You are overpaid for blackjack...

Quote: Doc

For those of you who have been so critical in this thread of others you think are "stealing the money", do you consider the Wizard to be an unethical player in the casinos?

I think the "stealing the money" label more appropriately applies to a player who knows an error is coming and is expecting to profit from it, as in the original slot machine case. Blackmailing a dealer into overpaying you or tricking a slot mechanic into rigging the machine in your favor are very different scenarios than stumbling across a one-time dealer error. The guy in the slot machine case *knew* the machine would make the error before he started playing. His actions were premeditated.

Quote: mkl654321

Also, knowing the dealer's hole card wouldn't necessarily save you from a loss.

Flipping a biased coin won't guarantee a win either, yet almost everyone can agree that's cheating. If knowing the hole card increases your EV by 0.2 units, then that information is worth $10 on a $50 bet. Going by the reasoning that not paying back the dealer is immoral, then you've also stolen $10 by utilizing information you shouldn't have access to, yet this is fine for you. Essentially you are drawing the line under your feet, i.e defining whatever your action set happens to be as the moral boundary.

Well, I guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to which posts are in which thread. This topic started with the "computer glitches" thread, which mentioned criminal charges being brought against slot players who exploited machine software issues. The Wizard immediately suggested that it be converted to a poll as to whether they were advantage players or criminals. I think that in setting up the poll, the topic of exploiting casino errors shifted slightly and became SOOPOO's "You are overpaid ..." thread (this one).

In the original thread, there were a bunch of straw man arguments that attempted to compare the slot exploiters' actions to various types of grand larceny. There are some posts in this thread that seem to be replies to the other thread. (SOOPOO directed one comment by name to ME before ME had ever posted in this thread.") As I look back, though, there really aren't a lot of claims in this thread accusing people of thievery, so it appears that I, too, confused the threads.

On the other hand, mkl did make the comment right here, "If you have the right to keep the money if you're overpaid, then they have the right to shortchange you." So maybe my question should have been specifically addressed to mkl and asked whether casinos have the right to shortchange the Wizard because of his (at least one-time) policy of not pointing out overpayments.

I would, and do, return the money. BUT one time I remember, the dealer hits a hard 17. Must have thought she had 16. Pays everyone still in, which is pretty much the whole table. Everyone knows, but no one says anything. I didn't say anything because I didn't want to piss anyone off.

Long story short, 1 hour later the pit boss comes back and takes away my winnings for that hand (and maybe my bet too). And it just so happens, I am the only one left at the table that benefited. I'm down about the $300, my original buy in, but say OK. Won everything back and left. Karma?

Quote: gog

Flipping a biased coin won't guarantee a win either, yet almost everyone can agree that's cheating.

That's not true - the house is flipping a biased coin every time it deals a game of blackjack, roulette, craps, etc. In any even-money game, for example, the frequency of the house winning is slightly more than the frequency of the player winning. That's biased, but it's not cheating. What's cheating is when someone *changes* those frequencies outside the rules of the game. In fact, that's almost exactly how it's worded:

NRS 465.015 Definitions. As used in this chapter:
1. “Cheat” means to alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine:
(a) The result of a game;
(b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game;

Quote: MathExtremist

NRS 465.015 Definitions. As used in this chapter:
1. “Cheat” means to alter the elements of chance, method of selection or criteria which determine:
(a) The result of a game;
(b) The amount or frequency of payment in a game;

Then I would argue that, as an example, in a single deck blackjack game if you know by counting cards that there are only fives and sixes left, and you double your 15, you have both 'altered the elements of chance', and , increased 'the amount of payment'. Do you consider a card counter who alters his strategy based on counting a cheater? I do not.

Quote: SOOPOO

Then I would argue that, as an example, in a single deck blackjack game if you know by counting cards that there are only fives and sixes left, and you double your 15, you have both 'altered the elements of chance', and , increased 'the amount of payment'. Do you consider a card counter who alters his strategy based on counting a cheater? I do not.

