Are some members paid to be on the WOV forums?
Poll
 | 5 votes (18.51%) | ||
| | 13 votes (48.14%) | ||
| | 9 votes (33.33%) |
27 members have voted
Many industries/corporations now employ "marketing assistants" to report on what is occurring on social media and to post statements that will sway public opinion about their industry. No reason the casino industry would be the outlier.
If any of the "usual suspects" want to confirm or deny that they are on the WOV forum as part of their work assignment, it would be appreciated by the rest of us in the suspicious majority.
I don't know if I'm a 'usual suspect' but I am not now and never have been employed by, or directed by anyone in the gaming industry. I have occasionally benefited from bonuses and winnings from that industry.Quote: gordonm888IIf any of the "usual suspects" want to confirm or deny that they are on the WOV forum as part of their work assignment, it would be appreciated by the rest of us in the suspicious majority.
I bear no loyalty or allegience to that industry, and I have empathy with true Advantage Players here. i rather despise and attack posts which promote nonsense {substitute with expletive] I particularly attack posts which are clearly promoting illegality or con tricks.
I don't know if any members are here in the course of employment, though I believe a few are Casino employees and a few are Casino industry advocates. Not necessarily the same people.
Some advantage players get grumpy when their favourite exploits get revealed here.
But serious answer.... PaiGowDan does not hide who he works for, or worked for in the past. Others (Zcore) works for a casino at some high level. Face was in casino security for a while. Our host worked for the Venetian for a while! I would be surprised if there is not a Caesars employee who scans this and other websites, but I would be less certain about someone paid to be a member and then post casino propaganda. If there is such a person they are not doing a good job. And if there is such a person they aren't going to out themself.....
Didn't even get a response.
Rude it was ;-)
Yeah, he can be opinionated. And his opinions are often unpopular, and can make it seem like he is a mouthpiece for the casino industry.
Nothing can be further from the truth.
I've spent a lot of time with him, as well as his wife, including visiting his home on three different occasions. I KNOW him. (Ok, not in the biblical sense, but...)
Yeah, his opinions can be unpopular here, but they are truly his opinions.
The really cool thing about him is, even though we have different opinions on some of those controversial topics, were still good friends and respect each other's opinion.
I'll also sell the space under my post for the right offer.
Quote: gordonm888I often wonder if there are any WOV forum members who are actually paid/employed by the casino industry and have - as part of their work assignment - to scan the WOV forum chat and post refutations of any derogatory statements made about the gaming industry and to denounce as "illegal" any concept for reducing the house edge...
No. If it is anything, it is more of AP-ers doing the log rolling.
The wider brick-and-motor casino industry has a general if not a complete financial disinterest in this site as it affects (or actually doesn't impact) their fortunes, for all the good stories and debates. The industry covers some of their executives to attend shows, the G2E convention, the Cutting Edge convention, where they can sell and buy product, and game protection workshops (think Teliot) where they can better maintain products.
In terms of being an AP site, not much cutting-edge technique is discussed or is of value here, as APHeat and discountgambling.net provide better game protection information, and for free. If they wanted to get to a real AP knowledge-sharing site, they'd go elsewhere where the inner sanctum poop is present, which isn't here. If there are industry people looking for info, they'd be lurkers who would never chime in, and take a few very scant notes.
The industry is interested in making money on their products bringing in players and action, and they'll spend on surveillance and good pit executives, and an occasional seminar or a class. As a cop says to a rubber-necking motorist, "there's nothing here to see [in terms of any real AP gold]". I have seen this site used by some outfits to get some input as to what new games are hot or not and how they work as a small facet of social media, but this site isn't truly wide-reaching social media. For this reason if any industry use of the discussion forum exists, 99 times out of 100 it'll concern game design aspects and questions thereof. This is a discussion forum where opinions get debated, and it is not as sinister or conspiratorial as may be believed.
The site that IS used frequently, and is of great value to the industry, is the wizardofodds.com site, where real game metrics, game play information, and statistical/mathematical information is of greater use.
