Are some members paid to be on the WOV forums?

Quote: TomG

Quote: Paigowdan

No. 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

No.
It means that the casino is not noticing it or actually allowing it at their discretion or call, and may reserve the right to disallow it, also at their discretion or call. Once a bet is accepted, the casino may not renege on it, but may later bar play. In fact, the casino may use "allowed to happen" play to spot a counter, to later back him off. This is done all the time. They cannot gig you for card counting unless caught in the act on surveillance tape. This does not make AP an allowable casino activity.

In fact, a casino has to allow some card counting play 100% of the time, just in order to make a determination of card counting activity, to verify that card counting had occurred, in order to issue a back off.

This does not make card counting allowed play. Look at it this way: a car thief has to commit a crime in the first place in order to be arrested and convicted of car theft. The initial act of the car theft does not make it allowable.

Quote: Paigowdan

It means that the casino is not noticing it or actually allowing it at their discretion or call, and may reserve the right to disallow it, also at their discretion or call. Once a bet is accepted, the casino may not renege on it, but may later bar play. In fact, the casino may use "allowed to happen" play to spot a counter, to later back him off. This is done all the time. They cannot gig you for card counting unless caught in the act on surveillance tape. This does not make AP an allowable casino activity.

You're completely contradicting yourself. All card counting is caught on surveillance recordings. Yet only a very small fraction of the time will they backoff someone. All bets are noticed by multiple sets of eyes, both on the floor and on camera. Yet you somehow try to claim that it's only allowed because it isn't noticed.

Quote: Paigowdan

In fact, a casino has to allow some card counting play 100% of the time, just in order to make a determination of card counting activity, to verify that card counting had occurred, in order to issue a back off.

Yes, but for how long and for how many times? Many blackjack players are able to sit at a table and play with an dozens (and sometimes hundreds) of times for every one time they are backed off.

Quote: Paigowdan

This does not make card counting allowed play. Look at it this way: a car thief has to commit a crime in the first place in order to be arrested and convicted of car theft. The initial act of the car theft does not make it allowable.

If a someone gets pulled over in a stolen car they police officer isn't going to tell the thief "good luck" and let him continue driving. Yet that's exactly what the casino does the vast majority of times they notice a blackjack player raising his bets when the odds are favorable.

Quote: TomG

You're completely contradicting yourself. All card counting is caught on surveillance recordings. Yet only a very small fraction of the time will they backoff someone. All bets are noticed by multiple sets of eyes, both on the floor and on camera. Yet you somehow try to claim that it's only allowed because it isn't noticed.

Tom, no. It varies, and at the discretion of the casino. The El Cortez is famous for backing off people at the drop of the hat in a snap of the fingers, and other places are more tolerant. Only a small part of the time would any one regular player would see an incident, yet people who AP for a living maintain vigilance. And this does not change the fact that AP is not sanctioned play. Legal, yes, allowable, no, catch-able, sometimes, backed off, sometimes.

Quote: Tom

Yes, but for how long and for how many times? Many blackjack players are able to sit at a table and play with an dozens (and sometimes hundreds) of times for every one time they are backed off.

No, depends on where you play nd who you are. If you're a known AP player, you can get backed off readily at some places, and if you're a poor or part-time AP-er, you may be considered a ploppie and can stay a while. It varies. Again: Legal, yes, allowable, no, catch-able, sometimes, backed off, sometimes.

Quote: Tom

If a someone gets pulled over in a stolen car they police officer isn't going to tell the thief "good luck" and let him continue driving. Yet that's exactly what the casino does the vast majority of times they notice a blackjack player raising his bets when the odds are favorable.

No, but the car thief may have done it countless times, considering it a career until that point, arguing "I've never been caught" until he burns out. But the fact that he had gotten away with it multiple times doesn't make it right or allowable, except in his mind, and up until he got caught or burnt out.

Quote: Paigowdan

So, 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.

Dice sliding is cheating and illegal so I reject that comparison.

And you're wrong about everything else. Counting card is gambling with an edge. Please lookup the definition of gambling.

Dealers school ? I don't get it.

Quote: AxelWolf

Dice sliding cheating and illegal so I reject that comparison.

It was not even argued in terms of legality, it was used in the sense that changing and knowing the odds of a hand before that hand is played, makes it not really gambling.

Quote: AxelWolf

And you're wrong about everything else. Counting card is gambling with an edge. Please lookup the definition of gambling.

Already did. And one can argue that embezzlement is accounting with an edge. And argue that it's legal if you have a good lawyer.
Look, if you change or know the odds before the play of a hand from a disallowed maneuver, it is not really gambling, what it really is, is not yet getting caught or backed off.

Quote: Paigowdan

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.

Lets take the casino out of this. If 2 people make a sports bet with each other and one knows there's an injury and he has a 51% chance of winning would you claim that's not gambling?

