, but the level of the competition and the risk/reward varies greatly. As such, what is “right” slides up and down.

I don’t see a difference in casino card games. If you’re playing a friendly game for cookies vs your son and peek his hole card, c’mon man. That’s not nice. Do it against a charity game for juvenile diabetes, c’mon. But as we move up in level of competition and greater risk/reward, we come to the ultimate level of competition, the casino. And just as in a professional contest of any kind, I think it is reasonable to expect people to use every legal advantage they can.

Unethical? Technically, there is no doubt. But the level is so low it doesn't even require an apology. You watch your money, I'll watch mine.

Quote: Jimbo

I've wanted to ask this question--especially and respectfully of you, Dan--about an actual hole carding experience I had. In view of the discussion, this seems as good of a time and place as any. Of course, I'd welcome comments from anyone else.

By the way, I understand the definition of "hole carding" or dealer flashing is where one obtains knowledge of cards that are supposed to be hidden from view.

I was playing third base at a high limit blackjack table when the dealer dealt himself an Ace and he asked for insurance.

I never take insurance.

But in this instance, I just happened to see that the dealer had a face card as his hole card. I was not playing in a way to purposefully try to see the dealer's hole card. But this time the dealer was a little clumsy. Certainly no collusion involved (which is clearly illegal).

I took insurance.

You're Human, and you simply exploited a dealer error that should NOT have been there, and arguably not exploited if a saint or angel. On Friday night, I exploited an escalating count sitting on a double-deck game with a friend in three hands, bet $15 to $30 to $70. As far as I'm concerned, I owe the Cannery East $70, as I made a quick additional $70 on hands #2 & 3 by NOT flat-betting. Pitch games can shoot up at times early. I wasn't a saint either; I was counting and drinking and admiring a cute dealer's butt nearby on a Friday night in a casino. I don't do counting as a job, my job's on the other "dark" side. I will say my blood is red like any man's. The wins did not feel right to me, and I left and lost it at Bacc.

Quote: Jimbo

As a side note, no one else at the table knew what I knew. But the player to my right, who I've played with before, took notice when I took insurance and immediately concluded something had happened to cause me to do that, and he did the same (without me doing or saying anything).

So, Dan (and anyone else), what is appropriate and ethical here?

1. Should I disregard what I know about the hand and continue to play as I always play and not take insurance--knowing full well that the very large bet I had out would be lost?

I do so on any hole-carding "flashing event", as it is a dealer's failing not for me to exploit. I say, "You showed me an ace, and now I can't bet insurance!" You really can't say "I saw your Ace and I WILL play insurance," and then tip her out of guilt. (Because then she'll think, "That was Easy....geez! Maybe I can get my neighbor Eileen on the table, and we'll make some extra money...who will know??!!") This freaking happens. The dealer WILL eventually get caught, and either retrained or fired, and flashing is equally an error as is overpaying: it has to be addressed in the pit as a game protection issue. A good floorman or shift manager spends some time evaluating dealers on their flashing, because he doesn't want the Director of Surveillance to send him a memo or email on this: "My Dear incompetent co-worker and shift manager, I have some tapes on YOUR dealers that YOU need to review....."

On three card poker, I've played a King-high hand against a seen Ace, - because I WOULD have played that hand exactly that way otherwise, and I immediate told the dealer AFTER the hand. But on Blackjack, a high count that is seen is not the dealer's fault. I don't play blackjack, unless rarely on a CSM or because a friend that I haven't seen in a while has an open seat next to him, and I want to catch up with him. But once you learn to count, either for casino work or for "player's side," you cannot ignore it and not count. Can't unlearn it.

In every case of flashing I mention to the dealer or a shift manager that dealer 'x' is accidentally flashing, and needs retraining, away from the table. Just a head's up type of thing. They will not fire an otherwise reliable dealer, and will get rid of an unreliable dealer, which may have to be done.

Quote: Jimbo

2. As is my right, did I act properly by taking insurance?

Yes - you HUMAN PERSON, you! The dealer FLASHED, - her error, and you did NOT use a miniature camera or mini-mirror strategically placed to see the hole card. But do tell her, help her. You may save her job, and her casino some money improperly lost, if she became aware of where to improve as a dealer. I'm not saying this is your job, (for all those in Wizard-land ready to say "AHA!"), just a courtesy you may and could do. She should realize, "if a player can spot this, my boss can, too."