So, simply put, not a cent, people are happy to call AP for what it is for free from either side, whether just counterproductive for the industry, and eventually counterproductive [through burnout] of the handful of APs who are any threat, or an awesome thing to do.
Any mention of ??ing or card ???????? and being ??'ed from a casino could trigger a 40 page discursive argument on this thread.
I had several suspects in mind; one was Wizardofnothing.
You just couldn't leave well enough alone ;-)
'You don't tug on Superman's cape,
You don't spit into the wind,
You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger,
And you don't mess around with WoN'....
Croce, mostly. ;-)
Quote: darkozJust be very careful what you say around Paigowdan.
Any mention of ??ing or card ???????? and being ??'ed from a casino could trigger a 40 page discursive argument on this thread.
No, it'll trigger 40 pages of how righteous and beautiful it is to try to fleece gambling halls for extra cash and why that is our constitution right to do so, with intermittent dissent from saying "No it isn't, - they actually have a right to expel you" and "you should have started a real career." It made for some popular discussions, too.
I'm of the opinion of neither industry shills nor AP shills at the forum.
This is a gamblers' forum. AP isn't gambling.
'you don't pull on Superman's cape'
And don't start debate with Dan.....;-)
Quote: gordonm888I actually did not have Paigowdan in mind when I started this thread. Dan's behavior often matches the behavior I describe, but he has always been upfront about who he is and I have never suspected him of being employed by any gaming organization to "infiltrate and influence" social media.
Thanks - I'm actually trying to persuade people to finish their D.D.S. degrees and the like instead. All that effort wasted on +1, +1, -1, -1, 0, 0, 0...
Quote: gordon888I believe him to be a moderately successful game developer who genuinely believes in the industry that enriches him. He is anti-counting and anti-cheating but, in my mind's eye, I don't see him blindly making up excuses for casinos that are embroiled in cheating scandals.
I am a moderately successful game designer and own a couple of businesses, - and I am also just as harsh on bad casino workers ("Did you see your dealer repeatedly flash the hole card while you stood there with your finger in your nose? You should be driving for Uber....your table games director selected Red Flex as a side bet?? Go to www.apheat.net.....")
Quote: TwoFeathersATLWhat did I say?
'you don't pull on Superman's cape'
And don't start debate with Dan.....;-)
Sure you can, get the snacks and beer ready, and grab hold of the remote....
And since I mentioned that there are those that one should NOT start a debate with, another relentless debater comes to mind. I think if you shot him full of bullet holes he would post from the grave. So we would solve one of the most significant and long lasting questions, "Is there an afterlife?"Quote: PaigowdanSure you can, get the snacks and beer ready, and grab hold of the remote....
I should point out that I wish no harm to the relentless, I find relentless charming at times, other times I just get tired of reading and go to sleep. I sleep a little better knowing that if/when I wake up, relentless will still be talking ;-)
Quote: TwoFeathersATLAnd since I mentioned that there are those that one should NOT start a debate with, another relentless debater comes to mind. I think if you shot him full of bullet holes he would post from the grave. So we would solve one of the most significant and long lasting questions, "Is there an afterlife?"
I should point out that I wish no harm to the relentless, I find relentless charming at times, other times I just get tired of reading and go to sleep. I sleep a little better knowing that if/when I wake up, relentless will still be talking ;-)
My position was that AP proselytizing and justification was absolutely relentless. I answered that only to its presence.
Quote: gordonm888I actually did not have Paigowdan in mind when I started this thread. Dan's behavior often matches the behavior I describe, but he has always been upfront about who he is and I have never suspected him of being employed by any gaming organization to "infiltrate and influence" social media. I believe him to be a moderately successful game developer who genuinely believes in the industry that enriches him. He is anti-counting and anti-cheating but, in my mind's eye, I don't see him blindly making up excuses for casinos that are embroiled in cheating scandals.