Quote: Paigowdan

It was not even argued in terms of legality, it was used in the sense that changing and knowing the odds of a hand before that hand is played, makes it not really gambling.


Already did. And one can argue that embezzlement is accounting with an edge. And argue that it's legal if you have a good lawyer.
Look, if you change or know the odds before the play of a hand from a disallowed maneuver, it is not really gambling, what it really is, is not yet getting caught or backed off.

If I play a VP machines that's 99.5% and the players card adds 1% im not altering anything. You claim that wouldn't be gambling?

Quote: AxelWolf

Lets take the casino out of this. If 2 people make a sports bet with each other and one knows there's an injury and he has a 51% chance of winning would you claim that's not gambling?

You can't take the casino out of AP play - when it is done in and against the casino. That's the issue.

Look, to cut through the semantics and the problems with AP:

If the floorman says, "You're fine with us, play and stay as long as you want. Here's your comp, and nice seeing you again."
You're good.

versus:
"Look, buddy, you're done for the night. If you come back again, you'll be trespassed and in the book."
You're not good.

The way I see it, you're either on borrowed time or out of time if you AP the casinos.

Quote: MrV

The Wiz worked for the Sands / Venetian for a bit a few years ago.

Got me banned, lol.

Allowing AP is the only way casinos can't be accused of false advertising. "Winners play here."

Quote: Paigowdan

If the floorman says, "You're fine with us, play and stay as long as you want. Here's your comp, and nice seeing you again."
You're good.

versus:
"Look, buddy, you're done for the night. If you come back again, you'll be trespassed and in the book."
You're not good.

That's how pretty much everyone sees it. The issue is that that even for players who are able to overcome the house edge, the latter statement is heard very rarely, while the former is said or implied the vast majority of the time

Quote: TomG

That's how pretty much everyone sees it. The issue is that that even for players who are able to overcome the house edge, the latter statement is heard very rarely, while the former is said or implied the vast majority of the time

Hopefully that would be the case.

What an awful argument taking place here.

Well, this thread is starting to look like another 40-page Paigowdan argument about the morality of card counting. Sigh.

As the OP, I really wanted this to be about the WOV trolls who swarm onto WOV threads like flies on manure, mindlessly defend the casinos as having no incentive to cheat their customers and who try to shout down anyone who says anything negative about the gaming industry. That wasn't Paigowdan.

But this is WOV - anyone can start a thread but there's no telling where it may go.

Quote: gordonm888

Well, this thread is starting to look like another 40-page Paigowdan argument about the morality of card counting. Sigh.

I don't think so. The majority of posts are not mine.
I didn't criticize the morality of card counting here that much, as much as say it is legal, that it can be counter-productive, and that some arguments defending it as a valid casino activity aren't really that strong, particularly if they can throw you out for it.

Quote: gordon888

As the OP, I really wanted this to be about the WOV trolls who swarm onto WOV threads like flies on manure, mindlessly defend the casinos as having no incentive to cheat their customers and who try to shout down anyone who says anything negative about the gaming industry. That wasn't Paigowdan.

As far as I can tell, little bad was mentioned about the gaming industry, and neither did I defend it. I said if they like your play, you're good, and if they don't, you're backed off. No biggie.
Not much bad was said about the gaming industry, there were regular members and not trolls, nor were there personal attacks or name callings on any members. This is good.
Arguments were also made that people were not getting paid to hang around here, which is true. Neither of these are shout downs, they're opinions expressed.

To start a thinly disguised thread of "no industry shills"/"is the industry paying people to falsify card counting here?" in itself hints of anti-industry baiting from post #1. That wasn't questioned until here. What if a thread were entitled "No AP shills"/"are people getting paid to plug AP play here?" That would get noticed and questioned in a second. Eyebrows would be raised and pearls would drop.

How can someone who lives on - and feeds off of - gambling halls and from gaming, criticize the source of their passion, their affectation?
What exactly is the argument here, seriously? Something like "I make my living using AP maneuvers to take money from gambling halls because I hereby declare these businesses to be evil entities, to rationalize the AP position that I cling to."

People who work as High School principals, musicians, and marketing execs who play cards and throw dice after dinner and who are fine with that and have no problems with it may be considered ignorant ploppies for not being sophisticated AP players "in the know." There is a sense of that. If you're not playing with a manufactured edge over the casino, especially if it is somewhat clandestine or disallowed, then you're a ignorant pedestrian, not a sophisticated elite in the know. It's a bit chauvinistic. I swear I get a sense of that position at times. I gamble with an edge. It's called a small house edge and it doesn't bother me being in place.

Quote: gor5don888

But this is WOV - anyone can start a thread but there's no telling where it may go.

OK Gordo, I have to ask.
Were you paid for generating another 7 pages of thread here ;-?

