What constitutes cheating?
(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.
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: ajemeisterIn 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: ajemeisterIs 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: ajemeisterhow 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: kewljLastly 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.
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.
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: EvenBobTo 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: EvenBobTo 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.