I disagree with your analysis. In your example, you have neither surreptitiously changed the contents of the deck, nor the amount of your wager after the first card came out. That's what they're talking about - things like slipping in crooked decks or past-posting. The point was that nothing in the definition requires a game to be unbiased. It just requires the bias not be altered.

Also note that the regulation cuts both ways - it doesn't say "if the player alters the elements"... If the casino does, for example by removing certain cards from a deck, they're cheating too.

With regard to games dealt from decks of cards, it's understood that removing a card from a deck has a minor impact on the chances of the subsequent hand. However, that deck depletion effect *is* the method of selection and/or criteria which determine the frequency of payment in the game. So dealing from a deck doesn't "alter" the fact that you're dealing from a deck. What would be cheating, for example, is if the dealer managed to sneak extra 10s back into the shoe before shuffling, or if you did. That'd be altering things.

Quote: gog

Flipping a biased coin won't guarantee a win either, yet almost everyone can agree that's cheating. If knowing the hole card increases your EV by 0.2 units, then that information is worth $10 on a $50 bet. Going by the reasoning that not paying back the dealer is immoral, then you've also stolen $10 by utilizing information you shouldn't have access to, yet this is fine for you. Essentially you are drawing the line under your feet, i.e defining whatever your action set happens to be as the moral boundary.

No, I'm acknowledging the fact that while the strictly ethical thing to do might be to ignore that accidentally-exposed 6 in the hole and go ahead and hit my hard 14 like I would have done if I hadn't seen that exposed card, it's unrealistic for me to expect anyone else, or myself, to do that. Also: accidentally exposing the house's hole card is an error in the play of the hand, and I suffer the same sort of consequences if I err in the play of my hand--a greater possibility of losing my bet.

The issue isn't whether I "should" have access to this information--the question comes up after that has been rendered moot: I have, in fact, seen the dealer's hole card. Consider this: what if I have been carefully tracking the cards, and I know that the dealer MUST have a 6 in the hole, and I alter my play accordingly? Is that situation any different from the house making a mistake, and giving me that information inadvertently?

The error you are making is in equating the above situation with a simple error in payouts. I am under no obligation to play my hand a certain way, but I do have an obligation to honor my bet. Allowing myself to keep what I'm not entitled to dishonors that obligation.

If you still disagree, consider this: what if you made a friendly bet with a co-worker on a football game, and he laid you 3-2 odds on an $80 bet--and you win, and he mistakenly hands you $140, not $120. Do you keep the "extra" $20?

I voted to "give the money back", but in my case, I would give it back as an increased tip later on.

The difference between gambling and any other economic activity as that transaction is all about money. At the grocery store, you've agreed to pay a contracted price on an item. If the grocer undercharges you for an item, you don't complain about it, but if you get too much change or too little, you're more concerned about the fate of the cashier and s/he being able to balance out at the end of the day.

The same is true with pretty much everything. You've contracted a price to pay for a good or service. In gambling, you are simply playing money against money. The service is the money, and all that you've agreed to do is play by the rules of the game. Part of the rules is that the house can underpay you and if you don't notice, the money is gone forever. Similarly, if the house overpays you and you don't notice, the money is yours, forever.

Another part of the morality is the fact that the casino is there to make money from you at every turn. It offers free drinks (most), lets you smoke (most places), plays good music, hides the time of day, and turns cash into chips, all in order to try to keep you gambling and to ply the money from you. The casino calls this "entertainment", but we all know it's about profit. So, if the dealer hands you a little extra or mispays in your favor, the casino has lost a bit of its overwhelming advantage, and I think that's why most of us are willing to accept it. It's a David and Goliath battle, and sometimes David needs a break.

Quote: Doc

On the other hand, mkl did make the comment right here, "If you have the right to keep the money if you're overpaid, then they have the right to shortchange you." So maybe my question should have been specifically addressed to mkl and asked whether casinos have the right to shortchange the Wizard because of his (at least one-time) policy of not pointing out overpayments.

My statement was a conditional: "IF you have the right to keep the money..." My actual position is that neither party has the right to cheat the other.