Quote: Jimbo

3. Does the fact that another player took advantage of what I knew of any relevance? Should he also benefit (without any help from me) from what I knew?

Aha! accidentally working as a team....you can see now how a flashing dealer can be a problem. If a team had hit her table, the table could dump, and a surveillance review could put the pit boss in hot water, and have her fired and walked off by security crying on the way out, to her car that may soon be repo'd. (and some people here saying, "Yesss! The White hats WIN! Our type of Gambling at its finest! -- lighten up people, this is tongue-in-cheek).

Quote: Jimbo

Does the fact there were two other players at the table who did not pick up on my action and, as a result, did not have the opportunity to protect their bet in the same fashion of any relevance?

No, if they didn't know, then they were playing the game as it was supposed to be played - that is, not given the hole card info. And this is okay to occur.

Quote: Jimbo

[Maybe there is another option (from the perspective of casino management) that a player in my position should have done--call out "mis-deal" due to the dealer's clumsiness and not play the hand at all. Though I would like to have a vote of the Forum on that one.]

You could alert the floor, yes. "Sir, the dealer accidentally flashed her hole card - she has an ace. I'm not supposed to know this, can you deal the game right?" (And the known hole card would prove that she flashed it). The floor would, on this event, give the table a free insurance bet, a free pass, though probably not a "do-over" misdeal; the hand is often played "doubly exposed," and players may all play the hand seeing both dealer cards. Whatever the floorman decides. The dealer might be a bit irked and humilated, or be good about it. I hate to give the dealer a black eye, and mention it after the round.

Quote: Jimbo

I suppose I can guess at your response, Dan, since you recounted your own episode (somewhat hypocritically) as to how you took advantage of your knowledge of the count while playing.

No - I admitted this all very honestly, especially knowing and considering how openly hostile this board can be towards me.
But in counting cards (again, an unlearnable kind of thing), the dealer made no fault of her own to report: the cards come out the way they come out, and I took advantage, the dealer did no wrong. I reported my action here very publicly, openly, and honestly; you can't unlearn it.

Quote: Jimbo

I know what I did was legal.

I know that, too. I never said otherwise; I said "legal" wasn't the issue, obeying house rules were.

Quote: Jimbo

But you, Dan, continue to call hole carding a "house offense" and "unethical."

Depending on the circumstances, yes. But this really was an instance of "dealer flashing" - you said nothing of you making any attempt to deliberately hole card, right? Now, if you had confessed to using a miniature camera or a tiny mirror to glean the hole card information, then shoot yeah, I would have 100% said that was totally unethical, and probably illegal hole-carding, with some fine advice on it from Math Extremist.

However, you had insider hole card information that you weren't supposed to have from a dealer's error, and you exploited it.

Let me ask, if you had insider information on a company's stock - information that you weren't supposed to have, and you exploited that, would that arguably be like insider trading, and not 100% ethical?

So, you had information on certain cards that you're not supposed to have, and you exploited it, openly asking me for my opinion, and I said you were human, took advantage of that information, and I did not call the police or call you names. If you're saying that I denounced you, called you names, or anything like that, I'd say you'd be wrong. Just by debating some points and making some arguments, people take offense at a differing point of view, true?

But I disagree with Zcore13: you had insider hole card information that you weren't supposed to have from a dealer's error, and you exploited it. Not 100% straight up play in my book. Zcore13's book - apprently yes. And I'm no Angel.

Quote: Zcore13

Good job. You did nothing wrong. It is the Dealer's responibility to protect the cards from beind seen and the Casino's responsibility to train the Dealer and make sure he/she is doing the job properly.

Now for Dan's reply, which will be the exact opposite as mine...

ZCore13

I said it is permissible to inform the dealer and/or the floor of what happened on the table - because it is a clear game protection issue that the pit may wish to know about.
I never said it was Jimbo's job, I said it was his option, - true?

