What constitutes cheating?

So the more I read about different topics here for different games, the more I wonder... when does a game go from being considered "playing fairly" to "advantage play" to "cheating"? It seems there are blurred lines between all of those and there is no clear cut explanation...

(before I begin let me just say that some of these situations are far fetched, but they help illustrate the question i'm trying to ask)

What constitutes cheating? Is there a difference between skill and cheating if the player or casino has some type of hidden advantage? Is dice influencing or dice sliding cheating? It seems to be this is treated as skillful or advantage play.. but what if the house was rolling the dice and not the player.. is it still advantage play on the house, or is it cheating on their part?

If a roulette dealer can put the ball in certain areas of the wheel where there are fewer bets... is that cheating on the casino's part, or just advantage play to minimize losses?

In blackjack or poker, is it cheating to shuffle track the cards, count cards, see the dealer's hole card?

Is it cheating if a dealer over or under pays? What if it goes unnoticed by both parties?

It seems to be the general consensus that if the player is doing something like this it is considered "advantage play" but had the casino done some of these that it would be considered "cheating".. so how does one define cheating as a concept? That is, without using extra mechanical/computer objects to give some type of advantage, or blatantly stealing or switching out chips?

Quote: ajemeister

If a roulette dealer can put the ball in certain areas of the wheel where there are fewer bets... is that cheating on the casino's part, or just advantage play to minimize losses?

In blackjack or poker, is it cheating to shuffle track the cards, count cards, see the dealer's hole card?

Is it cheating if a dealer over or under pays? What if it goes unnoticed by both parties?

Here are my answers. Some (Dan) may disagree.

Shuffle tracking, counting cards are most definitely NOT cheating. These techniques are just thinking. No judge has EVER, to my knowledge, even suggested that these methods are cheating and many have specifically stated that they are not.

Dealer hole card. That starts to get a little trickier for me. I don't see how anyone could claim this is cheating if the player is doing nothing to specifically try to see more than he should. It is the dealers and casinos responsibility to protect the unseen cards. Now if the player is engaging in something positioning himself or a partner in a position to better see the dealers hole card, I think that crosses into cheating. There is a famous AP who describes using a wheel chair (he is not handicapped) to get a better view of dealers card. That's cheating.

If you are going out of your way trying to see the dealers hole card or in poker, going out of your way to see the cards of the player next to you that's cheating. If you are playing a game of hearts or pinochle at home around the kitchen table and you specifically look at your mother's hand, that's cheating. Doing so in the casino environment doesn't change that.

The roulette example you gave is most definitely cheating. The dealer is not giving a random spin as required.

Now here's one sort of related to the roulette example, but using the big six wheel instead. It is possible for a player to notice a dealer bias on the big wheel spins. Is this cheating? I engaged in this practice (profitably) for about 6 months, my first year in Vegas. I don't think it is cheating, but it was/is a practice that I was not comfortable with so I discontinued. I actually did similarly with hole carding, seeking it out for a while, before discontinuing. This is sort of where cheating intersects with ones personal view of what is right or wrong.

Lastly I want to address something that casinos do that has not been addressed by courts or gaming commissions that I consider cheating. That is early or preferential shuffling when they know the remaining cards favor the player. This removes the randomness of the game and alters the (longterm) outcome, which clearly falls under the definition of cheating. In Nevada this was narrowly addressed in the mindplay case that I mentioned in another thread, where the gaming commission determined that using a device like mindplay to early shuffle violates the randomness of the game. I have never understood why that is such a narrow ruling as per the device. Shuffling away decks that are player advantageous, whether using a device to determine it or a person (pit, surveillance or even dealer) is exactly the same thing. It alters the longterm results and that makes it cheating.

It's simple, really.

Cheating is going against the rules of the game. Cheating is illegal and could be defined as fraud.

Advantage play is playing as well as you can within the rules of the game. That's not cheating and not illegal.

Counting cards at blackjack and tracking shuffles are both examples of legal advantage play -- that is, using your brain to play the game as best as you can within the defined rules.

If a roulette dealer could somehow "avoid" certain slots and did it to help or hurt the player, that would be cheating and illegal. Fortunately that is not possible without a gaffed wheel, which is clearly cheating and illegal.

Regarding underpayments and overpayments -- If a dealer is consistently underpaying or overpaying patrons on purpose, that is cheating and illegal. As a player, you have no responsibility to police the casino's employees. There are thousands of bets offered in the casino. As a player, it's not your job to memorize all bets and payouts to make sure the dealer is paying you correctly. That's the casino's job.