Quote: Paigowdan

I don't think so. The majority of posts are not mine.
I didn't criticize the morality of card counting here that much, as much as say it is legal, that it can be counter-productive, and that some arguments defending it as a valid casino activity aren't really that strong, particularly if they can throw you out for it.


As far as I can tell, little bad was mentioned about the gaming industry, and neither did I defend it. I said if they like your play, you're good, and if they don't, you're backed off. No biggie.
Not much bad was said about the gaming industry, there were regular members and not trolls, nor were there personal attacks or name callings on any members. This is good.
Arguments were also made that people were not getting paid to hang around here, which is true. Neither of these are shout downs, they're opinions expressed.

To start a thinly disguised thread of "no industry shills"/"is the industry paying people to falsify card counting here?" in itself hints of anti-industry baiting from post #1. That wasn't questioned until here. What if a thread were entitled "No AP shills"/"are people getting paid to plug AP play here?" That would get noticed and questioned in a second. Eyebrows would be raised and pearls would drop.

How can someone who lives on - and feeds off of - gambling halls and from gaming, criticize the source of their passion, their affectation?
What exactly is the argument here, seriously? Something like "I make my living using AP maneuvers to take money from gambling halls because I hereby declare these businesses to be evil entities, to rationalize the AP position that I cling to."

People who work as High School principals, musicians, and marketing execs who play cards and throw dice after dinner and who are fine with that and have no problems with it may be considered ignorant ploppies for not being sophisticated AP players "in the know." There is a sense of that. If you're not playing with a manufactured edge over the casino, especially if it is somewhat clandestine or disallowed, then you're a ignorant pedestrian, not a sophisticated elite in the know. It's a bit chauvinistic. I swear I get a sense of that position at times. I gamble with an edge. It's called a small house edge and it doesn't bother me being in place.

The reason we look down on Ploppies and consider the casinos evil is because we have all witnessed the tricks of their trade to get people to lose their money. Yes, they have a choice in the same sense alcoholics do. I have witnessed the stupidest bets and gambling practices.

And therein lies the AP anger towards casinos. They're apparent modus operandi is if you gamble stupid they are fine with it but soon as you gamble smart enough to beat them, that is what is disallowed. Smart gambling, not allowed. Stupid gambling, perfectly acceptable.

And I know you are very smart and may feel you are playing smart by only bucking small house edges compared to big ones. You feel you are paying admission. But AP's feel they are trying to win and if our brains are too smart for the casinos, that IS a badge of honor.

And I take great pride in beating them. I enjoy the money but if you offered me an office job for the same pay, I would stick with the gambling, this is too much fun (unless the office job was in a major Hollywood studio, still have my film making dreams :)

Quote: darkoz

The reason we look down on Ploppies and consider the casinos evil is because we have all witnessed the tricks of their trade to get people to lose their money. Yes, they have a choice in the same sense alcoholics do. I have witnessed the stupidest bets and gambling practices.

Darkoz, thoughtful, explicit answer/good analogy: the same sense that alcoholics do.
I once heard a man from the group A.A. point out a Scotch advertisement, I forget if it were Chivas Regal or Johnny Walker, what have you: he said "look at the photo of the rocks glass of scotch here, particularly the ice cubes in the scotch; the photographer coated the cubes with honey to make them look as if you can actually see them melting into the scotch, with its overhead light on the glass, etc., the drink was engineered to look absolutely irresistible, alluring..... This is war for me, I tell ya."
He was talking about the tricks of the trade to get people to drink, - a print ad in Esquire magazine as diabolical, evil. The war he described was either non-existent or was made from his own personal but understandable machinations, I felt. It was just a photo of a glass of booze, arguably a very good one. I mean, if he were telling me that he doesn’t want to drink, or more so, must not drink, I was thinking, do something more sober than stare at and analyze a booze ad.
I’m taking a month off from dice and UTH because I have three games and a book on gaming to finish. My wife pointed out that I lost – ignored - $400 in free bets from Stations over the month, and I thought “no loss.” I know the free bets can be looked at as if they were hooks for a fish’s mouth. But I viewed them as gifts to decline because I’m busy, dammit. I’ll gamble later if I want to. If I use a free bet voucher or a steakhouse comp, I’m not a ploppie, I’m appreciating a gratuity.
As far as I’m concerned there’s no tricks in print ads, or free bet vouchers/credits, or in casino steakhouse promo’s, or Buffet two-for-ones, what have you. There comes a point where people are responsible for their behavior without the excuse, “the DEVIL made me do it.”
The tricks or “evil” come into the picture when you misrepresent yourself to a business, breach their property rules on game play and behavior, in order to try to scam them in some way for personal gain cash. And they may respond in some fashion that you cannot do that if you wish to play or be here. I don’t consider this gambling and certainly not smart gambling.