While it certainly is the Dealer's responsibility to protect the cards from being seen, and the Casino's responsibility to train the dealer and make sure he/she is doing her job properly, operations in the pit do have their fair share of game protection breakdowns.

Personally, I feel table games management should be aware of what is going on on their floor, (- they can't and don't always know) - so that an incident of game protection failure may be reported. I see no harm in alerting the pit to something they might need to know.

And YOU disagree with THIS as wrong?

Wow....

Quote: Paigowdan

Let me ask, if you had insider information on a company's stock - information that you weren't supposed to have, and you exploited that, would that arguably be like insider trading, and not 100% ethical?

Disregarding or postponing, for the moment, you other remarks in response to my episode of hole carding, your reference or comparison to trading on inside information is an area where I have some professional experience. I think we will really go down a slippery slope indeed if we try to draw analogies there as to what defines insider information, how was it obtained, used, etc. (and the considerable body of statutory and case law associated with insider trading).

Speaking of case law, I still like the quote I mentioned before from a reported case dealing directly with card counting:

"Permitting a casino to restrict its patrons only to those customers who lack the skill and ability to play such games well intrudes upon principles of fair and equal competition and provides unfair financial advantages and rewards to casino operators. I am not persuaded that such schemes are supported or protected by any common law right or privilege."

Quote: MonkeyMonkey

Yep, industry standard terminology that's been in use as long as there have been casinos would certainly qualify as deliberately confusing. Or... not.



Nope, not what I said, you chose your example very carefully... remember? No, what I said was that if you don't understand something about the game you could chose to consult various sources. Nice attempt on your part though.



LOL. I wouldn't poll the membership here on whether the sun is going to come up tomorrow. Day in and day out the membership here demonstrates what it doesn't know about the gaming industry.



Whatever dude, you're the one walking around confused. If you'd like to remain that way it's certainly your business but you can't in all honesty blame the casino if you chose to remain ignorant.



And Proctor & Gamble knows most consumers don't have the time or the aptitude to figure out that Tide and Gain are the same thing in different bottles, what's your point, that business for profit is bad? There is nothing stopping casino patrons from getting the answers they want/need. And further, where I work when a bet if "for 1" it also says: Original wager is NOT returned. It makes it very clear how it works. I'm going to guess since it's a Shufflemaster game that all of them probably have the same explanation. Not the voodoo, smoke and mirrors experience you describe by a long shot.



Well then I guess you should tell the Wiz, JB, or Mission to terminate your account because you're using one of the ways I listed right now.

So are Tide and Gain really the same?

Quote: Jimbo

Disregarding or postponing, for the moment, you other remarks in response to my episode of hole carding, your reference or comparison to trading on inside information is an area where I have some professional experience. I think we will really go down a slippery slope indeed if we try to draw analogies there as to what defines insider information, how was it obtained, used, etc. (and the considerable body of statutory and case law associated with insider trading).

Speaking of case law, I still like the quote I mentioned before from a reported case dealing directly with card counting:

"Permitting a casino to restrict its patrons only to those customers who lack the skill and ability to play such games well intrudes upon principles of fair and equal competition and provides unfair financial advantages and rewards to casino operators. I am not persuaded that such schemes are supported or protected by any common law right or privilege."

This is very good. New Jersey has respect for card counting as a skill, very fine.
Other states have:
1. Wagers are entered into on a mutually acceptable basis, where there is no universal right to patronage, and;
2. The "Skills basis" argument is not considered valuable everywhere. Again, Blackjack game protection handling is quite variable. This recognizes that Skills sets are a double edge sword, and can actually intrude upon the concept of fair play, (what of card mucking skills? of skills in capping and pinching? or card marking skills? all of which breach the needed casino house edge.)

In this regard, card counting cannot be regarded as a skill set that provides for universally (two-way) fair play, as:
1. the dealer cannot equally take advantage of card counting, as constrained by pat "hit-and-stand" rules, while players may modify BS based solely on count;
2. the required "negative" house edge, as both required for the game's operation, and defined by its legal approval mathematics, - are breached by certain disallowed techniques, to include card counting, among other disallowed game play techniques.