If you want me to articulate the statement you referenced in a different way, I would say that if you consider it acceptable to keep an overpayment, then you have no complaint when the casino underpays you, even SYSTEMATICALLY, even DELIBERATELY. In other words, if you feel that the casino should suffer the consequences of its mistakes, then so should you. I'm sure this is how things were in Virginia City in 1867. Of course, there were a lot of shootings in Virginia City in 1867.

There is actually a cogent argument for this, is that "caveat emptor" is a rule that everyone seems to endorse, in the breach if not the observance. But the problem with that is it creates an environment where EVERYONE counts their payoffs VERRRRRRY carefully and doesn't make another bet until they're VERRRY VERRY SURE that they've been paid the correct amount. Why? Because the house has no obligation to pay you the correct amount, in the environment posited above; it is the player's obligation to ensure that he's been paid correctly. I prefer a climate of mutual honesty, myself.

Quote: boymimbo

I voted to "give the money back", but in my case, I would give it back as an increased tip later on.

The difference between gambling and any other economic activity as that transaction is all about money. At the grocery store, you've agreed to pay a contracted price on an item. If the grocer undercharges you for an item, you don't complain about it, but if you get too much change or too little, you're more concerned about the fate of the cashier and s/he being able to balance out at the end of the day.

The same is true with pretty much everything. You've contracted a price to pay for a good or service. In gambling, you are simply playing money against money. The service is the money, and all that you've agreed to do is play by the rules of the game. Part of the rules is that the house can underpay you and if you don't notice, the money is gone forever. Similarly, if the house overpays you and you don't notice, the money is yours, forever.

Another part of the morality is the fact that the casino is there to make money from you at every turn. It offers free drinks (most), lets you smoke (most places), plays good music, hides the time of day, and turns cash into chips, all in order to try to keep you gambling and to ply the money from you. The casino calls this "entertainment", but we all know it's about profit. So, if the dealer hands you a little extra or mispays in your favor, the casino has lost a bit of its overwhelming advantage, and I think that's why most of us are willing to accept it. It's a David and Goliath battle, and sometimes David needs a break.

You are using moral relativism, in that the bigger someone is relative to you, the less transgressive it is to cheat them.

Also, you have it completely backwards in that you don't buy money with a bet; you buy a service. It's no different than any other service transaction in that regard. The same rules apply. And when you say that "the casino calls this 'entertainment', but we all know it's about profit"--what do you think you get when you buy a movie ticket, or pay for cable TV? Why would "entertainment" and "profit" be mutually exclusive?

Quote: MathExtremist

No, I'm not surprised, but I *am* fascinated by it. I'm not a psychologist, but I'm keenly interested in what makes people think so differently about gambling than basically everything else. That viewpoint and sensibility pervades public policy when, from an economic standpoint, there seems to be little difference (other than variance) between a gambling transaction and a non-gambling transaction..

I think the difference lies in the situation. When I enter a casino, I am entering into a contest with the casino. This is an unequal contest, as the casino has made all the rules, and they have a built in edge. Even though I am armed with that information, I still choose to willingly enter into this contest.
However, since the casino has established the games, and the rules, and runs the games, I expect the casino to operate the games correctly.

If I make a mistake that costs me a bet, do I get to ask for a do over? Not a chance.
If the casino makes a mistake that costs them a bet, should they get to ask for a do over? I don't see why they should.

I did not hire the dealer, the casino did. As an agent of the casino, the casino is responsible for that dealer, not me. If the dealer makes a mistake, the casino bears the responsibility of that mistake.

An underpay, or an overpay, is made by the agent of the casino. Each side of this contest is responsible to watch their side of the action, to ensure it has been done correctly. At a craps table you have the dealer, the stick, the box, the floor, and the eye all responsible for payoffs. In BJ, you have the dealer, the floor,and the eye to watch the payoffs. The casino has chosen to have the floor responsible for more than one table, so they have made the call to spread them out. The eye may not be manned 24x7, so again, the casino has chosen to not protect their interest 100% of the time. They KNOW that they will miss some overpays, but I bet they have already decided that preventing 100% of the overpays is more costly than just taking their chances.