So, that said, if a dealer overpays you, or pays you when you should push or lose, that's not something you're expected to know as a player. You don't have to say a word. That's not cheating and that's not illegal -- you are simply accepting a payout as determined by the casino employee who is authorized to make payouts.

Now, as a player, you should be aware of the correct payouts in the games you play so you can correct mistakes that hurt you, which happens regularly. But it's not your job.

Quote: ajemeister

In blackjack or poker, is it cheating to (...) see the dealer's hole card?

Note: quote edited slightly.

This is a bit of a grey area that can go either way.

From time to time, a blackjack dealer will accidentally deal themselves two cards face up, or turn up the hole card early. They'll usually call the floor over, the floor will acknowledge the double exposure, and the round will otherwise complete normally - except the players have more information than they might otherwise. This situation does change the recommended play strategy, and it's well documented how the play should change based on the known dealer hand (for example: hit hard 17/18/19 against known dealer 20). This situation is clearly not cheating, it's taking advantage of an occasional dealer mistake.

From time to time, a blackjack dealer will accidentally begin to expose their hole card, but then stop themselves. Maybe the player at third base saw it, maybe they didn't. Play continues as normal. This is probably not cheating, either.

Maybe the dealer doesn't quite cover the card fully when they're tucking their hole card, and you catch a glimpse of paint. This isn't cheating.

If you put a mirror ("shiner") on the table to get a better look at the hole card, that's cheating. You're using a device to possibly circumvent the game protection methods. (Note that putting your head on the table while you play, "because you're tired" isn't using a device, and isn't cheating - it's just also very very obvious, and don't be surprised if they tell you to sit up or leave the table.)

Encouraging the dealer to weaken the game protection and flash you their hole card as it is being dealt is cheating (collusion). Don't do that.

Quote: ajemeister

Is it cheating if a dealer over or under pays? What if it goes unnoticed by both parties?

Yes, intentionally not settling the bets according to the game rules is cheating. Unintentional mistakes are generally not considered cheating, but habitually making unintentional mistakes can lead to problems for the dealer. If it goes unnoticed by both parties, it was probably unintentional. If the dealer is intentionally overpaying, underpaying... you probably shouldn't play that table. The occasional windfall doesn't seem to be a big problem at most places, however at some small places, I have seen the eye call the pit and get mistakes corrected. Yes, little bitty red chip mistakes, too.

You probably shouldn't play the table if there is cheating going on, in your favor or otherwise.

Quote: ajemeister

how does one define cheating as a concept?

Intentionally conducting the game in a manner other than prescribed by game rule, regulation, and/or law.

Intent is a big part of it. Intent is hard to prove. However, failing to conduct the game according to rule, regulation, and/or law (possibly despite warnings) could be enough to get a dealer retrained, reassigned, or dismissed, or to get a player discontinued, trespassed, or...


So, maybe that addresses your other questions. If the game rules (the internal controls documents) say that the dealer has to look away from the rotor and tub while shooting the ball and he does and he can still steer, then I don't think it's cheating. If you slide the dice when the rules say the dice must tumble, yes, that's probably cheating (although, in this case, they'll likely just call no roll, since it was an unacceptable roll).

The rules don't say you can't shuffle track, can't count, so I don't see why that would be cheating - it's just hard. The rules do say you can place a bet (within the range of table minimum to table maximum), and you can decide if you want to surrender, split (sometimes), double, hit, or stand. They don't say you need to make your betting and playing decisions based on any particular criteria.

Quote: kewlj

Lastly I want to address something that casinos do that has not been addressed by courts or gaming commissions that I consider cheating. That is early or preferential shuffling when they know the remaining cards favor the player.

It certainly has been addressed, at least in New Jersey, where your position did not prevail. Read these:
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1993/274-n-j-super-63-1.html
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/3/518/2568426/

Quote: Campione v Adamar, 274 N.J. Super. 63 (1993)

The plaintiff directed the court's attention to a statute which he considered dispositive of the issue regarding a casino shuffling the cards at will. N.J.S. 5:12-115a provides

*80 It shall be unlawful: .... (2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game.
This statute entitled "Cheating, Games or Devices in a Licensed Casino" deals with the issue of cheating during a game of chance.

Plaintiff argues that when a casino shuffles the cards prior to the "cut card" being reached that act alters the normal random selection of cards or the normal chance of the game. He further argues that the casino does this (shuffling) when it recognizes the presence of a card counter and perceives that the odds are unfavorable to it and suggests that the casino therefore is nothing more or less than a card counter.