Now, it is utterly possible to simply offer Blackjack with very narrow bet limits and shallow penetration, or CSM, and while more expensive to run:
1. It would still be profitable to offer. Remember, 95% of BJ players are flat-betting ploppies, so narrow bet limits alone ($10-$100, $50-$500, a 10x spread) would keep the vast majority of players. The defacto removal of Player Banking on Pai Gow Poker (a "player advantage" option that bogs the game down), has not affected it patronage. Likewise, shallow penetration and narrow bet limits mean little to the non-counting player, which is arguably a "non-positive" player for the game anyway, in the operators point of view.
2. It would eliminate tons of ancillary issues (back-offs, lawsuits, hemorrhaging tables when team-hit, surveillance drain and expense, pit arguments, etc.);
3. It is arguably dishonest to try to lure counters in with "counter friendly" appearance, and to have a double-edge pit approach of "we'll take you money if a poor counter, but 86 you if you beat us" approach. If something is disallowed, it is not "only disallowed if we lose, but allowed if we the casino can beat you." I think this is horrible PR for a casino, for getting and maintaining the non-AP clientele population.
4. That AP play isn't true gambling in a lot of ways. Instead of being chance, variance or luck, - like craps or Roulette - it becomes this silly "cops-n-robbers" side show of great turmoil, conflict, "Game parameter balancing acts" and expense.

I think #4 above has a lot to say about a real underlying issue.

I agree there is no harm if the person chooses to alert the Pit. I do not think there is any obligation to do it. Yes, humans work in the table games department and human error has to be factored into that when deciding what games to have in the pit.

I know going in there are going to be human errors, that's just part of the deal. Do you as a game inventor, or would you as a Table Games Supervisor advise a player when he/she has made a mistake? I'd say no on that one. Are you a cheater for not informing them? No. Human errors on one side are expected and help the casino a little. Human errors on the other side should also be expected and hurt the casino a little.

There's a way bigger picture than you see and way more grey area than you have acknowledged, although your incident the other night may have opened you eyes a little to some of the grey area.

ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

I agree there is no harm if the person chooses to alert the Pit. I do not think there is any obligation to do it. Yes, humans work in the table games department and human error has to be factored into that when deciding what games to have in the pit.

I know going in there are going to be human errors, that's just part of the deal. Do you as a game inventor, or would you as a Table Games Supervisor advise a player when he/she has made a mistake? I'd say no on that one. Are you a cheater for not informing them? No. Human errors on one side are expected and help the casino a little. Human errors on the other side should also be expected and hurt the casino a little.

Zcore, I fully agree.
Long ago, I once gave a Pai Gow player with black on the line, and a hand of AKKKKxx advice to play it as AK/KKKxx (a better play, but truly not the house way), - and a win against my Ax/7733x. I often gave BJ players correct Basic Strategy, too. But never a "hey buddy, that a doozy."
I was repremanded by my shift manager for "coaching players" with a "Jesus, Dan, you are such a pro-player worker, why the hell can't you be a pro-casino, pro-house kind of guy?" I tell you, this man did not know me, and he really didn't know too much of what really happened in the pit.
As for errors, I do look at them as to be avoided, there is so much going on on the floor - and corrected with correct money without customer upset. If it's a small amount, and the player would take offense, then yes, by all means, let it slide. But shot takers and claimers, no.

Quote: Zcore13

There's a way bigger picture than you see and way more grey area than you have acknowledged, although your incident the other night may have opened you eyes a little to some of the grey area.

I know it's a huge field, I do. A lotta grey area, true. I worked for a lot of years day time for a competing game distributor, so no, my swing shift dealing is not my main table games background. I'm really not as dumb as I sound, and I may sound dumb.
And the incident on Friday was a beaut. Looking at the table, just a passing thought floated by while I was talking...."that bet doesn't look right, I'm expecting to see $70, five units is $75, but the red would camo it." I pushed out two quarters and four nickels, wth. It went right through unnoticed in a sea of ploppies.

I feel there are grey areas all around, and are to a great degree the issue with BJ. There are no gentleman's agreements on BJ's grey areas. Most pits simply would not - and do not - handle and manage the balance of AP with BJ deck and pit parameters as well as you would, and they don't - so they are either bleeding a bit, or they are draconian sweat shops like the El Cortez. I honestly believe if some places HAD block shufflers and low penetration, - and just let the parameters take care of themselves, they be better of than sweating every player and applying heat. Other places are too tight. I see this as "the grey area is the problem."