Quote: darkoz

And therein lies the AP anger towards casinos. They're apparent modus operandi is if you gamble stupid they are fine with it but soon as you gamble smart enough to beat them, that is what is disallowed. Smart gambling, not allowed. Stupid gambling, perfectly acceptable.

A value judgment/”label alert” here, IMO:
What I think is right and do in a gambling hall, regardless of what the house thinks = smart gambling.
What I don’t do/play by their rules = Stupid gambling.
I do think this is labeling.
I find honor in not beating the system.

Quote: darkoz

And I know you are very smart and may feel you are playing smart by only bucking small house edges compared to big ones. You feel you are paying admission. But AP's feel they are trying to win and if our brains are too smart for the casinos, that IS a badge of honor.

The way I look at it is that I am not trying to win “against the casino.”
I am trying to win against the dice rolls and the card results without gaffing the odds.
I’m up against variance, not against the casino or its people.

Quote: Paigowdan

You can't take the casino out of AP play - when it is done in and against the casino. That's the issue.

Look, to cut through the semantics and the problems with AP:

If the floorman says, "You're fine with us, play and stay as long as you want. Here's your comp, and nice seeing you again."
You're good.

versus:
"Look, buddy, you're done for the night. If you come back again, you'll be trespassed and in the book."
You're not good.

The way I see it, you're either on borrowed time or out of time if you AP the casinos.

My argument is that you claim AP isn't gambling. That's BS because AP's are gambling in most cases. If you are correct then Tell Bob Dancer and all the the book writers and everyone else to change the names of their books, shows etc etc and to leave out the word gambling and stop lying to everyone. GAMBLING with an edge.

Quote: AxelWolf

My argument is that you claim AP isn't gambling. That's BS because AP's are gambling in most cases.

I wouldn't confuse "gambling" with "other casino activity."

Quote: AxelWolf

If you are correct then Tell Bob Dancer and all the the book writers and everyone else to change the names of their books, shows etc etc and to leave out the word gambling and stop lying to everyone. GAMBLING with an edge.

I'm not going to do anything of the sort. People can write their books, I'm not their editor and I am disinterested in 'em.

PGD, as always, you're full of it.

Say a casino has a coin flip game and pays 0.9:1 at 50/50 odds of occurrence. (House edge is 5%). By my AP skill or whatever, I can overcome the 50/50 and my results would be 51/49.

I'm still losing overall. But according to you, This is not gambling! because I have a little extra info. Lol.

It doesn't matter if I know nothing about the game or am 99% sure of the order of the cards or something. Certainty is 100%. Uncertainty is less than 100%.


Anyone can lookup odds on WoO or any other website. If you know the odds (basic strategy) and others don't, are you saying you aren't gambling, even though you play like a ploppy?? I know the odds when im playing blackjack (at least better than others). I'm not gambling because I know the odds? What the f....????

Quote: RS

It doesn't matter if I know nothing about the game or am 99% sure of the order of the cards or something. Certainty is 100%. Uncertainty is less than 100%.

Interesting point. Let's consider Dan's definition again:

Quote: Paigowdan

In other words, if you know the change in odds of the hand before the hand is dealt, it isn't gambling.

This would mean any progressive slot machine is not gambling as the odds change every spin

Quote: Paigowdan

He was paid to do math work and game review and performance work, as it related to Sands table games and slots. No conspiracy here.

Always wondered if his opinion on 6/5 BJ might have be a cause for his departure. Corporate bastards plan their moves years ahead.

Quote: Paigowdan

How can someone who lives on - and feeds off of - gambling halls and from gaming, criticize the source of their passion, their affectation?

Easy.

The casinos are taking advantage of mistakes of players every second of the day. The day they stop, let me know.

So, why are players not allowed to take advantage of casino mistakes? It's parity. You know what parity is? If you do, you realize you'll have no argument against it.

The fact that casinos try to make it illegal for people to play against their mistakes is actually immoral when they have little ethics in letting people lose as much as possible often with bad plays, and even encourage those people to return more often.

That's a pretty good argument, if I do say so myself.

Quote: RS

PGD, as always, you're full of it.

No.
I tell it like it is.
You play clean and the house likes you - you get to stay and play. Call yourself a ploppy, a master guru, a Ho Chi Min Zen master, it just doesn't matter.

They like you and your play - you get to stay and play. Because you were gambling.

They think your play is B.S., and out you go....basically, the CASINO tells you your play is full of it, and out you go. THEY think you're full of it. Because you were NOT really gambling, - which is why you are expelled from, of all things - a GAMBLING HALL.

So....RS - That is the determination of "Full Of It" casino play. You're backed off, or at the bus stop on the Frigging Street. I don't see what my words on a forum have to do it, aside from telling you how this crap works if you can see it.
You don't need me and my opinion for this.

Quote: RS

Say a casino has a coin flip game and pays 0.9:1 at 50/50 odds of occurrence. (House edge is 5%). By my AP skill or whatever, I can overcome the 50/50 and my results would be 51/49.

