Is it just me.......
I find this very strange, or simply that people have too much time on their hands.
Quote: Tomspur.....or are there many more people here recently just trying to disprove Mike's work, trying to be smarter than Mike, trying to outgun Mike or just simply to take pot shots at him?
I find this very strange, or simply that people have too much time on their hands.
+1. It's not just you. I find it very strange as well. He's Popeye; he is what he is, and he chooses to share what he knows without charging people for his expertise. Maybe that's what people are questioning; the value of free information, without "getting" that Mike's integrity is his core value, and he spends his own money testing, validating, FOIA'ing, and disseminating information because he sees a need and can answer it. I get it and appreciate it because my head works a similar way, as does yours. He's a Player Advocate, which is a job title I made up because he essentially created the concept and there wasn't a title.
Quote: beachbumbabs+1. It's not just you. I find it very strange as well. He's Popeye; he is what he is, and he chooses to share what he knows without charging people for his expertise. Maybe that's what people are questioning; the value of free information, without "getting" that Mike's integrity is his core value, and he spends his own money testing, validating, FOIA'ing, and disseminating information because he sees a need and can answer it. I get it and appreciate it because my head works a similar way, as does yours. He's a Player Advocate, which is a job title I made up because he essentially created the concept and there wasn't a title.
I generally don't think people here are trying to take shots at the Wizard. I think many people are just very naive about gambling and believe in the superstitions they have grown up hearing about.
"Slot machines are rigged"
"You can't beat casinos"
"Card counting is cheating"
etc
2. If you can really beat casinos, - you ain't giving away your secrets here. For 99.999% of the population, it's a fool's endeavor to think you can beat casinos. Again, if you know and you can, you ain't giving it away here for free.
3. Card counting is 100% legal. Cheating is in the eye of the beholder.
4. Trying to prove Mike Shackleford wrong on a gaming issue is also a fool's endeavor. Too many try.
Quote: Paigowdan1. Slot machines are not rigged. except at Joe's casino.
2. If you can really beat casinos, - you ain't giving away your secrets here. For 99.999% of the population, it's a fool's endeavor to think you can beat casinos. Again, if you know and you can, you ain't giving it away here for free.
3. Card counting is 100% legal. Cheating is in the eye of the beholder.
4. Trying to prove Mike Shackleford wrong on a gaming issue is also a fool's endeavor. Too many try.
No, cheating is in the eye of NRS 465.015 as long as you are playing in Nevada.
Quote: beachbumbabsHe's a Player Advocate, which is a job title I made up because he essentially created the concept and there wasn't a title.
Actually Mike has called himself that since before
I joined in 2010. He used to be a casino advocate,
which is what I thought when I joined. He said
he's now a player advocate.
Quote: geoffNo, cheating is in the eye of NRS 465.015 as long as you are playing in Nevada.
No it isn't.
I said:
1. Card counting is legal.
2. Cheating may be legal or illegal, NRS 465.015 not withstanding.
Quote: EvenBobActually Mike has called himself that since before
I joined in 2010. He used to be a casino advocate,
which is what I thought when I joined. He said
he's now a player advocate.
It is possible to be neither or both, not taking sides except on a specific case basis, though this is unfathomable to many here.
It about:
1. The math is right or it is wrong.
2. The game is fun or it blows.
3. A pit boss can be a schmuck or a saint. He isn't right or wrong, or good or bad because of his "side."
4. A player may be a schmuck or a saint. He isn't right or wrong, or good or bad because of his "side."
Quote: IbeatyouracesHere we go again, sigh.
Yess! - I say to you.
People can be right on an issue of gaming, or wrong on gaming, and it hasn't a damn thing to do with which side they work on.
Live this. Love this. Learn this.
Quote: EvenBobActually Mike has called himself that since before
I joined in 2010. He used to be a casino advocate,
which is what I thought when I joined. He said
he's now a player advocate.