Allow me to say that I don't believe in heat. I believe in having the right parameters on games to avoid the need to apply heat. I believe in right-design and fair games. I do believe that the whole "AP" issue is a side show on the gaming world, and human nature is to exploit the free lunch when offered. I sound harsher than I am.

Quote: Hunterhill

So are Tide and Gain really the same?

If you were an advantage consumer you'd know the answer. :)

Quote: Paigowdan

No - I admitted this all very honestly, especially knowing and considering how openly hostile this board can be towards me.

Not sure if you are referring to other threads, but from what I've seen in this one at least, I don't see open hostility excluding a couple of posts. I see significant disagreement and debate, but remarkably minimal taunting. However I do acknowledge that the way you have to navigate this forum might be different than other members, since any misstatement of fact or strongly worded opinion could result in wave after wave of accusatory/sarcastic responses.

In some of the other forums of which I am a member, if you chose to defend or even present a point of view counter to the general population, there would be .gifs of your face on the business end of an elephant in musth, and much talk about the various things you like to do to your own mother.

Personally, I'd say disagree with about half of your non factual comments. But I've really been enjoying this thread, and appreciate your point of view. A lot of what you said are things I haven't necessarily thought of, and at the end of the day, isn't that why I'm here?

Quote: gts4ever

Not sure if you are referring to other threads, but from what I've seen in this one at least, I don't see open hostility excluding a couple of posts.

This is in general, I'm an ogre.
While this is not believed, I only appear that I personally attack people hard, because I attack arguments & POV hard, and it's felt as such without such intent.
I like everyone and this place a real lot. On any forum, a debate attack on a concept or position is perceived as a personal assault when it is nothing of the sort. This sense is a normal and commonplace side effect. If I told you that I pretty much like you all very much and appreciate this forum and its opportunity for discussion, 90% of those whom I debate with will never believe this, and forever have a mind's eye vision of me of being a goon straight out of a Joe Pesci film, backrooming and beating some poor soul to a pulp. Nothing could be further from the truth, yet it also matters little what person 'x' from Internetland personally thinks of me personally, if we neither have met or had contact; if we had met, I'd seem a pretty regular and friendly guy who tips well, has fun and who doesn't try to take what isn't won or earned 100% cleanly by the rules, including the house rules. The good old Bare-knuckle true debates are always perceived as personal bare-knuckle fistfights, and internalized as such, when they aren't, because of human nature. I'm amazed at how much we can fill in in our heads from the power of the internet and its chat rooms.

Quote: gts4ever

I see significant disagreement and debate, but remarkably minimal taunting. However I do acknowledge that the way you have to navigate this forum might be different than other members, since any misstatement of fact or strongly worded opinion could result in wave after wave of accusatory/sarcastic responses.

Truly, I'm a Pinatta who can also give out a tough argument. I'm perceived as a butcher who's just here for your sacred cows. I know emotions are stoked, but I believe the future of gaming is that of simpler gambling in a strange sense: without the trap doors, with less opportunity and ability to "game the games," and games being straight-up play without all this fodder for how to "play" it in ways that that neither the designer nor the operator had intended for it to be offered. Blackjack, as big as it is, is a freakishly vulnerable game if not babysat, and became that way by being cobbled together and not by design.

To see this type of approach to gambling, by looking at High Card Flush's entry at discountgambling.net, counting and hole-carding would never work on that brand-new game, yet S.H. displayed how it can be theoretically beaten by an incredible feat of synchronized players exchanging full information of all the playing position hands to be calculated in micrseconds with an altered strategy, - in order for that edge to materialize into cash for the AP's, and not through straight-up, by the game rules gambling. Not only did I think "this is utterly unfeasble for even a Navy Seal Team with C.I.A. communications to do, - it is also NOT gambling, truly. It is a math exercise, and a poor way to spend one's time at the tables." I hope it gets to the point that the only worthwhile way to play a table game is just clean and straight up. Without saying it's good or evil or what have you, I do think we have some sort of gaming pathology when we can't enjoy a game without finding an angle to exploit or a way to kill it, and so if it is 100% game protected, it is not worth playing. I disagree. I can play craps for hours letting just the dice be the result of the action, with fair dealers handling the action, and be happy with that, same with Pai Gow Poker or UTH. Among AP's, I can be viewed as an absolute freak from the lake of fire.