Plaintiff labels the shuffling at will by the casino "cheating." This label is necessary for the plaintiff to argue that shuffling at will violates N.J.S. 5:12-115a(2). He believes that the casino must be neutral and not able to enter into the play of the game by shuffling at will.

The plaintiff's argument and application of N.J.S. 5:12-115a(2) to the casino's shuffling at will during blackjack is misplaced. His labeling of the shuffling at will as "cheating" is specious.

Though plaintiff recognizes that N.J.A.C. 19:47-2.5(a) specifically permits defendant to shuffle at will he argues this act is "cheating." The November 24, 1984 Casino Control Commission meeting minutes include a statement of Commissioner Gushin regarding this defendant being able to shuffle at will should it feel it has a problem with card counters.[2]

"Cheat" has been defined by Webster's dictionary as

*81 (1) to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud (2) to influence or lead by deceit, trick or artifice (3) to defeat in an expectation or purpose by deceit and trickery (4) to violate rules dishonestly (as at cards) Synonyms are: Defraud, swindle overreach Cheating suggests using trickery that escapes observation. Cheating suggests using trickery that escapes observation.
Shuffling at will is certainly not cheating and can be properly characterized as the way the Casino Control Commission has leveled the playing field to permit card counters to patronize casinos while minimizing their advantage of counting cards.

The statute is directed at acts such as marked cards, tampered cards, altered cards, dealing a card from other than the top of the deck, etc.

Plaintiff's argument that the defendant violates N.J.S. 5:12-115a(2) when it shuffles at will is misplaced and must fail.

To the casino, in a broad sense, anybody who
walks out the door with more money than they
came in with has 'cheated' the them out of
their due. Anybody who wins and doesn't lose
it back is cheating the casino out of what is
rightfully theirs.

What is it when a casino defines as all machine malfunctions go to the casino favor?

If that's not cheating, I don't know what is.

It should sometimes go to players and sometimes to casinos. For instance if I was banging on the machine just before it malfunctioned, I wouldn't consider a malfunction to go in my favor.

Quote: EvenBob

To the casino, in a broad sense, anybody who
walks out the door with more money than they
came in with has 'cheated' the them out of
their due. Anybody who wins and doesn't lose
it back is cheating the casino out of what is
rightfully theirs.

I've seen people hit jackpots on machines and the staff promptly shows up with the tax form and money, they seemed friendly enough paying the winner. Same as at the craps tables when they're hot, I've never noticed a pit boss or anyone sweating the payouts. Then again, the staff may just be putting on as friendly a face as possible and gritting their teeth. I get what you're saying though, it's hard for them to keep the lights on if they aren't raking in everyone's cash.

Quote: rxwine

It should sometimes go to players and sometimes to casinos.

A casinos business model is to take as much
money from a player as possible, by any
means they can within the law. You might
say that's Target's and Walmart's business
model also. At least at Walmart you get
something back for your money, something
tangible. They say you what you get back
at a casino is 'entertainment'. Like losing
is entertainment. You also get entertainment
at Disneyworld, but how many times on the
way home from DW did you smack the dashboard
of your car for being such an idiot. Casinos
offer faux entertainment at best.

Quote: EvenBob

To the casino, in a broad sense, anybody who
walks out the door with more money than they
came in with has 'cheated' the them out of
their due. Anybody who wins and doesn't lose
it back is cheating the casino out of what is
rightfully theirs.

That's a bit of a jaded way to see things. The casino won't run out of funds. They have their house edge to rely on, and given enough time, any profit will eventually trickle back if someone keeps coming back to play.

I'm always happy to see people walk away with more money than they arrived with, even though that usually results in more work for me.

Quote: ajemeister

Is it cheating if a dealer over or under pays? What if it goes unnoticed by both parties?

I've seen dealers at busy tables botch the payouts before, but when confronted, they usually made it right. I've seen them not move a DC behind the line or a Come bet to its point and the dealer needed a reminder to take the action. I'd like to think the mistakes are unintentional, but that's cold comfort when the games already favor the house and it causes a loss for the player.

Quote: Dodsferd

That's a bit of a jaded way to see things. The casino won't run out of funds. They have their house edge to rely on, and given enough time, any profit will eventually trickle back if someone keeps coming back to play.

I'm always happy to see people walk away with more money than they arrived with, even though that usually results in more work for me.

For the most part, I think a preponderance of dealers like to see people win. I've met a person or two that are gleeful when they clear the table, but those are rarer to find. When the players are winning, they are generally tipping better and that's good for the staff. As for the management, I would hazard to guess that they prefer to see a positive cash flow for the casino.