I've heard him describe himself as that as well; I'm hair-splitting in "title-ing" it as such, like you would find on a job description, not trying to say I made up the phrase, sorry. Badly worded on my part.
Quote: IbeatyouracesThere's just no need to keep rehashing the same arguments of cheating, AP or whatever, that's all. Even I just ignore most of it now.
Same arguments??
I said any side position be right based on merit of a case or situation.
Now THIS is brand new in this Yankee clubhouse.
Does it give them a sense of satisfaction that they have "gone up against the Wizard"?
I just don't know. I enjoy every second I spend here and on AP Heat. These guys are veritable fountains of knowledge.
I will take them on if I believe they are wrong but that hasn't happened yet......I'm still looking though :)
Good statement Dan. Counting is legal but you can choose to look at it from another point of view and make up your own mind.
Because I don't agree with you doesn't mean you don't have the right to believe in whatever you choose!!
I do appreciate that!
I get a lot of math work done by ex-AP's and current AP-er's, and they do awesome work. They do the "pre-approval" reports that I rely on and trust, to go to the official gaming labs. Both are a bit burnt out, and do great consulting side work. I've seen them get flat-betted, smile and laugh, and then play dice and order Henessey, just great attitude, happy to know them as friends and colleagues. We do NOT 'wear hats' - we play together (except on BJ).
There are no camps - Yankees versus Red Sox, what have you. Just focus on the game.
Really.
Quote: PaigowdanNo it isn't.
I said:
1. Card counting is legal.
2. Cheating may be legal or illegal, NRS 465.015 not withstanding.
My metric for cheating is NRS 465.015. I can't think of any other metrics applicable in a Nevada casino. Of course there is cheating that is legal it's just not in a casino. (Monopoly does not bring out the best in people)
Quote: geoffMy metric for cheating is NRS 465.015. I can't think of any other metrics applicable in a Nevada casino. Of course there is cheating that is legal it's just not in a casino. (Monopoly does not bring out the best in people)
I get it, I really do, NRS 465.015.
However, there other metrics that are applicable in a casino, (aside from NRS 465.015 of course), and it is the metric where a floor supervisor or pit boss doesn't like your play and backs you off or 86's you. And this actually happens in a casino. So in response to your comment "I can't think of any other metrics applicable in a Nevada casino," remember the back-off, the flat-bet, and the 86. It's NOT a question of what you may do by the support or disapproval of NRS 465.015, but a question of what you may do by the support or disapproval of casino management staff on the scene. These guys are part of the metrics.
Quote: PaigowdanI get it, I really do, NRS 465.015.
However, there other metrics that are applicable in a casino, (aside from NRS 465.015 of course), and it is the metric where a floor supervisor or pit boss doesn't like your play and backs you off or 86's you. And this actually happens in a casino. So in response to your comment "I can't think of any other metrics applicable in a Nevada casino," remember the back-off, the flat-bet, and the 86. It's NOT a question of what you may do by the support or disapproval of NRS 465.015, but a question of what you may do by the support or disapproval of casino management staff on the scene. These guys are part of the metrics.
None of this has anything to do with cheating. Cheating is a well-defined legal term.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNone of this has anything to do with cheating. Cheating is a well-defined legal term.
When used as a legal term, absolutely yes. This is why you do not get arrested for card-counting.
When you're backed off or 86-ed, it is not at all done as a legal/judicial/prosecutorial action, but done as a "house opinion" of the offense's nature, - and by some suit who's no lawyer, and just done as a business Loss Prevention action. But how the pit boss or the accountant views an AP's actions means nothing personally or legally to anyone, and so an AP shouldn't even care what some schmuck in a suit thinks; indeed, it should be like water off a duck's back, I assume.
Quote: PaigowdanWhen used as a legal term, absolutely yes. This is why you do not get arrested for card-counting.