I'm still losing overall. But according to you, This is not gambling! because I have a little extra info. Lol.

It doesn't matter if I know nothing about the game or am 99% sure of the order of the cards or something. Certainty is 100%. Uncertainty is less than 100%.

Okay.
How about this:
Say a casino has a coin flip game and pays 0.9:1 at 50/50 odds of occurrence. (House edge is 5%). By your AP skill or whatever, I can overcome the 50/50 and my results would be 51/49.

Then they say "Your play is just too wonderful and awesome for us, Jack. So hit the road, Jack, - and don't you come back, no more, no more, no more, no more..."

OR....

Then they say, "Your play is just fine with us. Congratulations on your excellent winnings. Let us give you a $200 comp to our excellent steakhouse. Jack. Love having you around."

The former scenario say you're not gambling. The later scenario does.

Quote: RS

Anyone can lookup odds on WoO or any other website. If you know the odds (basic strategy) and others don't, are you saying you aren't gambling, even though you play like a ploppy?? I know the odds when im playing blackjack (at least better than others). I'm not gambling because I know the odds? What the f....????

The casino will let you know whether or not you are gambling okay.
Then they say "Your play is just too wonderful and awesome for us, Jack. So hit the road, Jack, - and don't you come back, no more, no more, no more, no more..."
And you say "What the f....????"

OR....

Then they say, "Your play is just fine with us. Let us give you a $200 comp to our excellent steakhouse. Jack. Love having you around."

The former scenario say you're not gambling. The later scenario does.

Quote: Paigowdan

No.
I tell it like it is.
You play clean and the house likes you - you get to stay and play. Call yourself a ploppy, a master guru, a Ho Chi Min Zen master, it just doesn't matter.

They like you and your play - you get to stay and play. Because you were gambling.

They think your play is B.S., and out you go....basically, the CASINO tells you your play is full of it, and out you go. THEY think you're full of it. Because you were NOT really gambling, - which is why you are expelled from, of all things - a GAMBLING HALL.

So....RS - That is the determination of "Full Of It" casino play. You're backed off, or at the bus stop on the Frigging Street. I don't see what my words on a forum have to do it, aside from telling you how this crap works if you can see it.
You don't need me and my opinion for this.

Quote: RS

Say a casino has a coin flip game and pays 0.9:1 at 50/50 odds of occurrence. (House edge is 5%). By my AP skill or whatever, I can overcome the 50/50 and my results would be 51/49.

I'm still losing overall. But according to you, This is not gambling! because I have a little extra info. Lol.

It doesn't matter if I know nothing about the game or am 99% sure of the order of the cards or something. Certainty is 100%. Uncertainty is less than 100%.

Okay.
How about this:
Say a casino has a coin flip game and pays 0.9:1 at 50/50 odds of occurrence. (House edge is 5%). By your AP skill or whatever, I can overcome the 50/50 and my results would be 51/49.

Then they say "Your play is just too wonderful and awesome for us, Jack. So hit the road, Jack, - and don't you come back, no more, no more, no more, no more..."

OR....

Then they say, "Your play is just fine with us. Congratulations on your excellent winnings. Let us give you a $200 comp to our excellent steakhouse. Jack. Love having you around."

The former scenario say you're not gambling. The later scenario does.

Quote: RS

Anyone can lookup odds on WoO or any other website. If you know the odds (basic strategy) and others don't, are you saying you aren't gambling, even though you play like a ploppy?? I know the odds when im playing blackjack (at least better than others). I'm not gambling because I know the odds? What the f....????

The casino will let you know whether or not you are gambling okay.
Then they say "Your play is just too wonderful and awesome for us, Jack. So hit the road, Jack, - and don't you come back, no more, no more, no more, no more..."
And you say "What the f....????"

OR....

Then they say, "Your play is just fine with us. Let us give you a $200 comp to our excellent steakhouse. Jack. Love having you around."

The former scenario say you're not gambling. The later scenario does.

I have no Idea what you are going on about.

Everyone knows that the casinos can ask you to stop GAMBLING and ask you to leave.


That has nothing to do with if AP is gambling or not. It is gambling it's just not gambling how most of the casinos would like. FYI some casinos don't seem to mind advantage players as long as they are not cheating. There's been many occasions they knew exactly what's going on and who the advantage players are. I seem to remember a situation of a pit boss telling a counter he could count and play the shoe game all he wanted.

I have seen an heard about situations where the casino get greedy and have big dollar signs in their eyes, only to regret it big time later. If they were not so greedy they wouldn't have been hit. In cases where people like Don Johnson and Phil Ivey, it was the casinos greed that allowed them to get hit.

Quote: MrV

The Wiz worked for the Sands / Venetian for a bit a few years ago.