Quote: Dodsferd

That's a bit of a jaded way to see things.

No it's not. It's 40 years of personal
experience going to casinos. Benny
Binion said 'our work isn't done till
the last check from a customer
bounces.' That's even more true
today. The casino thinks it has a
god given right to every dime you
have, just because you walked into
their spider web.

Quote: NYSith

For the most part, I think a preponderance of dealers like to see people win. I've met a person or two that are gleeful when they clear the table, but those are rarer to find. When the players are winning, they are generally tipping better and that's good for the staff. As for the management, I would hazard to guess that they prefer to see a positive cash flow for the casino.

Usually, maybe. I find dealers tend to know less about the games than the players themselves. The quality of dealing staff I usually observe, are lucky they get out of bed in the morning without choking to death. Management does tend to want to see a positive cash flow, and that's not at all surprising. It is a business after all.

Quote: EvanBob

No it's not. It's 40 years of personal
experience going to casinos. Benny
Binion said 'our work isn't done till
the last check from a customer
bounces.' That's even more true
today. The casino thinks it has a
god given right to every dime you
have, just because you walked into
their spider web.

40 years of experience, jaded, it still sounds like a negative way to view the gaming industry. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I don't view it with such negativity as you. I've heard many Games Managers talk about gleaning money from various high rollers, and such. It's awful, but it's really forced upon them if they want to stay in the business. I prefer to work under the thought; As long as all dealing procedures are followed correctly, I don't care who wins or loses. Ultimately, I'd like to see players walk away positive, but it is an up hill battle the whole way.

Quote: Dodsferd

40 years of experience, jaded, it still sounds like a negative way to view the gaming industry.

That's because there's no positive way to
view it, unless you're part of it. Gambling
appeals to the lowest human trait, greed.
Casinos cater to this desire to get something
for nothing by being even greedier than
the players. It's greed feeding on greed.
You can attach whistles and bells to it
and cheer it up by calling it 'gaming', but
it's still what it is. I want their money and
they want mine.

Quote: rxwine

What is it when a casino defines as all machine malfunctions go to the casino favor?

If that's not cheating, I don't know what is.

It should sometimes go to players and sometimes to casinos. For instance if I was banging on the machine just before it malfunctioned, I wouldn't consider a malfunction to go in my favor.

It doesn't go to anyone's favor, it voids the transaction. The perceptual problem, of course, is that nobody notices when a slot machine malfunctions and indicates only a small award or a losing outcome. The only time people notice is when the machine malfunctions on a jackpot:

http://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/supreme-court/2015/140802.html

Would you have decided that case differently?

Quote: ajemeister

If a roulette dealer can put the ball in certain areas of the wheel

That right there is cheating. If the dealer even has the capacity to make the number anything other than random, the game has lost its integrity. Fortunately, most of us believe that is not possible in virtually any reputable casino.

Shuffle tracking and counting are absolutely not cheating. They are simply methods of using information made available by playing the game. Usually hole carding isn't any different. If the dealer deals themselves two card face up for everyone to see, no one could ever say that using the information is cheating (well someone could say it is, but they would be an idiot). If the dealer deals themselves the second card so a player can momentarily catch a glimpse, it is not cheating to use that information.

Quote: ajemeister

Is it cheating if a dealer over or under pays? What if it goes unnoticed by both parties?

I would guess that well over 99% of the time over or under pays are not cheating; they are mistakes and mistakes happen. Sometimes it could be, if the dealer has colluded with either the player or house to do so, that would absolutely be cheating

Quote: MathExtremist

It doesn't go to anyone's favor, it voids the transaction. The perceptual problem, of course, is that nobody notices when a slot machine malfunctions and indicates only a small award or a losing outcome. The only time people notice is when the machine malfunctions on a jackpot:

http://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/supreme-court/2015/140802.html

Would you have decided that case differently?

Let me ask you this. We flip a coin for a million dollar bet. I'm in charge of the coin, but fumble on the flip and the coin drops to the ground. The coin is in your favor. I declare it void and don't pay you.

You think the result is fair?

Quote: EvenBob

That's because there's no positive way to
view it, unless you're part of it. Gambling
appeals to the lowest human trait, greed.
Casinos cater to this desire to get something
for nothing by being even greedier than
the players. It's greed feeding on greed.
You can attach whistles and bells to it
and cheer it up by calling it 'gaming', but
it's still what it is. I want their money and
they want mine.

