Thread Rating:

Poll

5 votes (18.51%)
13 votes (48.14%)
9 votes (33.33%)

27 members have voted

OnceDear
Administrator
OnceDear
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
  • Threads: 45
  • Posts: 4721
July 16th, 2016 at 1:35:08 PM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan

If you are using illicit information (information that you're not supposed to have on the game)... that arguably isn't gambling unless.



Dan, You are seriously suggesting that you are NOT SUPPOSED to have knowledge of the cards that you were shown to you by the dealer, while you were playing, just because the casino has a rule that says you shouldn't try to keep track of what's going on?

Have you any idea how absurd that suggestion would be?

Counting and playing BJ and taking advantage of that IS still gambling: It's gambling that your very tiny edge will help and IT'S GAMBLING that the casino will not exercise it's right to discontinue your play. It is not cheating! It's playing within a rule that says 'If the casino doesn't like how you play, they may ASK you to change your play or tell you they don't want your wager'. It's not cheating for either side to work to that rule.

You'll be telling us next that playing Basic Strategy isn't gambling because it helps you to reduce the house's take.
Take care out there. Spare a thought for the newly poor who were happy in their world just a few days ago, but whose whole way of life just collapsed..
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
July 16th, 2016 at 2:05:00 PM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

Underlying Dan's arguments is this simple unspoken and undocumented rule/presumption:

"Blackjack is a game in which the player's decisions on bet size must not be influenced by the cards that have previously been dealt from the shoe.


Believe it or not, accurate and correct, if it is used to determine the win/loss probabilities of future rounds by acting on this information..

Quote: gordon888

Additionally, the player's H/S/D/SPLIT decisions must be based solely on the cards in his own hand and the dealer's face-up card, and may not be influenced by any other cards that he sees or has seen previously."


No. On a face up game, it's no problem to look.
In fact, if you are playing two hands in a pitch game and the dealer has an Ace showing and calls for insurance, the dealer even tells you to look at/consider both hands before making insurance bets, and that's A-Okay.
The game protection problem comes not from looking at cards used in a game, but from calculating the ratio of cards 6 and less, and cards 10 and higher, to determine the altered probabilities of winning and losing, -- and then acting on it by varying bet sizes with the count. That's the game protection problem.

Quote: gordon888

First, these rules are never stated - but they are enforced. That violates the "rule of law." No one should be penalized or punished for lack of compliance with an undocumented, unstated rule. This principle is known in every civilized country in the world as "the rule of law."


Yes, these rules may be enforced, but no, it is not a violation of "rule of law" to not post these rules or to be denied AP-ing tables in a gambling hall.
Also know that AP guidelines are written and documented internally for surveillance and for the pit crews, but are off-limits for player review as internal control documents. It is not against the rule of law to protect or limit access to sensitive corporate or operational information. The general public has no right to see a casino's game protection or loss prevention protocols, or to demand what things are to be posted and where, especially since AP's status is already known to AP players.
And anyone who has learned and practiced the methods of AP also know of AP's disallowed status, and can't reasonably claim ignorance (like when they're using cover plays and camouflage, etc.)

Quote: gordon888

Secondly, when stated this way, the absurdity is clear. When the casino seats multiple players at the same table and the dealer reveals other cards during the play of the game, then why must the player not allow those cards to influence his H/S/D/Sp decisions and his bet size decisions? Apparently, its because that's the way that some dough-faced analyst did his analysis of the House Edge for the game. And because that dough-faced mathematician lacked the imagination to realize how people would actually play the game, the casinos proceed to insist that everyone must conform to the mathematician's erroneous assumptions?


Players are allowed to see other cards in game play; what's restricted is calculating the win/loss probabilities of future rounds, and then acting on it prior to each round by paralleling bet size to the count for profit. That's different.
Now, on the subject of dough-faced gaming mathematicians: Blackjack is a legacy game that existed before any gaming control board's authority to manage mathematical characteristics of games, to be approved for use. Blackjack was grandfathered in as an existing (and imperfect) game, so to speak, along with roulette and baccarat and craps, which have better inherent game protection features.