If I recall correctly, he said that his separation from Sheldon was acrimonious at best, and that he might speak about it at some point in the future (presumably an NDA was in place, that may have expired by now). If the Wiz sees this...can you explain what happened now?

As for the rest of this thread, it's ridiculous. The outcome of any given trial in a game of chance is uncertain, and is therefore gambling - regardless of who has the edge. I lost ~$20K playing a game where I had a significant mathematical edge a few months ago. Why? Because even though I had long-term edge, I was gambling and things didn't go my way.

PaiGowDan thinks the casino defines gambling.

A card counter and ploppy are given the same information, one just keeps track of it better than the other. Apparently knowing the counter is not gambling.

A casual (non-ploppy) player may know the odds and basic strategy. A ploppy does not. The casual player is therefore not gambling because he knows odds that the ploppy doesn't know.....even though the casual player is playing at a disadvantage.


Yup, this makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.

Yea, PaiGowDan has now gone further into the land of star trek than even I could have expected.

So, according to him, casinos decide the definition of words in the English language and that is based on their decision of whether they like your play or not.

It is this very thinking that causes most casinos to wind up with lawsuits. The belief that they have autonomy in making decision (for example about the law and how it affects them) and can do whatever they want.

BTW Dan - I believe the worldwide idiom of most business is "the customer is always right". You seem to have flipped it by now spouting that the "business owner (casino) is always right" and whatever they decide, "Hm, that gambler is winning by counting so not only do we want him to leave but we are going to redefine the word gambling as well" is the final word.

Dan, no matter what you say, the law, Bob Nersesian, countless lawsuits and AP's continue to prove that the casino is most often wrong in their operations as a business and in their treatment of AP's.

But continue on your misguided crusade (BTW, you always say AP's have a misguided crusade but everyone is responding to your nonsense now because it is clearly you who have an agenda) that casinos somehow are smarter, better and more correct in their thinking than their customers.

AND now I think about it, I understand your wish (NEED) to redefine gambling. You see, the customer is always right and you so desperately need to prove that AP's are not gambling because in your mind, if we are not gambling, then we are not customers and therefore cannot be right. The casino offers gambling and if we can be defined as people who do not gamble, then suddenly in your mind the casino has the right to ask a non-(paying) customer to leave. I get it. But no, sorry, the casinos do not once again get to redefine the English language nor the law no matter how much they wish they could.

Quote: RS

PaiGowDan thinks the casino defines gambling.

A card counter and ploppy are given the same information, one just keeps track of it better than the other. Apparently knowing the counter is not gambling.

A casual (non-ploppy) player may know the odds and basic strategy. A ploppy does not. The casual player is therefore not gambling because he knows odds that the ploppy doesn't know.....even though the casual player is playing at a disadvantage.


Yup, this makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.

No, it has suddenly made perfect sense to me.

Dan has repeatedly stated that HE is a service fee for players that they MUST fork over. And since customers are always right by the worldwide standards of business he must find some way of making AP's not be customers. By stating that we are not gambling, we are no longer paying customers in his mind and of course, non-paying customers may be asked to leave an establishment.

The fact that this logic requires an equally ridiculous logic twist that the casino defines words in the English language is of no import to him.

Quote: darkoz

No, it has suddenly made perfect sense to me.

Dan has repeatedly stated that HE is a service fee for players that they MUST fork over.

Well, yes, exactly.
But I take this view for any business I use or need; most people do.
I pay the cover charge, whether or not it's an entrance fee, a service fee, or playing a game by the establishment's rules.

Here's what I think AP boils down to: the intention, the goal is to thwart the house edge, (or the cover charge), in some way, - to breach their game protection rules, and as the primary purpose for being there.
...

Quote: darkoz

And since customers are always right by the worldwide standards of business he must find some way of making AP's not be customers. By stating that we are not gambling, we are no longer paying customers in his mind and of course, non-paying customers may be asked to leave an establishment.

The customer isn't always right; I saw a security guard expel a "customer" from a department store for having unpaid merchandise under his shirt. He was declared "not a customer" by the store while pretending to be one. He was trying not to pay the fee, the price, what have you, but that was his primary goal for being there; this, instead of genuinely shopping as store management knew it.

I didn't think he was shopping in the sense of real shopping, and neither did the "house" or store think he was really shopping. And it was not this false customer who made the determination as to whether or not he was really shopping, it was the house, so to speak, or the store itself.
And he was backed off from doing what he was doing.

Yes, I do think a store can make a determination if he was a legitimate shopper, and yes, I think a casino can make a determination if a customer is there as a legitimate player, a gambler, or is there to see if he can defeat a gambling hall's loss prevention protocols for personal financial gain.

So yes, I do believe that if you are in a casino primarily for personal financial gain by defeating game protection house rules, then you are not there for just "gambling,"
You're there to see if you can get away with something that is not sanctioned as the ground rules for gambling there; I think that is a different game, so to speak.