I call it 'gaming', because that's what it is. It's classified by the Gaming Commission as such. If it were 'gambling', then it would be fair in terms of risk to reward. Again, you're not wrong in your statement, I agree that the basis of how a casino is run, is in direct attraction to greed, and to a degree, ignorance. If the majority of people knew exactly what they were walking into, logically, people wouldn't bet a dime.

To the above posters, in my experience, we classify an error on a table as a "discrepancy" if unintentional, and "cheat at play" if intentional. Regardless of the intention, the correct conclusion is always pursued. In the event of a discrepancy, the dealer is written up, as well as any applicable pit staff, and payment or collection is sought. In the event of a cheat at play, a much more severe route is taken.

Quote: Dodsferd

If it were 'gambling', then it would be fair in terms of risk to reward. .

How so. Gambling is playing a game of chance
for money, fairness has nothing to do with it.

Quote: EvenBob

How so. Gambling is playing a game of chance
for money, fairness has nothing to do with it.

My own personal understanding of gambling in general has stemmed from essentially playing a game of chance, where you have either a 50/50 chance of winning, or where the payout is in direct correlation to the chances of winning; a zero house edge.

I could be wrong, as the actual definition of 'gambling' is quite ambiguous, leaving a lot of room for definition. I don't consider what the casino offers, to be fair, thus I would not consider it to be gambling.

Quote: Dodsferd

I don't consider what the casino offers, to be fair, thus I would not consider it to be gambling.

Of course it's gambling. Wagering on any
game of chance is gambling, whether it's
fair or not. If we were betting on a coin
toss, or pitching coins against a wall, or
shooting dice in an ally, we're gambling.

Quote: EvenBob

Of course it's gambling. Wagering on any
game of chance is gambling, whether it's
fair or not. If we were betting on a coin
toss, or pitching coins against a wall, or
shooting dice in an ally, we're gambling.

I can't fault your logic there.

Whatever the case may be, I just know that when speaking to anyone from the commission, they consider it to not actually be gambling. Semantics aside, it's still highway robbery.

Quote: rxwine

Let me ask you this. We flip a coin for a million dollar bet. I'm in charge of the coin, but fumble on the flip and the coin drops to the ground. The coin is in your favor. I declare it void and don't pay you.

You think the result is fair?

That's exactly what happens when the dice go off the table. If the rules say a flip is in the air and caught, then of course dropping the coin doesn't count.

Unless you're implying that you *would* have counted it if it were in your favor. That's clearly not fair.

Quote:

A casino game is not gambling, it is giving your money away

Whatever the statement lacks in accuracy, it makes up for with eloquence

In my opinion Bob is rather extreme and out of whack with general opinion.
Casinos don't have to go after every $ you got. It is already in the system.
With the build in HE they will get your money for sure in the long run.
Now you got to let the gambler win sometime or else they wont come back. Even for slots.
The beauty for the casino is that variance take care of this nicely.

The problem in gambling is it usually appeal to the low/lowest rung in society, the most vulnerable.
Any casino will tell you they rather have a convention for Carpenters than Surgeons.

As to whether it should be called gaming or gambling it is always gaming to the casinos.
It sounds so harmless and fun whereas gambling has the sinful and money grabbing connotation to it.

Quote: MathExtremist

That's exactly what happens when the dice go off the table. If the rules say a flip is in the air and caught, then of course dropping the coin doesn't count.

Unless you're implying that you *would* have counted it if it were in your favor. That's clearly not fair.

For it to be the same, the members of the casino would throw the dice for you.

If I throw the dice off the table, clearly my mechanism has broken down (similar to what I said if a player bangs on a machine and then it posts a jackpot.) He has been part of, or interfered to the point where the jackpot can be contested by the casino.

How has a player interfered depositing coins or dollars or a proper TITO. The casino says, sorry buddy, doesn't count, if WE make a mistake.

Generally in a business transaction if the business makes a mistake they don't penalize the customer. Except when it's a big prize. The will give you a free drink if they make a mistake. But the only reason, I can't get a big prize has nothing to do with fairness. It's they DON'T want to pay for big mistakes. That's not about fairness, that's about money.

Gaming IMO is the industry of providing games of chance in order to make a profit. Gambling is the act of making a bet whether or not it is in a for profit establishment like a casino or if it is in a scenario where all money is returned much like in an office pool for the NCAA basketball tournament

Quote: Dodsferd

when speaking to anyone from the commission, they consider it to not actually be gambling.

Of course they do. It all part of the
spin.