Quote: gts4ever

In some of the other forums of which I am a member, if you chose to defend or even present a point of view counter to the general population, there would be .gifs of your face on the business end of an elephant in musth, and much talk about the various things you like to do to your own mother.

I know. This forum is relatively classy. It really is. People have a tendancy to flip out over a conversation or debate the way it never happens over dinner or in a training room (or maybe, much less so).

Quote: gts4ever

Personally, I'd say disagree with about half of your non factual comments.

They're arguments, experience, and opinion. People speaking and debating. I don't get my facts from chat rooms. Everything presented is to be falsified to see if it true or false, workable or non-viable, reasonable or unreasonable when thought about. Even on the facts, some people say the true source is actually Foxnews.com, and others say it can only be msnbc.com or bbc.co.uk, and between those guys there are flaming wars that look like the Apocolypse. We are actually very well-behaved.

Quote: gts4ever

But I've really been enjoying this thread, and appreciate your point of view. A lot of what you said are things I haven't necessarily thought of, and at the end of the day, isn't that why I'm here?

I thank you greatly, gts4ever, truly mean that. Everyone contributes and participates. As for what other people think of me or anyone is just in their heads, really, gotten from a tube connected to a wire or a signal. What I think of them is just in my head, too. I take the discussions seriously, but misformed opinions formed on anger and cat calls less so. Got to.

I 'll chime in:

I really don't get why words like "unsportsmanlike" , "unethical", and the like are being thrown around here. Casino gaming is a business activity which is governed by law so those terms don't apply. Both the casino and the customer have rights and duties as prescribed in law. Likewise, the casino establishes house rules which govern how it's games are offered. Customers are free to shop around to find house rules that they wish to play under.

To me, 'card counting' or any other legal activity is part of a person's skill set which they can use to play the game offered by the casino. If the casino decides that they don't want to offer a game to a certain person's skill set, they have the right to refuse service to that player.

I hardly play in the pit so maybe I'm too naive when it comes to this discussion, but it seems pretty simple to me.

Thank you for your thorough response to my hole carding incident, Dan.

As a followup to your response---

I would never consider myself a "saint" by any stretch of the imagination. Still, I believe I am honest in the casino (and hopefully away from the casino as well).

I did not then, and I do not now, view my action as dishonest. We all agree that I did not engage in any illegal behavior. Contrary to your belief, I do not feel I engaged in unethical behavior.

As the result of a one-time event--a rare clumsy deal by an experience dealer--which I did nothing to contribute, I had knowledge about the game which facilitated me to make an informed decision about how to play the hand. As ZCore13 and many others will argue, it is the casino which hires and trains its dealers, and it is the casino's responsibility to control the game so that a player does not gain such knowledge which the player can use to his advantage. In a situation like this, it is not the player's responsibility to look out for the casino.

You say I "exploited" the opportunity. In this context, "exploit" connotes an improper, perhaps even immoral, act. I am sure you chose this word intentionally, since this is what you believe. (I have wondered why you continually interject "ethics" as part of the discussion involving "skillful" play.)

Let's change the facts for a moment for purposes of this discussion. Let's assume I learned from observation and experience that this dealer routinely made mistakes in his dealing that facilitated hole carding and that the casino had not discovered the situation. I recognize that with proper supervision and surveillance, this would not likely occur, especially in high limit, nor would it continue for very long. But let's say it is a continuing situation. In this circumstance, I would agree that for me to take advantage of the situation would be to "exploit" the opportunity.

I think there will still be many players who will assert that even to exploit the opportunity, with the facts as I have just described, is not unethical.

By the way, let's not get too carried away with what I gained here. In this instance, I avoided a loss. I did not win anything--unless you want to say that the avoidance of a loss is a win.

You say that I was "not supposed to have hole card information." But through no fault of my own, I did have that information. I maintain that most casinos with more current attitudes would not expect me to disregard that information to my detriment.

You may be interested to know further---

1. I did not for an instant consider tipping the dealer as some sort of reward for his clumsiness. To tip for the exclusive purpose of trying to encourage improper favorable treatment is wrong--and in some circumstances illegal. I've read books by "well-regarded" gaming authors who have even propounded this notion that you should only tip to receive some "improper payback" in return. Not only is it wrong, it puts the dealer in an awkward position which is unfair to the dealer.

2. I did not make an issue of the mistake with the pit supervisors--as you suggest as some sort of interest or responsibility on my part to to insure the proper handling of the game. My primary interest in not mentioning this to the dealer's supervisors is that I knew the dealer, and I knew him to be a good dealer (keep in mind we are playing high limit where the casino generally assigns its better dealers), and I knew this to be an isolated situation--and it would have served no purpose whatsoever to have "tattled" about the dealer's mistake, other than to humiliate the dealer.

3. When I saw the dealer a little later away from the table, and I asked him if he remembered my taking insurance. He not only remembered it, he knew why I did because he recognized that he had dealt clumsily in that one instance. He actually seemed embarrassed or at least disappointed in himself for not doing a better job. I asked the dealer if he was offended in any way by my taking advantage of the situation, and he said, "Absolutely not."

4. Some time later still, out of curiosity, I mentioned the situation to the head of table games at the casino (actually while we were playing golf together). I did not mention the dealer by name. The table games manager said exactly the same thing that ZCore13 has stated: I did nothing wrong. It is the casino's responsibility to avoid such errors. In this situation, it is not my responsibility to look out for the casino.

Quote: Paigowdan

So, you had information on certain cards that you're not supposed to have, and you exploited it....and I did not call the police or call you names. If you're saying that I denounced you, called you names, or anything like that, I'd say you'd be wrong.

I do not know where this comment came from.

I have never--not once--accused you of calling me names. Nor do I believe you have "denounced" me.

You and I agree on some things. For example, you and I both agree that the relationship of player to casino is not, or should not be, adversarial.

But you and I also disagree on some things. The role or place of an Advantage Player--someone who legally uses skill and discipline--is obviously a subject with which we will continue to disagree. (On this issue, I also believe your position is a little outdated and not in step with many others in casino management.)

You have always stated your position respectfully--certainly zealously and with fervor and dedication. I hope I have been respectful as well.

Jimbo, I personally don't think Dan has been as respectful as you think he has. Maybe he has toned it down just a bit in this particular thread, but he still uses code words like immoral, unethical, dirty and I personally take offense to that.

And the thing is for a person tied to and supporting the industry the way Dan is, to use any of these words, when this industry is so unethical and immoral in it's practices is the ultimate in hypocracy. It is the ultimate 'pot calling the kettle black'.

Quote: slyther

I 'll chime in:

I really don't get why words like "unsportsmanlike" , "unethical", and the like are being thrown around here. Casino gaming is a business activity which is governed by law so those terms don't apply.

True.
Those words can be uncomfortable and off-putting. However, the problems with managing Blackjack as a game in the casino environment center around the validity of AP-like actions, not just in legal terms of it being legal or not, but whether it should be allowed on a house rules basis, and on other bases, including perception, protocol, and ethics, "is it right or wrong to do or to allow, and why" - in as much as how it is viewed.

Secondly, we may and can debate and argue the sportsmanship or ethics of our actions at the tables at a forum and away from the casino pit.
One can argue, in terms of AP play, that gambling has become something other than just wagering on the results of cards or dice by the rules of a game. I have heard AP sometimes described as - as I sometimes describe it - as seeing whatever ploy you can legally get away with on a game, and yes, in those terms, ethical and sportsmanlike questions DO definitely come up and are involved, all discomfort aside. Just because "it is legal by the statutes of Nevada" doesn't mean it's an ethical action. This is like saying "I'm an ethical person because I'm not doing time."
I mean, aside from the argument of "if it is technically not illegal, then don't go near anything related to such things as house rules or ethics, even if those aspects are involved, because it makes me uncomfortable and angry, so drop it, Gawddamit."