So when I receive an underpay, I am protecting my interest in this contest. When they give me an overpay, they have failed to adequately protect their side of the contest.

I believe the reason so many people would keep the money is they view this as a contest. And, if you don't know for certain you have never been underpaid, then an overpay might just be evening things up.


Me personally?
On more than one occasion I have pointed out to the dealer that I was overpaid, both on craps and card games. If I see it before I grab the chips, I will point it out. If I get the chips in my hand, and then realize it, I say nothing. There are 2 reasons for this.
1.) pointing to the chips before I touch them allows the dealer to correct the mistake with minimal interruption and attention.
2.) If the mistake had been an underpay, the casino would make it right if the chips are untouched. However, if I have picked up the chips and then say I was under paid, there is no way they are paying me more. So why should that be a one sided correction?

Overpays in any other situation are always given back (grocery store, ATM, loan, etc). The reason is, those are not contests between me and the other party. They are transactions to provide a service (ATM), or goods, and I expect to complete a fair transaction. I expect to pay them the price they ask, and I expect them to give me the stated goods. If the goods are damaged, I expect them to replace them for me, or give me my money back, and almost all of them do just that.

Quote: boymimbo

I voted to "give the money back", but in my case, I would give it back as an increased tip later on.

Then you 'mis-voted'. You are not giving the money back to who lost it, the casino. You are taking the money and then giving it to a dealer. Trust me, the casino, if they saw the tape above, and then asked you to return the money, would not accept an answer like- 'but I tipped it back to the nice dealer!!"

Quote: mkl654321

No, I'm acknowledging the fact that while the strictly ethical thing to do might be to ignore that accidentally-exposed 6 in the hole and go ahead and hit my hard 14 like I would have done if I hadn't seen that exposed card, it's unrealistic for me to expect anyone else, or myself, to do that. Also: accidentally exposing the house's hole card is an error in the play of the hand, and I suffer the same sort of consequences if I err in the play of my hand--a greater possibility of losing my bet.

The issue isn't whether I "should" have access to this information--the question comes up after that has been rendered moot: I have, in fact, seen the dealer's hole card. Consider this: what if I have been carefully tracking the cards, and I know that the dealer MUST have a 6 in the hole, and I alter my play accordingly? Is that situation any different from the house making a mistake, and giving me that information inadvertently?

The error you are making is in equating the above situation with a simple error in payouts. I am under no obligation to play my hand a certain way, but I do have an obligation to honor my bet. Allowing myself to keep what I'm not entitled to dishonors that obligation.

If you still disagree, consider this: what if you made a friendly bet with a co-worker on a football game, and he laid you 3-2 odds on an $80 bet--and you win, and he mistakenly hands you $140, not $120. Do you keep the "extra" $20?

I'd give it back 95% of the time, unless said coworker is an asshole in which case I'd keep the $20. Maybe laugh about it in the coffee room. I don't claim the high ground here, I just don't agree when people mix up morals with whatever they happen to be doing. How about this: In a home poker game that you are hosting, after dealing the first hand realize that you've accidentally brought out an old 'for fun' marked deck, allowing you to identify half the opponents' hole cards. Still think it is 'unrealistic' to swap out for a real deck? Or would you argue that its fair because you could misuse the information and end up losing money? And yes I would consider that different from you reaching into your mental database and "knowing" that your opponent is bluffing.

Quote: gog

How about this: In a home poker game that you are hosting, after dealing the first hand realize that you've accidentally brought out an old 'for fun' marked deck, allowing you to identify half the opponents' hole cards. Still think it is 'unrealistic' to swap out for a real deck? Or would you argue that its fair because you could misuse the information and end up losing money?

It depends on who brought that deck: you or not. If you, it's your obligation to swap it out.

If, however, you are playing a one-on-one game and your opponent brought out a marked deck, where you can read the markings... then it depends. For a friend, I'd swap it out. For someone other than a friend, no, I have to look after my pocket too.