If blackjack were designed today, the mathematician would run an AP analysis of the game, and say "key cards exist in this game because of its game-play rule structure. You'll have to increase the house edge to cover the average advantage by reducing the blackjack bonus payout to a maximum of 6:5, or balance out the key cards by transferring the two-card blackjack bonus to long hands ("Charlies"), or use a continuous shuffler machine to offer 3:2 safely."

Quote: gordon888

Dan, how can a smart guy like you not understand the absurdity of this?


I understand the absurdity of the gaming industry's mismanagement of game protection, as well as AP sub-culture affectation to AP.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
cwazy
cwazy
Joined: Mar 18, 2016
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 178
July 16th, 2016 at 2:30:37 PM permalink
Obviously there's no convincing Paigowdan of anything, and at the end of the day, it simply doesn't matter. We gamble, hopefully with an edge if you're reading this thread, and unless we violate a law in the jurisdiction in which we play, we aren't cheating. End of story.

Don't feed the trolls.
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
July 16th, 2016 at 3:06:55 PM permalink
Quote: cwazy

Obviously there's no convincing Paigowdan of anything, and at the end of the day, it simply doesn't matter. We gamble, hopefully with an edge if you're reading this thread, and unless we violate a law in the jurisdiction in which we play, we aren't cheating. End of story.


True. I'm incorrigible, hopeless.
And getting backed off is not a sign of illegality.
Still, I consider it a good sign that something above and beyond sanctioned gambling went down, though. That's just crazy old me, though, and a lot of others outside of this inner sanctum.

Don't feed the trolls.

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 244
  • Posts: 7601
July 16th, 2016 at 3:21:26 PM permalink
One interesting facet I find is that with all of Dan's assertions that AP's should be aware of the pitfall's of conducting our business, from backoff (which he likes to say is akin to losing one's job even though it really isn't) and having a bunch of goons try to strong arm tactic you into feeling bad....

It is actually the casinos that are more afraid of the AP's than the other way around.

A bunch of big muscle with all types of James Bond gadgetry to protect them and yet some innocuous and intelligent people keep taking their cash - and when they finally have enough and backroom, detain and basically do what all bullies do, resort to strong-arm in order to defend themselves... they get their cash taken again in a civil suit... and they are left scratching their heads how AP can keep hitting them legally.

Don't ask me to ever find another profession. This is way too much fun! (excepting Hollywood or book deals, I will consider all of those, :)
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 167
  • Posts: 9896
July 16th, 2016 at 3:31:40 PM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan

It's an interesting thread, and the thread is called derogatory names because it is slaughtering a sacred cow.



Cow goes Moo. Bird goes Tweet. But what does the Fox say?



Fox say, we don't think cow got slaughtered. You need more than a butter knife.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
July 16th, 2016 at 3:50:50 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

One interesting facet I find is that with all of Dan's assertions that AP's should be aware of the pitfall's of conducting our business, from backoff (which he likes to say is akin to losing one's job even though it really isn't) and having a bunch of goons try to strong arm tactic you into feeling bad....


A back-off isn't akin to losing one job; becoming known and burnt out for it is.
Feeling bad?? People who choose to do something that they're free to do generally do it whole-heartedly until (if and when) they decide to see it differently..

Quote: darkoz

It is actually the casinos that are more afraid of the AP's than the other way around.


Everyone is afraid of a loss of their income, and doesn't matter which side of the fence you're on.
But I'll say that casinos and execs generally don't sweat it. They'll be in a meeting and will discuss it in a manner of: "Is it time to put in 6:5? Whad'ya say, people? Ah, the Yeas have it...."
An AP player who gets burnt out of a place he relied on is in a much tougher situation. Part of the reason it doesn't look like such a reliable job to me.


Quote: darkoz

A bunch of big muscle with all types of James Bond gadgetry to protect them and yet some innocuous and intelligent people keep taking their cash


James Bond gadgetry? 6:5 just requires a new felt and rack cards, if used. And CSMs, as far as technology goes, are as old as the hills.