"Changing an industry label from gambling to gaming affects what consumers, especially nonusers, think of betting... A label like gaming prompts all sorts of implicit associations like entertainment and fun, while a label like gambling can prompt seedier implicit associations like crime,”

Gaming is the industry, gambling is what the
industry provides. In NV it's always been called
gaming, since 1931. Gambling was a dirty word,
and still is, inside the industry.

Quote: EvenBob

A casinos business model is to take as much
money from a player as possible, by any
means they can within the law. You might
say that's Target's and Walmart's business
model also. At least at Walmart you get
something back for your money, something
tangible. They say you what you get back
at a casino is 'entertainment'. Like losing
is entertainment. You also get entertainment
at Disneyworld, but how many times on the
way home from DW did you smack the dashboard
of your car for being such an idiot. Casinos
offer faux entertainment at best.

Then don't patronize the casino, don't go and stop talking about them. You seem to know it all but need to see some trip reports with pictures and how you play.

Quote: Gabes22

Gaming IMO is the industry of providing games of chance in order to make a profit. Gambling is the act of making a bet whether or not it is in a for profit establishment like a casino or if it is in a scenario where all money is returned much like in an office pool for the NCAA basketball tournament

So is a carnival midway.

Quote: quads4444

Then don't patronize the casino, don't go and stop talking about them. You seem to know it all but need to see some trip reports with pictures and how you play.

You've been here 20 minutes and are
giving advice already? Are you a long
time lurker, per chance?

Quote: MathExtremist

It certainly has been addressed, at least in New Jersey, where your position did not prevail. Read these:
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1993/274-n-j-super-63-1.html
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/3/518/2568426/

Fair enough, MathExtremist. I stand corrected. It has been litigated, at least in New Jersey.

While, as an professional AP, I do have a dog in this fight so to speak, I try hard to look at all things in life objectively. In this case, what you are calling 'my position' is what should be is fair and just. Even as an AP who supports himself through AP play, I believe casinos have a right to protect themselves to a point. But cheating is beyond that point.

Blackjack and card games in general, are different because the odds of each round is determined by the rounds that proceeded it and the cards that were played in those rounds. Some rounds are more advantageous to the house, while some rounds are more advantageous to the player. It's that cumulation of all round, neutral, favorable to house and favorable to player that make up the total house advantage. If the casino is allowed to pick and choose which rounds it wants to play and shuffle away the rounds it does not want to play, it is altering the (long-term) outcome of the game and creating a situation where the house advantage is far greater than it should be, far greater than advertised. That's cheating in my book.

I spoke to gaming expert attorney Bob Nersesian about just this type of situation, not too long ago. Bob's view on such an unjust ruling (not this one specifically) is that it is a 'challenge' for the attorney litigating such a case, because he has to get judge, jury or commissioners to understand the math involved that makes his case, without getting too far into the math that it turns them off and they just lose interest. Kind of a 'fine line' situation.

Quote: EvenBob

Of course they do. It all part of the
spin.

"Changing an industry label from gambling to gaming affects what consumers, especially nonusers, think of betting... A label like gaming prompts all sorts of implicit associations like entertainment and fun, while a label like gambling can prompt seedier implicit associations like crime,”

Gaming is the industry, gambling is what the
industry provides. In NV it's always been called
gaming, since 1931. Gambling was a dirty word,
and still is, inside the industry.

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong EvenBob. I am agreeing with you. I'm just saying what I've experienced when dealing with the commission and management.
My own feelings on the matter, are that casinos in theory, are not inherently bad. It's the strings that get attached and the façade that deceives the patrons that I am against.

I feel as if this is getting off topic here though, so my apologies for dragging this off the intended discussion.

simple, when the player fails to follow the rules and regulations while on private property.

Quote: quads4444

simple, when the player fails to follow the rules and regulations while on private property.

*any involved persons.
Staff are far from exempt from that statement.

was only referring to the aspect of the player, as in the person playing and choose to cheat in context to only himself.

Quote: EvenBob

That's because there's no positive way to
view it, unless you're part of it. Gambling
appeals to the lowest human trait, greed.
Casinos cater to this desire to get something
for nothing by being even greedier than
the players. It's greed feeding on greed.
You can attach whistles and bells to it
and cheer it up by calling it 'gaming', but
it's still what it is. I want their money and
they want mine.

And a quote from Deck007
"The problem in gambling is it usually appeal to the low/lowest rung in society, the most vulnerable.
Any casino will tell you they rather have a convention for Carpenters than Surgeons."

I stepped away for a few hours and come back to read a few posts. This depressed me :( Have to admit though, once you pare it down to the core, these statements are essentially accurate. I always thought of it as entertainment, but ultimately, anyone playing wants to walk away a winner.

Quote: kewlj

Fair enough, MathExtremist. I stand corrected. It has been litigated, at least in New Jersey.

While, as an professional AP, I do have a dog in this fight so to speak, I try hard to look at all things in life objectively. In this case, what you are calling 'my position' is what should be is fair and just. Even as an AP who supports himself through AP play, I believe casinos have a right to protect themselves to a point. But cheating is beyond that point.
...
I spoke to gaming expert attorney Bob Nersesian about just this type of situation, not too long ago. Bob's view on such an unjust ruling (not this one specifically) is that it is a 'challenge' for the attorney litigating such a case, because he has to get judge, jury or commissioners to understand the math involved that makes his case, without getting too far into the math that it turns them off and they just lose interest. Kind of a 'fine line' situation.

I guess I have a few comments. First, I think if anyone should bring a claim in Nevada, it shouldn't be a card counter. It should be a flat-betting non-counter who played at the same table as a card counter against whom the preferential shuffle was used. That could turn into a class-action and would include anyone who was at a blackjack table not counting when the preferential shuffle was used because they would all have had a lower return than if they had been at the same table/same rules/same cards but without the early shuffle.

The caveat is that this precise argument was rejected in New Jersey. But the law and regs may be different in Nevada, and the plaintiff in NJ was the card counter so they didn't get much sympathy from the court. An innocent bystander who suffered "collateral damage" from the casino's use of countermeasures may fare better. Plus, to Nersesian's point, it would be challenging to educate the court on the math. But that's not his job, that's mine.

Quote: rxwine

Generally in a business transaction if the business makes a mistake they don't penalize the customer.

Penalize how? If you go to the bank and deposit $100 and the deposit slip says you deposited $100,000, you don't get to turn around and withdraw $100,000 (or sue the bank when they won't let you). It's a mistake. Sure it's disappointing but nobody's being penalized.

Quote: MathExtremist

Penalize how? If you go to the bank and deposit $100 and the deposit slip says you deposited $100,000, you don't get to turn around and withdraw $100,000 (or sue the bank when they won't let you). It's a mistake. Sure it's disappointing but nobody's being penalized.

Well, I said "generally". There is no expectation you have a secret account of $100,000 if you never did. If a Wells Fargo truck tips over there is no expectation you had all that money coming that blows all over the street.

But in wagering you have an expectation of particular results. In some cases the result could be a few dollars to a whole bunch. It certainly wouldn't make any sense to claim a casino owes you funds on a wager that doesn't have such a result.

But I'm talking about a known wager where the outcome is included as a possibility.

Regarding the difference between player and dealer cheating vs advantage play....I'd say if the casino does it, it's most likely cheating. If it's the customer doing it, it's most likely advantage play.

There are certain things the casino MUST DO and certain things the player is ABLE TO DO. ie: In blackjack, the dealer must play a specific way, no matter what. Dealer can't sometimes choose to hit 16 and other times stand on 16. The player is able to play however he wants, he can sometimes hit 16 if he chooses and stand on 16 if he so chooses.

The casino is required to always play the same way [I'm not talking about hitting soft 17 on some tables or standing on soft 17 on other tables]....and the player is permitted to play however he wishes, be it legal.

For instance, the roulette scenario. The game (presented by the casino) is supposed to be random. Thus, the casino should deal a game where the result is random. The player is permitted to place bets wherever and whenever he wishes (assuming dealer hasn't waved it off / "no more bets").

As far as the hole-carding thing, it's legal as long as you're not using a device (ie: shiner), dealer isn't exposing cards on purpose (ie: collusion), and you are getting the information from someone who is playing on the table (ie: I believe the term is "spooking" -- when someone at a different table [perhaps behind the dealer] is signalling a person on the game of what the dealer's HC is). As far as trying to get a peak at the hole-card (ie: slouching or other means), that should be legal as well.

In a poker game, I'd say it's unethical // immoral (I still don't know the difference between the two) to actively try to look at another player's cards...but not be legally cheating.


If a dealer under/overpays on accident, then it's not cheating...just a mistake. If it's on purpose, then of course, it's cheating. Doesn't matter if either party notices the error. The only exception would be if a casino manager/surveillance guy calls the pit to fix an over-payment, but does nothing when an underpayment has occurred. I would consider this cheating.



Ultimately it comes down to this: The casino is required (?) to deal a random/consistent/fair* game, while the patron is free to play however he wishes.

Quote: RS

Ultimately it comes down to this: The casino is required (?) to deal a random/consistent/fair* game, while the patron is free to play however he wishes.

