Casinos don't cheat.....prove it.

Quote: mkl654321

As far as that goes, the casino could put in biased "Don't" dice if a preponderance of money was being bet on the Pass Line, and could put in biased "Do" dice to destroy a single big Don't Pass bettor.

Fair enough. Even though I don't agree that they could, for argument's sake I'll concede that they could remove the dice from the table and substitute in new dice without any players at a table noticing. Now, how do you take 5 available dice and make them pro-Don't Pass Line and anti Pass. Not 2 dice, 5 dice.

And Headlock, your first two lines are "Casinos don't cheat...prove it...Or at least prove there is a deterrent." If we can prove that there is no way to shave 5 dice that would assure a better house outcome, would that not prove it, in the Craps pit at least?

and Re: Your Edit...if they just change 1 die, then 7s will still have the exact same chance of hitting. All you could do by shaving 1 die is make low, middle, or high numbers come up more.

But if we want to strictly stay on topic, someone just call the Attorney General's office in NJ. Say you are doing research for a thesis.

Quote: cclub79

Fair enough. Even though I don't agree that they could, for argument's sake I'll concede that they could remove the dice from the table and substitute in new dice without any players at a table noticing. Now, how do you take 5 available dice and make them pro-Don't Pass Line and anti Pass. Not 2 dice, 5 dice.

And Headlock, your first two lines are "Casinos don't cheat...prove it...Or at least prove there is a deterrent." If we can prove that there is no way to shave 5 dice that would assure a better house outcome, would that not prove it, in the Craps pit at least?

But if we want to strictly stay on topic, someone just call the Attorney General's office in NJ. Say you are doing research for a thesis.

Well, I don't think "we can prove that there is no way to shave 5 dice that would assure a better house outcome" as that was one of the methods employed by casinos in the Mob days. It worked for them.

"But if we want to strictly stay on topic, someone just call the Attorney General's office in NJ. Say you are doing research for a thesis." This is a great idea.

If there is a deterrent to casino cheating, why are there so few examples from the hundreds or thousands of members of this forum?

I have gambled in Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, South Dakota and Nevada and have never seen a gaming commission official in the casino.

I've seen blackjack tables that have sensors in the betting area that "read" the amount bet from the identifiers in the chips, ostensibly to track each players average wager. I imagine they can do the same thing on the craps table.

Quote: Headlock

If there is a deterrent to casino cheating, why are there so few examples from the hundreds or thousands of members of this forum?

The deterrent for casino cheating is called the houase advantage. All casinos will win money in the long term in games played by the rules, since those games always favor the hosue. There is no need to cheat.

Quote:

I have gambled in Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, South Dakota and Nevada and have never seen a gaming commission official in the casino.

I have lived in the capital of Mexico for over 40 years, but I've never run accross a cabinet secretary or a sitting president. I guess they don't exist.

Quote: Headlock

I have gambled in Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, South Dakota and Nevada and have never seen a gaming commission official in the casino.

And as DJ said, this is weird to me, because I've done almost all of my gambling in AC, and it's second nature to me that they are there. I'm used to seeing the CCC on the floor just yards from the games at all times. So I should be fair and say I wouldn't care to venture at all what happens outside of NJ. I yield to everyone else on that.

Quote: Nareed

The deterrent for casino cheating is called the houase advantage. All casinos will win money in the long term in games played by the rules, since those games always favor the hosue. There is no need to cheat.

I am not trying to convince anyone that casinos cheat. I simply asked for examples of gaming commission officials monitoring the games.

But your comment is incredibly naive, and I don't care for your condescending tone. From the content of your posts I believe I have gambled much more than you. If the gaming industry is losing millions of dollars, and according to recent published reports they are, there is an incentive to cheat. I know they have the edge at craps, but is it enough to pay the overhead?

Quote: Nareed

The deterrent for casino cheating is called the houase advantage. All casinos will win money in the long term in games played by the rules, since those games always favor the hosue. There is no need to cheat.

There is no NEED, true, but there's plenty of incentive.

Saying that the casinos won't cheat you because they already stand to make money is like saying the car mechanic won't pad the bill by $100 because you're already paying him $400.