I had several suspects in mind; one was Wizardofnothing.
Wizardofnothing is definitely not a shill for the casinos. After many long and heated mudslinging between the two of us as to who is the better AP, we ended up meeting and have shared info on a few plays.
I'm still the better AP :)
Me thinks you missed the joke, not a problem. It wasn't about you.Quote: PaigowdanMy position was that AP proselytizing and justification was absolutely relentless. I answered that only to its presence.
I love you man, you got an extra beer on you ;-?
Quote: TwoFeathersATLMe thinks you missed the joke, not a problem. It wasn't about you.
I love you man, you got an extra beer on you ;-?
It's 9AM, I'm drinking Starbucks....
I can be accused of fitting the bill you know, so I did want to get it in over here that the AP proselytizing side was a bit heavy at this site with little throttle on it, and that such opposing responses to it got the scrutiny as hijacking or as a troll, for not rolling that same log.
There is a sense I feel that AP is to be promoted here, that arguments against it are to be suppressed, but that WOV is a gamblers' forum, not a pure AP forum.
There's poker play, there's game design, there's dice setting, NTEK and casino reviews and experience, the whole lot.
Tell that the person who loses over 9k on a promotion. Tell that to the person who's in for 95% of the royal progressive amount and they get snapped off.Quote: PaigowdanAP isn't gambling.
If AP was not gambling everyone would be doing it. Everyone, meaning guys (or gals) who are interested in making money in casinos. I know a lot of people who would give their left nut if they could make a living from the casinos.
Anytime you have money at risk and there is a chance you can lose its gambling. I dont care if you have a 99.99% chance of winning. You might be able to argue that someone playing 2 match plays one on red and one on black while they cover green are not gambling. They do risk the pit boss not honoring the match plays.
EDIT TO ADD: Perhaps arbitrage might not be gambling
Would it be a true statement to say that you have mostly only partaken in Free play situations either though mail offer's and or whatever type of bonus free play they are offering?Quote: darkozWizardofnothing is definitely not a shill for the casinos. After many long and heated mudslinging between the two of us as to who is the better AP, we ended up meeting and have shared info on a few plays.
I'm still the better AP :)
Quote: AxelWolfTell that the person who loses over 9k on a promotion. Tell that to the person who's in for 95% of the royal progressive amount and they get snapped off.
If AP was not gambling everyone would be doing it. Everyone, meaning guys (or gals) who are interested in making money in casinos. I know a lot of people who would give their left nut if they could make a living from the casinos.
So, did they sign up for dealer's school, or for casino management classes at UNLV?
Quote: AxelWolfAnytime you have money at risk and their is a chance you can lose its gambling. I dont care if you have a 99.99% chance of winning. You might be able to argue that someone playing 2 match plays one on red and one on black while they cover green are not gambling. They do risk the pit boss not honoring the match plays.
I tell you this:
If you know - or if you try to discern - the cards to come, then you're not gambling. AP's strive to know whether high cards or low cards are coming out next, and adjust their bets accordingly. In other words, if you know the change in odds of the hand before the hand is dealt, it isn't gambling. And it doesn't have to be 99.99%, it has to be any new advantage or disadvantage over the base game that you're privy to.
A good dice slider who can roll two Aces or a crap-12 at 99.99% accuracy, and bet that for 30:1 before he rolls, is not gambling.
And you don't wake Axel up from his nap.
Good Grief ;-)
Quote: PaigowdanSo, did they sign up for dealer's school, or for casino management classes at UNLV?
I tell you this:
If you know - or if you try to discern - the cards to come, then you're not gambling. AP's strive to know whether high cards or low cards are coming out next, and adjust their bets accordingly. In other words, if you know the change in odds of the hand before the hand is dealt, it isn't gambling. And it doesn't have to be 99.99%, it has to be any new advantage or disadvantage over the base game that you're privy to.
A good dice slider who can roll two Aces or a crap-12 at 99.99% accuracy, and bet that for 30:1 before he rolls, is not gambling.