When you're backed off or 86-ed, it is not at all done as a legal/judicial/prosecutorial action, but done as a "house opinion" of the offense's nature, - and by some suit who's no lawyer, and just done as a business Loss Prevention action. But how the pit boss or the accountant views an AP's actions means nothing personally or legally to anyone, and so an AP shouldn't even care what some schmuck in a suit thinks; indeed, it should be like water off a duck's back, I assume.
Getting trespassed under loss-prevention guidelines doesn't mean you were cheating. In fact, you usually don't get trespassed under loss-prevention guidelines if you actually were cheating. You get arrested by the police and charged with a felony.
In all your years in gaming operations, did you ever once see someone who was actually caught cheating (per the NRS) merely get off with a trespass?
Quote: MathExtremistGetting trespassed under loss-prevention guidelines doesn't mean you were cheating. In fact, you usually don't get trespassed under loss-prevention guidelines if you actually were cheating. You get arrested by the police and charged with a felony.
In all your years in gaming operations, did you ever once see someone who was actually caught cheating (per the NRS) merely get off with a trespass?
You're right - it was more serious. A lady that was capping and pinching bets on BJ (doing Richard Marcus level stuff and was caught by a sharp dealer, which was verified by surveillance on tape.) She was NOT 86-ed. She was actually detained for a Metro arrest, it was considered serious. Saw another pinch-cap case at the Wild Wild West, and police also called in.
Card counting-level stuff were just back-off of certain games, or ask to leave if shouting matches stemmed from it, with photos and write ups for network crew notes. No police in these cases.
I've noted quite a bit of bickering but didn't see anything directed at the Wizard. Of course I pride myself on being an iconoclast and so see nothing wrong with confronting all experts and all "conventional wisdom".Quote: Tomspur.....or are there many more people here recently just trying to disprove Mike's work, trying to be smarter than Mike, trying to outgun Mike or just simply to take pot shots at him? I find this very strange, or simply that people have too much time on their hands.
Of course the easiest way to silence a chronic doubter would be say "put up your money" but many math questions involve concepts such as infinity, so its not always possible.
Player Advocate, Disclosure Advocate, Truth in Gambling, ...we could come up with a great many such phrases. Part of the problem is that gamblers vary, particularly as to their tolerance for alcohol and their priorities, so what is "fair" can vary.
Strange, if you consider counting cheating, I guess you would consider Mike a cheater. You would then be on a fools endeavor because I don't think he believes counting cards to be cheating.Quote: Paigowdan
3. Card counting is 100% legal. Cheating is in the eye of the beholder.
4. Trying to prove Mike Shackleford wrong on a gaming issue is also a fool's endeavor. Too many try.
Since there are laws regarding card counting and its ok, the law is the standard rule book. If 2 people agree on a new rule and one person breaks the rule he would then be cheating. Since counters don't agree with the casinos rule, it not cheating.
If you go to a friend and his wife's house and you play a game of Monopoly he indicates the official rule book(laws) should be used. You may all agree on a new rule(IE. add money to free parking) then this is fine since you and everyone agreed, its not cheating. The host should not have a hidden set of house rules then state them only when it benefits him.
Example: Let's say you go around the board once, on your next turn you land on chance and advance to Boardwalk, You decline to buy it, no bids are made, nothing is said and the game moves on. On you next turn you advance again to Boardwalk. This time you decide to buy it. Now the host states, we have a house rule, you can't buy properties while advancing, if I don't want you to. You call BS and ask to see the rules, no rules are shown. You refer to the real rules and what the card says. It's his house and he can kick you out if he does not like you. However, your friend is the real cheater.
Your friends the casinos are the real cheaters when it comes to card counting. You know it, I know it, we all know it. You just can't admit it yourself or you would have to admit you're backing up a bunch of cheaters.
Quote: PaigowdanI get it, I really do, NRS 465.015.
However, there other metrics that are applicable in a casino, (aside from NRS 465.015 of course), and it is the metric where a floor supervisor or pit boss doesn't like your play and backs you off or 86's you. And this actually happens in a casino. So in response to your comment "I can't think of any other metrics applicable in a Nevada casino," remember the back-off, the flat-bet, and the 86. It's NOT a question of what you may do by the support or disapproval of NRS 465.015, but a question of what you may do by the support or disapproval of casino management staff on the scene. These guys are part of the metrics.
They aren't backing someone off for cheating though. They are backing someone off because they don't like the way someone is playing. If you feel like card counting qualifies as cheating I am open to having you provide a definition for cheating. Either something like NRS 465.015 or even just something like from websters.
Quote: geoffThey aren't backing someone off for cheating though. They are backing someone off because they don't like the way someone is playing. If you feel like card counting qualifies as cheating I am open to having you provide a definition for cheating. Either something like NRS 465.015 or even just something like from websters.
Yes, Very True. These People get detained for Metro, for that action.
But people aren't backed off because the floorman doesn't like the blue strapless dress a player is wearing.
People are backed off because, as you say, "they don't like the way someone is playing." This mean that in the eyes of management, they are miscreants, (as opposed to felons), and are told to play roulette or are shown the door. Whether or not the floorman thinks player 'X' is a low-life, a cheater, or just a waste of his time on the floor as he tries to do his job protecting the tables from people who try to treat the tables as personal ATMs is just semantics on a forum far away from the real casino pit where such players have the legal right to be backed off or expelled. You can't say to him "This is LEGAL! What about NRS 465.015!! What about Webster's DICTIONARY! What about MONOPOLY!" He'd say his actions are legal, so go play roulette, - and You'd do the same if you were running a business.
PGDan: I was delighted to see #3 in PGD's first post in this thread, "card counting is 100% legal". That must have been painful for PGD. I am sure he wanted to add something about being against house rules, but he didn't and I applaud him for that. Thumbs up to PGD.
Teliot: (disclaimer) I, like many in the blackjack community have some problems with Teliot and sort of view him as a 'turncoat'. His recent writing, of the $100 max bet, is a joke. He clearly doesn't understand card counting, which I suspect is why he was not as successful at it as he wanted to be and changed paths.
BUT, wrong as his statements were, he did get to the correct conclusion, that card counting and card counters are really not a threat to the casinos at all (with the exception of high stakes, well financed, team play) and that the industry would be better off to waste less resources on them and focus on bigger threats. This by the way is the same conclusion that Bill Zender reached and tried to get the industry to understand, a decade ago, but unfortunately few in the industry listened. I don't know what kind of impact or credibility Teloit has in the industry, but I hope he gets that message across as it benefits myself. :-)
Quote: IbeatyouracesIn his eyes, anyone playing with an advantage is a cheater, unless it's the casino. It's been discussed to death.
No it hasn't, because You still got this wrong, Aces. You can play with an advantage, that's fine with me, depending. Some promos give you a good advantage, and I even designed some casino table game promotions that give an advantage ("bring 'em in - such a deal! come and play!")
It's not whether you play with an advantage or not, it's whether or not you play in a fashion that is acceptable by the casino.
Quote: PaigowdanPeople are backed off because, as you say, "they don't like the way someone is playing."
If someone is backed of for card-counting, or just on some kind of general suspicion, do they still get paid for any winnings up to that point?
In most cases they do, however many times in the past, casinos have withheld winnings and mistreated the players.Quote: NareedIf someone is backed of for card-counting, or just on some kind of general suspicion, do they still get paid for any winnings up to that point?
It will happen again its just a matter of time.
Quote: kewljMike: I have nothing but respect for Mike and his mathematical and gaming expertise. I occasionally have problems with the way he runs his site, and as such have decided to participate less and limit my contributions to the areas of blackjack, which was really my intent when I joined, so maybe that's all for the best.
PGDan: I was delighted to see #3 in PGD's first post in this thread, "card counting is 100% legal". That must have been painful for PGD. I am sure he wanted to add something about being against house rules, but he didn't and I applaud him for that. Thumbs up to PGD.