To reword your phrasing, "The deterrent for (should be "against", but I'll paraphrase as closely as possible) businesses cheating their customers is that businesses already make a gross profit." Note that I said GROSS profit. The casinos' house edge is like the markup on a retail item. It does not by itself assure a NET profit.

In any case, what makes you think that simply because a casino, or any other entity, makes money, that it does not want to make MORE money? In the case of cheating the customer (casino or noncasino businesses), the two deterrents are a) the risk of getting caught and b) moral scruples. In the case of casinos, a) is negligible, and b) is virtually nonexistent.

Although the original poster makes what I feel to be a silly comment in thatcasinos cheat and doesn't see any deterents to cheating, I'll provide a bit of information for those interested. Here is a link to the Nevada gaming board complaint agenda. http://gaming.nv.gov/complaints.htm These are cases of major violations. Minor violations are done with "write-ups", much like a food inspection for restaraunts. If the minor violations are not corrected, the casino could be shut down.

There is no reason for a casino to risk their license/business to purposely cheat. They don't have to cheat to win. There are so many check and balances in a casino. Cards, dice, chips are maticulously tracked. A casino knows where EVERY card and EVERY die is at all times or there is trouble. I don't know about Nevada as much, because I'm in Arizona, but my Casino self reports all the time. It's not worth getting caught on something. You're safer self reporting and fixing the issue.

To mkl654321, NJ is not the only place with live reps on site. Arizona requires a Gaming Inspector be on duty at every Casino 24 hours a day. If there is not one available, the only one scheduled has to leave for some reason, or any other reason makes it so that there is no inspector, the Casino must remove all patrons and close the doors until an Inspector shows up. Most Casinos have multiple inspectors at any one time to prevent the risk of having to close.

Tiltpoul, your story on the Ultimate Texas Holdem is proof that the gaming regulations work. The staff obviously had some miscommunication if some were doing it one way and some were doing it a different way. You brought this to the commission persons attention and he made a ruling. You were correct and afterwards there is no doubt in my mind there was an incident report filed with the commission detailing the situation. I would not refer to the situation as cheating though.

This thread could go on and on forever. Yes there are bad individuals in every profession. A dealer may try and work with a player hear and there, but for the vast majority of dealers it's not worth risking the paycheck, benefits, 401k, etc for the chance at a few hundred or thousand dollars. Security measures are too tight. 99.99% of the time that you gamble, the odds are exactly as they should be. You will most likeley lose without any need for cheating.

It is human nature to suspect cheating when you lose big. Every person I have talked to who has lost big over a certain period has told me they suspect cheating. Sometimes your luck just turns bad. It is hard for us to fathom that because we have no frame of reference other than some mathematical models, and even that can't prepare you for the shock of just losing and losing over and over again. So you look for other ways to justify it. Example: I play blackjack mostly in one casino because I like their drink service and comps. I have NEVER had a winning session at this casino, other than marginal wins. I would say I have played 20 sessions and have LOST 17 of them, and won a unit or two on the others. This casino is in bankruptcy, so of course it gets me thinking, oh, maybe they removed the tens from the deck, make their balance sheet look better, etc. It becomes a psychological spiral. But then I need to bring myself back to reality and realize that it is just BAD LUCK.

Quote: mkl654321

In any case, what makes you think that simply because a casino, or any other entity, makes money, that it does not want to make MORE money? In the case of cheating the customer (casino or noncasino businesses), the two deterrents are a) the risk of getting caught and b) moral scruples. In the case of casinos, a) is negligible, and b) is virtually nonexistent.

Any business that cheats its customers is soon left without any customers to cheat. The only exceptions are coercive monopolies, companies that are the only ones allowed to offfer a certain good or service by government compulsion. Back when there was only one telephone service provider in mexico, government-owned, they cheated customers all the time. Your only other choice was to do without a telephone.

Once the comapny was privatized and, in time, other companies provided competition, including cell phone companies, service prices went down.

So, sure, a casino could cheat. It would lose more business than it gained on cheating, though.