From Wikipedia:
Gambling is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods. Gambling thus requires three elements be present: consideration, chance and prize.[1] The outcome of the wager is often immediate, such as a single roll of dice or a spin of a roulette wheel, but longer time frames are also common, allowing wagers on the outcome of a future sports contest or even an entire sports season.
The term gaming[2] in this context typically refers to instances in which the activity has been specifically permitted by law.
So, you are saying Paigowdan that you disagree with the what most of the rest of the world considers gambling?
Wikipedia is not a definitive answer on anything.
Wikipedia is often full of jhit ;-)
Quote: darkozQuote: PaigowdanSo, did they sign up for dealer's school, or for casino management classes at UNLV?
I tell you this:
If you know - or if you try to discern - the cards to come, then you're not gambling. AP's strive to know whether high cards or low cards are coming out next, and adjust their bets accordingly. In other words, if you know the change in odds of the hand before the hand is dealt, it isn't gambling. And it doesn't have to be 99.99%, it has to be any new advantage or disadvantage over the base game that you're privy to.
A good dice slider who can roll two Aces or a crap-12 at 99.99% accuracy, and bet that for 30:1 before he rolls, is not gambling.
From Wikipedia:
Gambling is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods. Gambling thus requires three elements be present: consideration, chance and prize.[1] The outcome of the wager is often immediate, such as a single roll of dice or a spin of a roulette wheel, but longer time frames are also common, allowing wagers on the outcome of a future sports contest or even an entire sports season.
The term gaming[2] in this context typically refers to instances in which the activity has been specifically permitted by law.
So, you are saying Paigowdan that you disagree with the what most of the rest of the world considers gambling?
No. I agree that the Wiki entry describes gambling, and as a basic definition of gambling.
But what the Wiki definition of gambling above doesn't address (and certainly doesn't endorse) is any prior knowledge on, or influence on, the results.
In fact, it says "an uncertain outcome." Now, using AP type of maneuvers - such as card counting and hole carding - strive to make the upcoming hand or round known, or at least mathematically more known and less uncertain, and for advantage, - which is not gambling by this definition of uncertain. You know high cards are coming before the hand is played, and you act on it, and this is not uncertain.
Quote: PaigowdanQuote: darkozQuote: PaigowdanSo, did they sign up for dealer's school, or for casino management classes at UNLV?
I tell you this:
If you know - or if you try to discern - the cards to come, then you're not gambling. AP's strive to know whether high cards or low cards are coming out next, and adjust their bets accordingly. In other words, if you know the change in odds of the hand before the hand is dealt, it isn't gambling. And it doesn't have to be 99.99%, it has to be any new advantage or disadvantage over the base game that you're privy to.
A good dice slider who can roll two Aces or a crap-12 at 99.99% accuracy, and bet that for 30:1 before he rolls, is not gambling.
From Wikipedia:
Gambling is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods. Gambling thus requires three elements be present: consideration, chance and prize.[1] The outcome of the wager is often immediate, such as a single roll of dice or a spin of a roulette wheel, but longer time frames are also common, allowing wagers on the outcome of a future sports contest or even an entire sports season.
The term gaming[2] in this context typically refers to instances in which the activity has been specifically permitted by law.
So, you are saying Paigowdan that you disagree with the what most of the rest of the world considers gambling?
No. I agree that the Wiki entry describes gambling, and as a basic definition of gambling.
But what the Wiki definition of gambling above doesn't address (and certainly doesn't endorse) is any prior knowledge on, or influence on, the results.
In fact, it says "an uncertain outcome." Now, using AP type of maneuvers - such as card counting and hole carding - strive to make the upcoming hand or round known, or at least mathematically more known and less uncertain, and for advantage, - which is not gambling by this definition of uncertain. You know high cards are coming before the hand is played, and you act on it, and this is not uncertain.
Now you are really stretching it. Foreknowledge of things to come without knowing the final outcome is still gambling. Even if its known high cards are coming, those could easily go to the dealer as any card counter will attest to. They are therefore gambling on an unknown outcome even if they have some extra knowledge of the deck.
By your definition, roulette is not gambling because I know for a fact there will be three possible outcomes (red, green or black). Just like I don't know where the ball will land, the card counter does not know who will get the good cards.
Quote: darkozNow you are really stretching it. Foreknowledge of things to come without knowing the final outcome is still gambling. Even if its known high cards are coming, those could easily go to the dealer as any card counter will attest to. They are therefore gambling on an unknown outcome even if they have some extra knowledge of the deck.
By your definition, roulette is not gambling because I know for a fact there will be three possible outcomes (red, green or black). Just like I don't know where the ball will land, the card counter does not know who will get the good cards.
No.
Knowing the range of possible outcomes (red, green, or black) is not the same as having forehand knowledge of the odds of these outcomes and adjusting your bets based on these altered odds. That's different.
And yes, the good hands may also "go to the dealer." But the dealer doesn't win 3:2 when he gets a blackjack, - only the player does. That's how you get forehand knowledge before the round of play: high cards/high count means that the player is more likely to win 3:2 when the dealer does not, and this occurs before the round of play, when you raise your bets.
Quote: Paigowdan
This is a gamblers' forum. AP isn't gambling.
It is definitely a gamblers forum. It's also a casino games forum and a Las Vegas forum. It isn't exclusively what you decide it is
Quote: TomGIt is definitely a gamblers forum. It's also a casino games forum and a Las Vegas forum. It isn't exclusively what you decide it is
I never made it exclusive, never wanted to,
I was making it not "AP exclusive" by responding to their arguments.
Quote: AxelWolfTell that the person who loses over 9k on a promotion. Tell that to the person who's in for 95% of the royal progressive amount and they get snapped off.
What about the person who loses even more than that trying to open a restaurant? Or even the person who loses $40 paying for a health card and then doesn't get hired? Casino games are no more or less gambling than all the other stuff we do with our lives. If the player has the advantage, it is income, the same as any other job opportunity. If the house has the advantage, it is just giving them your money, the same as anything else we buy.
Quote: PaigowdanNo.
Knowing the range of possible outcomes (red, green, or black) is not the same as having forehand knowledge of the odds of these outcomes and adjusting your bets based on these altered odds. That's different.
And yes, the good hands may also "go to the dealer." But the dealer doesn't win 3:2 when he gets a blackjack, - only the player does. That's how you get forehand knowledge before the round of play: high cards/high count means that the player is more likely to win 3:2 when the dealer does not, and this occurs before the round of play, when you raise your bets.
You use the words "more likely". There are plenty of casino games that you are more likely to win on. For example, single zero roulette versus double zero. Or Craps versus slots.
being more likely to win still is gambling. As long as the outcome is unknown. And I certainly cannot believe you think that if card counter knows a deck is high card rich that he now knows he is guaranteed to win. Or that not being guaranteed a win, he is not risking and therefore gambling.
You're starting to get into hokey linguistics. Odds may vary but it is still gambling when you are unaware of the outcome.
Playing cards for jollies at a gambling hall should not be confused with business startup failures.
And no, having illicit forehand knowledge of a hand's odds is not straight up gambling.
Quote: PaigowdanAnd no, having illicit forehand knowledge of a hand's odds is not straight up gambling.
What about having authorized and legitimate information about how odds can change from hand to hand?
Quote: TomGWhat about having authorized and legitimate information about how odds can change from hand to hand?
Did you try asking the dealer or floorman on this? And do you mean like on roulette? Or like craps? Or on Pai Gow Poker? Like "can you tell me what the next hand is going to be, or look like, - before I make my bet? all authorized and legitimate information, please?"
They'll tell you the odds are uncertain as they are supposed to be, because this is gambling. Trying to glean some illicit knowledge over the base game's natural odds via such tricks as hole carding, card counting, or more severe levels of maneuvers, is not authorized or legitimate information, and is not straight up gambling.
If you want to find out about a game's odds and what can influence that before a round of play, look at www.wizardofodds.com, apheat.net, and discountgambling.net. They cover it all.
Quote: PaigowdanDid you try asking the dealer or floorman on this? And do you mean like on roulette? Or like craps? Or on Pai Gow Poker? Like "can you tell me what the next hand is going to be, or look like, - before I make my bet? all authorized and legitimate information, please?"
I mean in blackjack. Every time anyone makes a bet, they are asking the casino if it is allowed. And if casino personnel doesn't tell you the bet is prohibited, the answer they're telling you is that it is allowed.
Quote: PaigowdanTrying to glean some illicit knowledge over the base game's natural odds via such tricks as hole carding, card counting, or more severe levels of maneuvers, is not authorized or legitimate information, and is not straight up gambling.
Some information in blackjack, such as the ratio of high cards to low cards remaining in the shoe is allowed. Paying attention to the game and making the best decision is absolutely a legitimate way to play the game. Whether or not it's gambling is just semantics.
Quote: TomGI mean in blackjack. Every time anyone makes a bet, they are asking the casino if it is allowed. And if casino personnel doesn't tell you the bet is prohibited, the answer they're telling you is that it is allowed.
Yes. I play blackjack, betting a green all the way through a shoe, and never had me a problem.
Quote: TomGSome information in blackjack, such as the ratio of high cards to low cards remaining in the shoe is allowed. Paying attention to the game and making the best decision is absolutely a legitimate way to play the game. Whether or not it's gambling is just semantics.
Yes and No.
I know the count when playing blackjack, but I ignore the count and I don't vary my bet size, because I don't take advantage of the count; basic strategy is enough. I play like ploppies or civilians, seeing how I'd do on basic strategy alone. Surprising, - even shockingly, - most people play generally as I do, with a few players not playing like this, and often getting a tap on the shoulder with an invitation to either play roulette or to leave, and of course to argue semantics if they wish. Electing not to wear out my welcome (and to receive such platitudes as "Danny boy, you're just too fabulous and awesome for us, please play roulette or leave..."), I just play by the rules, as well as play other games such as craps, pai gow poker, and UTH. Now, this card-count information is allowed, but acting on it is not always allowed, so I do what is allowed, and I get to stay, and I actually agree with that. For some strange and unfathomable reason, I have no compulsion to fitzsniggle a gambling hall's card game for some chump change, so I just gamble.
Quote: Paigowdan
I know the count when playing blackjack, but I ignore the count and I don't vary my bet size, because I don't take advantage of the count; basic strategy is enough. I play like ploppies or civilians, seeing how I'd do on basic strategy alone. Surprising, - even shockingly, - most people play generally as I do, with a few players not playing like this, and often getting a tap on the shoulder with an invitation to either play roulette or to leave, and of course to argue semantics if they wish. Electing not to wear out my welcome (and to receive such platitudes as "Danny boy, you're just too fabulous and awesome for us, please play roulette or leave..."),
Yet for the few players who play differently than you do, mostly by raising their bets as the small cards come out and the high ones remain, it is very rare to be told their bets aren't allowed. If it was much more common, then those players wouldn't be able to earn any money from their card playing
Quote: PaigowdanNow, this card-count information is allowed, but acting on it is not always allowed
Very good to see you say it is "not always allowed," which shows that it is allowed sometimes. And I would argue almost always (over 90% of the time).
Quote: TomGYet for the few players who play differently than you do, mostly by raising their bets as the small cards come out and the high ones remain, it is very rare to be told their bets aren't allowed. If it was much more common, then those players wouldn't be able to earn any money from their card playing
No. Quite often it is not noticed when not allowed, which is different.
If you can take board prices or SP, and the odds for the various horses have similar EVs (or House Edge), then If you just pick a horse at random you are gambling. I think the argument is that if you study form and know more than the bookmaker then eventually you are no longer gambling. Note there's a great difference with a punter being very knowledgeable by having better contacts or similar versus another punter who perhaps breaks the law, spies on stables, tries to influence the results or has done something illegal.
Say there's a two horse race where both horses have the same chance. First scenario is where a bookmaker prices up one of the horses and is offering 4/1 (+400) instead of 4/5 (-125); this seems an obvious mistake and it seems reasonable that the bet is settled at 4/5. However suppose the bookmaker takes a view or has had bets on the other horse and offers 11/10 (+110) when others are offering 10/11 (-110); then it is fair for a punter to recognise the value and take the price [make a bet]. In this case the punter knew both horses had equal chances and has made a ""Value Bet" at 11/10. Is this gambling, betting, looking for value, exploiting the bookmaker or spotting a bargain?
As for the tap on the shoulder, not doing something because you are scared of the repercussions (not including illegal stuff) is un-American. I can only imagine where we would be if people didn't fight for their rights in this country.
And yes, it is my right to AP. It is the right of the casino to ask me to leave. I choose not to let some greaseball goombahs (Godfather reference there) tell me what to do.
Trust me, Dan, when you see us tapped on the shoulder and think to yourself, hah, now they lost while I get to keep playing, it is actually the guy who got tapped on the shoulder who won. Not only will he figure out how to keep hitting that casino regardless, but anyone who intentionally loses when they know the count by ignoring it is by definition a loser.
Quote: PaigowdanNo. Quite often it is not noticed when not allowed, which is different.
All bets made in a casino are made with casino representatives watching and caught on camera. If a player is not backed off (which represents over 90% of the time someone increases their bets as they gain an edge) it's because the casino is allowing it and agrees the information the player is using is completely legitimate
Quote: charliepatrickThere seems to be a discussion on whether someone with information that gives them an advantage and then makes a wager is gambling or not. To me the argument is whether that information has been acquired legally. The parallel I keep drawing on is someone who studies form and makes bets on horses.
If you can take board prices or SP, and the odds for the various horses have similar EVs (or House Edge), then If you just pick a horse at random you are gambling. I think the argument is that if you study form and know more than the bookmaker then eventually you are no longer gambling. Note there's a great difference with a punter being very knowledgeable by having better contacts or similar versus another punter who perhaps breaks the law, spies on stables, tries to influence the results or has done something illegal.
Say there's a two horse race where both horses have the same chance. First scenario is where a bookmaker prices up one of the horses and is offering 4/1 (+400) instead of 4/5 (-125); this seems an obvious mistake and it seems reasonable that the bet is settled at 4/5. However suppose the bookmaker takes a view or has had bets on the other horse and offers 11/10 (+110) when others are offering 10/11 (-110); then it is fair for a punter to recognise the value and take the price [make a bet]. In this case the punter knew both horses had equal chances and has made a ""Value Bet" at 11/10. Is this gambling, betting, looking for value, exploiting the bookmaker or spotting a bargain?
Charlie, this is good, as a legal basis is a valid basis to look at it from one point of view. At the very least, one cannot be thrown into jail.
However, the Race Track view neglects or overlooks one aspect, mainly, that what is acceptable at the race track (in terms of pre-betting odds) may not be acceptable in the casino pit. This is because it is within the race track house rules to consider the odds before placing bets because the payouts may change, whereas in casino pit play, you may not be allowed to consider odds going into a round of play - because the payout odds on table games do not change in such a fashion.
For example, in a Blackjack game when the count and the odds of getting a blackjack are higher, the blackjack payout does not go down from 3:2 on a 3:2 game. All the floorman can do to a counter is remove the player or flat bet him, as he cannot adjust the table game payouts in a pari-mutuel fashion like we see at the track. What casinos also do is permanently adjust the payouts down to 6:5 to also account for this, (which many feel is despicable and against our constitutional rights.)
There is no book at a table game.