Thanks! Sure, It is legal, sure, but that isn't the point. Neither is Webster's Dictionary. If your play is acceptable to the house, then you're fine to play.
Quote: kewljTeliot: (disclaimer) I, like many in the blackjack community have some problems with Teliot and sort of view him as a 'turncoat'. His recent writing, of the $100 max bet, is a joke. He clearly doesn't understand card counting, which I suspect is why he was not as successful at it as he wanted to be and changed paths.
If he's happy and pays his bills and is doing what he loves, he's a success. Eliot uses a $100 bets/100 wagers/100% re-entry, as a reference point to compare base performances between bets. Doesn't cover all play situations, it his baseline metric at times.
And Turncoat? This division only exists for those who choose to view it as a division and participate as such. A schism. Or CHASM. (Orchasm?)
I was once a turncoat. Living in New York, I switched to the New York YANKEES from the Mets. My brother Bob had me 86-ed. That explains it.
Quote: kewljBUT, wrong as his statements were, he did get to the correct conclusion, that card counting and card counters are really not a threat to the casinos at all (with the exception of high stakes, well financed, team play) and that the industry would be better off to waste less resources on them and focus on bigger threats. This by the way is the same conclusion that Bill Zender reached and tried to get the industry to understand, a decade ago, but unfortunately few in the industry listened. I don't know what kind of impact or credibility Teloit has in the industry, but I hope he gets that message across as it benefits myself. :-)
A little bit of pilferage is not a threat to casinos - so why can't I try to get mine? It only comes out of the ploppie's pocket, or that of the evil empire casino. I get it. Keep the cat 'n' mouse game side show, many say.
Quote: AxelWolfStrange, if you consider counting cheating, I guess you would consider Mike a cheater. You would then be on a fools endeavor because I don't think he believes counting cards to be cheating.
Since there are laws regarding card counting and its ok, the law is the standard rule book. If 2 people agree on a new rule and one person breaks the rule he would then be cheating. Since counters don't agree with the casinos rule, it not cheating.
If you go to a friend and his wife's house and you play a game of Monopoly he indicates the official rule book(laws) should be used. You may all agree on a new rule(IE. add money to free parking) then this is fine since you and everyone agreed, its not cheating. The host should not have a hidden set of house rules then state them only when it benefits him.
Example: Let's say you go around the board once, on your next turn you land on chance and advance to Boardwalk, You decline to buy it, no bids are made, nothing is said and the game moves on. On you next turn you advance again to Boardwalk. This time you decide to buy it. Now the host states, we have a house rule, you can't buy properties while advancing, if I don't want you to. You call BS and ask to see the rules, no rules are shown. You refer to the real rules and what the card says. It's his house and he can kick you out if he does not like you. However, your friend is the real cheater.
Your friends the casinos are the real cheaters when it comes to card counting. You know it, I know it, we all know it. You just can't admit it yourself or you would have to admit you're backing up a bunch of cheaters.
No they're not. Casinos have no problem with 95% of the normal population who don't try to scheme gambling halls for extra change, they will simply accept the results of the roll of the dice. And casinos don't have to post billboard rules on acceptable behavior any more than restaurants and theater shows do, they really don't. With disguises, camouflage play, and all that identity-concealing play-concealing subterfuge, even the counters have to admit this is done because it is a "known unacceptable, but I will give this a shot, nonetheless, knowing this going in."
Quote: PaigowdanYes, Very True. These People get detained for Metro, for that action.
But people aren't backed off because the floorman doesn't like the blue strapless dress a player is wearing.