KJ sings: "Oh what a wonderful world this would be." :)

Cheating:

Using the gaming commission officers to weed out and ID the intelligent players, while leaving the ignorant in place to feed the bear!


Definitions:

Gaming Officer = A former officer that is missing moral fiber. He is no longer there to serve and protect the public, but exists to serve the casino. A minion.

Bear = The casino.

Quote: kewlj

It's that cumulation of all round, neutral, favorable to house and favorable to player that make up the total house advantage.

I will agree with that, but disagree that if it is not followed it somehow violates the integrity of the game. The casino is not advertising a specific 'House Advantage' on these games, that is usually something the player discovers for themselves from a website, book, or even their own calculations. (And if a casino is advertising a specific HA, all litigation would do is get them to change their statements about the game. not they way the game is dealt).

What if the casino posted on the table "We shuffle at our own discretion," just as they advertise "Blackjack pays 6-5" or "Dealer must hit soft 17," is that still cheating? If you observe them using no cut card that should be the same as a sign saying they determine when to shuffle, since they won't deal to the very bottom of the deck. And if they can do that with no cut card, it should be allowable even when they do slide that yellow piece of plastic in between two of the cards

Quote: TomG

What if the casino posted on the table "We shuffle at our own discretion," just as they advertise "Blackjack pays 6-5" or "Dealer must hit soft 17," is that still cheating? If you observe them using no cut card that should be the same as a sign saying they determine when to shuffle, since they won't deal to the very bottom of the deck. And if they can do that with no cut card, it should be allowable even when they do slide that yellow piece of plastic in between two of the cards

That is essentially what the courts in New Jersey held when they addressed the issue. The regulations there expressly allow the casino to shuffle whenever they want.

I think in order to prevail in another case, you would have to argue that the impact of changing the edge with respect to cheating renders the regulation improper. I don't think that argument was raised.

Quote: TomG

What if the casino posted on the table "We shuffle at our own discretion," just as they advertise "Blackjack pays 6-5" or "Dealer must hit soft 17," is that still cheating?

Yes...still cheating, TomG. What if the casino posted a sign saying "we have removed 2 aces and 2 kings from the deck"? Would that some how make it not cheating?

Cheating is cheating and I believe preferential shuffling is cheating, ESPECIALLY when a cut card is used. They go through the whole ordeal of a player cutting the deck and placing the cut card in the location indicating that to be the shuffle point and then shuffle when it's in their best interest? That's cheating.

Casinos have plenty of legal countermeasures and safeguard to protect their games.

They can legally and openly reduce penetration (cut the deck in half)
They can limit bet spread or even flat bet.
They can eliminate mid-shoe entry to eliminate wonging.
They can use continuous shuffle machines.
In Nevada, on top of these other safeguards, they can still refuse your action.

They don't need to be given the right to cheat, to change the odds of the game, mid-game, effecting all patrons. That is a license to steal...literally.

Quote: kewlj

Yes...still cheating, TomG. What if the casino posted a sign saying "we have removed 2 aces and 2 kings from the deck"? Would that some how make it not cheating?

If Spanish 21 isn't cheating, than the game you just made up most certainly isn't cheating. If you wanted to take it to the courts, the best outcome you could ever get is that they have to change the name to something other than 'Blackjack,' but that the game itself would be perfectly valid

Quote: kewlj

Cheating is cheating and I believe preferential shuffling is cheating, ESPECIALLY when a cut card is used.

So if a cut card isn't used and the cards are not dealt to the bottom of the deck why wouldn't that be defined as preferential shuffling? How could anyone possibly argue that is cheating?

Quote: kewlj

They don't need to be given the right to cheat, to change the odds of the game,

Who decided what the odds are or what the odds must be? They are most definitely changing the odds that you came up with on your own, not necessarily the odds that the casino decided they would tolerate. A CSM game has different odds than a single deck game which has different odds than an eight deck shoe which can have different odds based on where the cut card is placed.

Quote: kewlj

The roulette example you gave is most definitely cheating. The dealer is not giving a random spin as required.

Is it cheating for a casino staff member/dealer to be an AP? He is spinning the ball as required by the rules of the game, but well enough that he can place in certain areas.. sounds more like AP than cheating to me

Thanks everyone for the responses.. sorry I didn't reply right away, I was gone all day yesterday. It seems as though there's still a lot of gray areas that whomever has the better lawyer in court can argue either way.. but it is still hard to draw a clear line for cheating vs AP... do casinos list their exact rules online for one to read through?