Quote: darkoz

The fact that this logic requires an equally ridiculous logic twist that the casino defines words in the English language is of no import to him.

That's going a little far, darkoz.
I think that the casino house - to a great degree - also determines whether or not you are legitimately gambling at their place., or if your purpose for being there is to deliberately try to breach their game protection rules.
The casino determines - "defines" - if what you are doing is being a legitimate customer or gambler, or if your real goal is to breach their game protection rules under the pretense of being a legitimate customer or gambler, by their definition. This is what the casino determines or defines. You can respond to this by saying the casino is trying to define "English" here, or this is illogical, if you happen to disagree with it.

If you are told to leave a Gambling Hall, or that you cannot gamble there, then it is because there was something present in your gambling that was not gambling, something related to defeating their game protection guidelines, certainly in there eyes.
,

I recognize that this aspect of the Discussion almost boils down to (in my opinion, bizarre) semantics, but here is my question:

Why would you suggest that the casino would categorize the Advantage Player as, 'Not gambling,' rather than, 'Not gambling in tyhe fashion intended by the casino.' The difference between those two statements is simply the recognition that the Advantage Player is, in fact, still gambling...and to say the Advantage Player is not gambling at all is simply a position that I can find no definitive (literally meaning, 'Defined' in this case) basis for.

Making a bet is simply risking money, or something else of value, in order to potentially gain monies or something else of value in the form of a wager. That definition, in my opinion, does not suspend itself simply because an individual is playing at an Advantage, something of value (or money) is still being risked in order for the AP to gain money, or money and something else of value in the form of Comps.

I would say the only time the AP is, 'Not gambling,' is if he gets 86'ed, in which event the AP legally no longer has the right to gamble there. To that point, I would never debate that the casino does not have the inherent right to refuse service to whoever they like provided the person is not a protected class and service is being refused only because the individual belongs to that class. To wit, they can kick out whoever they like.

But, that doesn't mean the person they kicked out wasn't gambling!

Quote: Mission146

I recognize that this aspect of the Discussion almost boils down to (in my opinion, bizarre) semantics, but here is my question:

Why would you suggest that the casino would categorize the Advantage Player as, 'Not gambling,' rather than, 'Not gambling in tyhe fashion intended by the casino.

Well, this is because when the intention is to deliberately breach game protection, this is something different than gambling, - even if it is mixed in with gambling, or under the pretense of "I'm just gambling." Any attempt to gaffe or to determine the results of game play, whether it is by marking cards, hole carding, etc. to alter or to discern the results of a round of play - before that round - falls under game protection.

In card counting the issue is also being able to know, to discern, the "cards to come" before a round of play, where one can parallel or match bet size to the count, for profit, based on knowing the composition of the cards to come - before a round of play. The game of blackjack - up until Thorpe et al - was thought not to be countable, but that was discovered after the game became entrenched. Now with a method to know the cards to come for a round (high cards versus low cards), this breaches the uncertainty or randomness requirement or definition for gambling by having statistically meaningful information going into a round, - but only if it is used.

Since blackjack was entrenched, it was decided that those who play randomly by not tracking and utilizing the decks composition for an advantage may play, as here there is no game protection issue, of knowledge of the hands to come in these cases; those that do count are using a method to determine, to know the cards to come (high versus low). This breaches the original (and in error) design of the game as not countable. By deliberately using a method to know the cards to come before a round, the uncertainty or randomness required for gambling is gone, as this knowledge does have a mathematical effect on the probability of wins over losses and on player return. You mathematically know when you're more likely to win, and know when you're more likely to lose, and can profit from this information. This isn't quite gambling.

Casinos also address this by eliminating the high versus low card count advantages; 6:5 blackjack reduces the high count advantage by increasing the house edge over the statistical effect of the count's impact on that house edge. CSMs (continuous shufflers) maintain a continuous "full deck" composition to draw cards from, instead of allowing a depleted deck for form certain compositions that are statistically meaningful to game play. Newer versions of blackjack variants transfer the high count side advantage (from the 3:2 blackjack bonus payouts) to the low or negative count side (via Charlie type hand bonuses). All this is better game protection than backing players off upon AP discovery.

Quote: M146

' The difference between those two statements is simply the recognition that the Advantage Player is, in fact, still gambling...and to say the Advantage Player is not gambling at all is simply a position that I can find no definitive (literally meaning, 'Defined' in this case) basis for.

Well, I explain this above. If you're doing something to obtain information on the results of the upcoming rounds before the round of play occurs, that's a gambling definition issue.

Quote: M146

Making a bet is simply risking money, or something else of value, in order to potentially gain monies or something else of value in the form of a wager. That definition, in my opinion, does not suspend itself simply because an individual is playing at an Advantage, something of value (or money) is still being risked in order for the AP to gain money, or money and something else of value in the form of Comps.