People are backed off because, as you say, "they don't like the way someone is playing." This mean that in the eyes of management, they are miscreants, (as opposed to felons), and are told to play roulette or are shown the door. Whether or not the floorman thinks player 'X' is a low-life, a cheater, or just a waste of his time on the floor as he tries to do his job protecting the tables from people who try to treat the tables as personal ATMs is just semantics on a forum far away from the real casino pit where such players have the legal right to be backed off or expelled. You can't say to him "This is LEGAL! What about NRS 465.015!! What about Webster's DICTIONARY! What about MONOPOLY!" He'd say his actions are legal, so go play roulette, - and You'd do the same if you were running a business.
My problem isn't with how you view counting, but in how you are going about trying to convey it. Saying that a counter is a cheater is a very specific thing and equating the two can be libelous as shown by Griffin being successfuly sued into bankruptcy by several professional counters.
That being said casino's (in Nevada) have every right to ask someone to leave or not play blackjack anymore if they think they are counting and I'm fine with that. If a location ever asks me to leave I won't return simply because that's how I view the rules of the game. I don't use cover, or camouflage in an attempt to disguise what I am doing and if a casino doesn't want me to play there all they have to do is either ask me to leave or post a sign that says card counting is not welcome. Just like how when you go to a restaurant it says no shoes, no shirt, no service.
Quote: BuzzardWell, I have had all of this intelligent discussion I can stand. Time for comedy relief. In a 8 deck game, H17, no insurance, no surrender,DAS, split 3 times except Aces, 1 card only after splitting Aces, double any first 2 cards, blackjack pays even, how big must a spread be for a counter to make a profit.
I can't imagine a counter making a profit off that by spreading. Even back counting blackjack paying even money by itself makes the game essentially worthless let alone 8 deck H17.
Quote: IbeatyouracesIf it's not acceptable, don't f'ing offer it!
This is BS.
95% of people can handle buying and using liquor just fine, and 5% cannot, and so it will be offered.
95% of people playing BJ, and 99%+ on other games, play just fine and acceptably as far as the house is concerned.
Quote: Dicenor33It's against any law to throw someone out of casino, only because someone does not like you.
This is not the case here we're talking about. It's barring you from play because of your play, not because of race, religion, or "I don't like you or how you look," etc.
Quote: Dicenor33The statue of private club should be taken away. Casinos operate within the boundaries of the U.S. , they must follow the same laws applicable to other businesses. The last thing I should care about is what freaking pit boss thinks about my play.
Wrong again. This is not any sort of a "private club" issue: NO party is compelled to be involved in a gambling transaction on a forced or involuntary basis; the game play has to be acceptable to both.
Quote: PaigowdanBut people aren't backed off because the floorman doesn't like the blue strapless dress a player is wearing.
Do you think you'd get backed off if you played blackjack wearing a blue strapless dress? There's a WoV bet in here somewhere...
Quote: PaigowdanNo they're not. Casinos have no problem with 95% of the normal population who don't try to scheme gambling halls for extra change, they will simply accept the results of the roll of the dice. And casinos don't have to post billboard rules on acceptable behavior any more than restaurants and theater shows do, they really don't. With disguises, camouflage play, and all that identity-concealing play-concealing subterfuge, even the counters have to admit this is done because it is a "known unacceptable, but I will give this a shot, nonetheless, knowing this going in."
It is unacceptable to the casino. Who cares what the casino finds acceptable?
The problem is that you view the casino as an authority figure, whereas I just view them as another participant in the game. They have the right to refuse to play against me, just like I have the right to refuse to play against them.
You have elevated the casinos to godlike status, to the point where you view doing something that they find unacceptable as immoral or unethical or unacceptable. Of course the casino would prefer if I played a losing game, just as I would prefer if the casino offered a game with a player advantage off the top. However, neither of these things is going to happen.
2. They run games with a house edge, that's why they're still in business. This has happened, and this is the norm.
Quote: Paigowdan1. I have elevated casinos to the status of businesses who run the house.
2. They run games with a house edge, that's why they're still in business. This has happened, and this is the norm.
Yes, exactly. And I play with an edge as well. This has happened, and is also the norm (for me)