Quote: slyther

To me, 'card counting' or any other legal activity is part of a person's skill set which they can use to play the game offered by the casino. If the casino decides that they don't want to offer a game to a certain person's skill set, they have the right to refuse service to that player.

This argument says that the house rules or the property's rules don't mean a thing unless it is outlawed specifically by state statute. The "why am I getting 86-ed??!! But It's LEGAL!" argument.

Quote: slyther

I hardly play in the pit so maybe I'm too naive when it comes to this discussion, but it seems pretty simple to me.

It isn't simple. there's a lot more grey area than we know, or we think we know, as I too have been told.

Quote: Jimbo

Thank you for your thorough response to my hole carding incident, Dan.

As a followup to your response---

I would never consider myself a "saint" by any stretch of the imagination. Still, I believe I am honest in the casino (and hopefully away from the casino as well).

You're very fine, I also think you are a fine patron, and you sound like a good man to me.

Quote: Jimbo

I did not then, and I do not now, view my action as dishonest. We all agree that I did not engage in any illegal behavior. Contrary to your belief, I do not feel I engaged in unethical behavior.

You used information you were NOT supposed to have, and by the game's rules not supposed to have, and by error, and you did exploit it (that is, put it to use for your benefit).
"Exploiting" is not an evil or evil-connoting word. I thought it was very apt. Personally, you seem like a fine man, certainly one who cares. And "exploit" can be positive: To exploit an opponent's weakness by the rules is a sign of strength and prowess. To exploit via information you're not supposed to have isn't quite angelic, but neither is it immoral. Exploit simply means "to take advantage of a situation," which you did and we all do. Please don't torture yourself over it.

Quote: Jimbo

Let's change the facts for a moment for purposes of this discussion. Let's assume I learned from observation and experience that this dealer routinely made mistakes in his dealing that facilitated hole carding and that the casino had not discovered the situation. I recognize that with proper supervision and surveillance, this would not likely occur, especially in high limit, nor would it continue for very long. But let's say it is a continuing situation. In this circumstance, I would agree that for me to take advantage of the situation would be to "exploit" the opportunity.

To "exploit" or take advantage of something isn't dependent on the number of instances of it. It isn't "false" if it is less than 5 times, and "true" on the 6th time or greater. Once is enough. I personally exploited the Cannery (two hands) for $70 by some nefarious card-counting, and I slept like a baby. I didn't beat myself up. I was liberated by the confession, in fact. I do think BJ is an exploitable game that is often poorly protected and taken advantage of, and that a lot of casino houses are sloppy with game protection, with others being too tight or too lose.

Quote: Jimbo

I think there will still be many players who will assert that even to exploit the opportunity, with the facts as I have just described, is not unethical.

I fully agree with that! :)

Quote: Jimbo

....4. Some time later still, out of curiosity, I mentioned the situation to the head of table games at the casino (actually while we were playing golf together). I did not mention the dealer by name. The table games manager said exactly the same thing that ZCore13 has stated: I did nothing wrong. It is the casino's responsibility to avoid such errors. In this situation, it is not my responsibility to look out for the casino.

I agree:
1. You did absolutely nothing bad or evil.
2. It is not your job or responsibility to look out for anyone else in a casino, while it is still an option to report that you may elect to do at times.

Quote: Jimbo

You and I agree on some things. For example, you and I both agree that the relationship of player to casino is not, or should not be, adversarial.

They are actually partners and fellow participants in gambling, with the friend or foe being just how the dice roll and the cards fall. NO one sees this or believes this.

Quote: Jimbo

But you and I also disagree on some things. The role or place of an Advantage Player--someone who legally uses skill and discipline--is obviously a subject with which we will continue to disagree. (On this issue, I also believe your position is a little outdated and not in step with many others in casino management.)

On this we will disagree. It isn't ENOUGH for me that it is legal. It also has to be in accordance with the house or property's rules.

Quote: Jimbo

You have always stated your position respectfully--certainly zealously and with fervor and dedication. I hope I have been respectful as well.

You have, you've been great!

If you don't believe casinos, you can play online.

Quote: mike201689

If you don't believe casinos, you can play online.

Lordy, Mike. What did you write before you fixed it ;-?