Altering or discerning the odds on a round of play to come, before that round of play occurs, is not truly risking money in comparison to (or in the sense) of a genuinely uncertain outcome.

Quote: M146

I would say the only time the AP is, 'Not gambling,' is if he gets 86'ed, in which event the AP legally no longer has the right to gamble there. To that point, I would never debate that the casino does not have the inherent right to refuse service to whoever they like provided the person is not a protected class and service is being refused only because the individual belongs to that class. To wit, they can kick out whoever they like.

But, that doesn't mean the person they kicked out wasn't gambling!

Well, there is a difference between gambling and deliberately trying to breach the game protection policies of a casino, though the two can be mixed. Some APs advocate spending some time on craps or Pai Gow as "cover."

Dan,

I have a problem with your equating a shoplifter and AP'S above. They are not equivalent; one is illegal theft, the other is exercising awareness and intelligent choices of games, bets, and situations. Had you equated the shoplifter to cheating gamblers, those using light wands on slots for example, I would have been with you. But there's a distinct line between cheating and playing to best advantage, and I think your indiscriminate mixing of the two leads to a lot of these arguments.

Let the casinos retrain their sloppy dealers, do the math before they offer promotions, protect their games. Then they can welcome all comers, because really, every customer they have is trying to take a shot at them. Some are just better at it than others. But nobody goes to lose.

The house edge will keep them in business. Juicy looking bad bets will keep them in business. Alcohol and eye candy, the same. Even the occasional big winner or even frequent jackpots keep them in business; there's a reason the machines (and often the casino) whoop it up when someone wins, and that's jackpot envy.

But skilled play, maximizing promos, careful bet selection, those should not be the basis for 86ing or accusations of bad action.

If a person shows up on a black Friday sale, buys an expensive appliance, sells it later at a profit, it is certainly not the intention of the retailers for people to do that. But it's a stretch to call it something more. It's not like stealing.

Indicating retailers want to discourage it is fine. Indicating that it might hurt retailers bottom line is fine too. Indicating that retailers might even want to pass laws that might hinder it would be fine.

But it's nothing like smash and grab ---nothing.

Babs beat me to the comparison argument with shoplifters.

Dan, the problem you seem to have is in that very comparison. However, there is a distinct difference between a shoplifter and a card counter. In your mind they are the same because they are both trying to get around your definition of a service fee.

Certainly you can see that the major difference is:

A shoplifter is PHYSICALLY placing items under their shirt (in your example),

A card counter is USING HIS MIND TO COUNT CARDS.

So, Dan you equate thoughts and thinking with theft in any way shape or form.

Oh, wait, but people are acting on it physically by raising and lowering bets. But raising and lowering bets is not against the rules in Blackjack. It is casinos who are trying to stretch their own rules.

And when someone, even a gambling house, changes the rules in such a way that they always win, that is the classic definition of cheating.

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. 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."

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."

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?

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

This is really a ridiculous thread. Of course an AP playing a game with an edge is gambling by any realistic definition of the word.
When the AP notices the count turns his way, and has a 2% edge that hand, there are non APs at the table as well. Is the bet placed by the AP not gambling but the bet placed by the non AP is gambling? Or are they both not gambling that hand? Try and explain that to the non AP..... Of course you can't.....

Quote: SOOPOO

This is really a ridiculous thread. Of course an AP playing a game with an edge is gambling by any realistic definition of the word.
When the AP notices the count turns his way, and has a 2% edge that hand, there are non APs at the table as well. Is the bet placed by the AP not gambling but the bet placed by the non AP is gambling? Or are they both not gambling that hand? Try and explain that to the non AP..... Of course you can't.....

It's an interesting thread, and the thread is called derogatory names because it is slaughtering a sacred cow. But it is not a ridiculous thread; the ridiculous thread is the spam thread where y.o.u...c.a.n...b.u.y..U.K...f.u.r.n.i.t.u.r.e and that everybody flagged.

As for SOOPOO's argument, If you are using illicit information (information that you're not supposed to have on the game) that materially changes the outcome or gives forehand knowledge of the outcome, that arguably isn't gambling.

Quote: Paigowdan

It's an interesting thread, and the thread is called derogatory names because it is slaughtering a sacred cow. But it is not a ridiculous thread; the ridiculous thread is the spam thread where y.o.u...c.a.n...b.u.y..U.K...f.u.r.n.i.t.u.r.e and that everybody flagged.

As for SOOPOO's argument, If you are using illicit information (information that you're not supposed to have on the game) that materially changes the outcome or gives forehand knowledge of the outcome, that arguably isn't gambling unless.

If you aren't shuffling every hand, then YOU are VOLUNTEERING the information. Therefore it's not illicit.

In any sense, guys, quit pestering Dan.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, :)

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.