Quote: darkoz

- and when they finally have enough and backroom, detain and basically do what all bullies do, resort to strong-arm in order to defend themselves... they get their cash taken again in a civil suit... and they are left scratching their heads how AP can keep hitting them legally.


Well, if they don't have 6:5, CSMs, and good surveillance, they ought to scratch their heads or attend a game protection seminar.
I don't consider telling someone they're just too good to play here strong arming. I recently watched again the movie 21, with Lawrence Fishburne back-rooming Jim Sturgess with brass knuckles. It was a fantasy as far as today's casino practices are concerned. When it's not a lawyer is there quicker than Glenn Lerner.

Quote: darkoz

Don't ask me to ever find another profession. This is way too much fun! (excepting Hollywood or book deals, I will consider all of those, :)


Do what you want and Have fun.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
July 16th, 2016 at 3:54:24 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Cow goes Moo. Bird goes Tweet. But what does the Fox say?



Fox say, we don't think cow got slaughtered. You need more than a butter knife.



You need a butcher and a grill. And some "6:5 brand" barbecue sauce:

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
cwazy
cwazy
Joined: Mar 18, 2016
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 178
July 16th, 2016 at 4:35:50 PM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan


Well, if they don't have 6:5, CSMs, and good surveillance, they ought to scratch their heads or attend a game protection seminar.



Casinos obviously aren't very smart, even with regard to 6:5. The vast majority of players playing these games don't understand or care about math; they're in Vegas trying to get drunk and laid. They certainly don't care about the extra $1 they received on their $5 wager. Casinos would have the same - perhaps more - action on these games if they simply said "Player blackjack automatically wins" - i.e. no bonus payment, but they win even against a dealer blackjack. They'd make much more money, and they'd get more hands per hour without dealers staring quizzically at bets, trying to calculate drunktard's 6:5 payout on his $13.50 wager by placing and taking away chips on the table and going through it in their heads for several seconds. Watch any 6:5 game for a couple of minutes and you'll see this kind of thing happening.
Last edited by: cwazy on Jul 16, 2016
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
July 16th, 2016 at 5:02:21 PM permalink
Quote: cwazy

Casinos obviously aren't very smart, even with regard to 6:5. The vast majority of players playing these games don't understand or care about math; they're in Vegas trying to get drunk and laid. They certainly don't care about the extra $1 they received on their $5 wager. Casinos would have the same - perhaps more - action on these games if they simply said "Player blackjack automatically wins" - e.g. no bonus payment, but they win even against a dealer blackjack. They'd make much more money, and they'd get more hands per hour without dealers struggling to calculate 6:5 on $13.50 wagers (I've stood and watched; this happens all the time).


You know, I actually know this about casinos and the general player, and designed a blackjack game around it.

Game "Charlie-21" works as follows:
1. Blackjacks always win even money, and even pays 3:2 if both cards are suited in spades, (though this is still essentially even money blackjacks overall, but gives an excuse to display the magic 3:2.).

2. ANY 5-card hand (non-bust) is an instant winner, and even pays 3:2 IF it is also a 21-value hand. So if you have a 5-card soft hand that isn't 21, you may optional hit to try for a 6-card 21 (hit 233AA).

3. Side bet on the dealer's hand getting any blackjack, multi-card 21, or 5 or more cards non-busted, with the pay table count-balanced between the high count side BJ's, and the Low-side Charlie winners, to be count-neutral.

Because the player wins more hands more often, as blackjacks and 5-card hands always win, that's the pitch of the game, win more hands more often. Rack card has "5-card hands and Blackjacks always win, even against a dealer blackjack !!!:" (The whole "Yea! - flashing lights and the dancing girls kind of thing flash.)

I think it may have a shot: The house edge is just under 1% - WAY better 6:5 at 2%, and exactly the same shoe deal gives players more wins for the same cards dealt (via less bonus payouts),

The game is a bitch to count, being very count neutral, but it's designed for social/regular blackjack players who also shouldn't have to put up with 6:5 blackjack.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.

  • Jump to: